Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Cyberprog said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
Have all the money you want, hes already said his other half has had enough, would you want to end up winning a lengthy appeal but now single as your misses is sick to death of hearing about a receipt for some frying pans...BUT I WON!!
Its no wonder the relationship thread in the lounge has a steady stream of victims.
Well, as it's my money I think the boot is a bit on the other foot. However I'd want to clear my name. Just my 10p Its no wonder the relationship thread in the lounge has a steady stream of victims.
RB Will said:
Just a thought from myself. My only experience of court is one spell of jury duty.
If your solicitor/ barrister whatever is making a complete hash of your defence in court are you allowed to speak out and say so and add in all they stuff they were suppose to point out to help your case?
I think you can sack them at any point, or talk to them during the trial as required.If your solicitor/ barrister whatever is making a complete hash of your defence in court are you allowed to speak out and say so and add in all they stuff they were suppose to point out to help your case?
Hell, I think that when he learned the evidence he wished to rely upon hadn't been served, he should have asked his solicitor to ask for a adjournment so it can be served, or for the CPS to waive a delay in serving it. But hindsight is 20/20, and it's a stressful alien experience. Hard to make the right decisions.
carinaman said:
milkround, your case is just another one where evidence has not been disclosed. On those grounds perhaps those urging you to drop it may have a point.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
The failure to disclose the the CCTV was a fault on the part of Milkround's defence not the CPS or police. Perhaps you should take the time to read what is posted rather than jumping in with both feet with your prejudices.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
Cat
Cat said:
carinaman said:
milkround, your case is just another one where evidence has not been disclosed. On those grounds perhaps those urging you to drop it may have a point.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
The failure to disclose the the CCTV was a fault on the part of Milkround's defence not the CPS or police. Perhaps you should take the time to read what is posted rather than jumping in with both feet with your prejudices.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
Cat
Fastpedeller said:
but surely all available evidence should be shown ? If CPS know there is more CCTV they should show it?
Only if they are aware of it. In this case milkround had the CCTV enhanced/slowed down etc. and his legal representative(s) failed to disclose this footage to the prosecution.That is not a failing by the CPS.
Cat
Cat said:
carinaman said:
milkround, your case is just another one where evidence has not been disclosed. On those grounds perhaps those urging you to drop it may have a point.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
The failure to disclose the the CCTV was a fault on the part of Milkround's defence not the CPS or police. Perhaps you should take the time to read what is posted rather than jumping in with both feet with your prejudices.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...
Cat
The case could have been adjourned on the day no problem at all.
It is beyond belief that the OP's solicitor proceeded.
How on earth did the OP's solicitor not pick up on the SG saying "I did not want to complain" but the police convinced me.
There was months in which the OP's solicitor could have approached the CPS to see if they would have accepted a binding over.
"Member of public attacked by aggressive shop security guard"
turned into..
"Suspected thief attacked security guard trying to escape with his partner"
It is beyond belief that the OP's solicitor proceeded.
How on earth did the OP's solicitor not pick up on the SG saying "I did not want to complain" but the police convinced me.
There was months in which the OP's solicitor could have approached the CPS to see if they would have accepted a binding over.
"Member of public attacked by aggressive shop security guard"
turned into..
"Suspected thief attacked security guard trying to escape with his partner"
kestral said:
The case could have been adjourned on the day no problem at all.
It is beyond belief that the OP's solicitor proceeded.
How on earth did the OP's solicitor not pick up on the SG saying "I did not want to complain" but the police convinced me.
There was months in which the OP's solicitor could have approached the CPS to see if they would have accepted a binding over.
"Member of public attacked by aggressive shop security guard"
turned into..
"Suspected thief attacked security guard trying to escape with his partner"
Your words, from Milkround's words...............hmmmm.It is beyond belief that the OP's solicitor proceeded.
How on earth did the OP's solicitor not pick up on the SG saying "I did not want to complain" but the police convinced me.
There was months in which the OP's solicitor could have approached the CPS to see if they would have accepted a binding over.
"Member of public attacked by aggressive shop security guard"
turned into..
"Suspected thief attacked security guard trying to escape with his partner"
Milkround said:
I was surprised to find that he never actually called the Police. Officers had been buying some food and another member of staff had spoken to them.
Not quite the same thing.Did you do that on purpose?
Did we ever get an answer to your qualifications & experience?
janesmith1950 said:
Could the modified footage have had any credible use without being attached to an expert witness? Anyone could modify CCTV footage, for it to be credible I imagine it'd need to be based on work done by someone independent of the defence.
I don't think "anyone" could alter CCTV footage. The prosecution could, potentially, object to it but they would need to state their reasons.It's something we will probably never know the answer to because Milky's solicitor didn't even serve it on the prosecution !
I'm just wondering what this has cost the OP in financial terms when everything is added up.
Specifically, I'm wondering if the solicitor he used represented value for money. I think I know the answer.
Thesprucegoose said:
Why would they ask for a bind over, when milky refused to apologise?
Because if it was agreed then it may have changed the op's position.A binding over is not a criminal conviction, it would still represent a "win" for the CPS and avoid the cost of a trial ( potentially ).
Red 4 said:
I don't think "anyone" could alter CCTV footage. The prosecution could, potentially, object to it but they would need to state their reasons.
It's something we will probably never know the answer to because Milky's solicitor didn't even serve it on the prosecution
That's the point of my question, did the OPs solicitor choose not to disclose the 'enhanced' CCTV because it would not be admissible?It's something we will probably never know the answer to because Milky's solicitor didn't even serve it on the prosecution
Thesprucegoose said:
Why would they ask for a bind over, when milky refused to apologise?
It can save court time on trivial matter and his solicitor should have tried. It happens every day in courts all around the country. It saves money and time.
It's a game of brinkmanship. The idea is to let the CPS know you are going to fight all the way as your clinet was attacked and going to crown will be no problem. Do you really want to waste court time and tax payers money CPS?. If not let the OP be bound over.
That save the CPS's face, the SG who did not want to complain does not have to give evidence and the court is also happy.
It would have been the most sensible outcome.
But his solicitor did not EVEN ASK for 1. the adjounment 2.The CPS to agree to a binding over. At least ask!
Very poor representation.
k about wasting court time or costs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff