Fly Tippers caught red handed... and nothing done!

[Sheepshanks]

Four Litre said:

Breadvan72 said:

1. No prosecution can proceed without evidence. OP, if you won't give evidence, the case can't proceed.

2. The police and CPS do succeed against travellers, who make up a disproportionately large percentage of the prison population.

So I have supplied evidence, however they are saying without me attending court etc, it cant be used.

They could be issued with a £400 fixed penalty.

[anonymous-user]

Sheepshanks said:

Four Litre said:

Breadvan72 said:

1. No prosecution can proceed without evidence. OP, if you won't give evidence, the case can't proceed.

2. The police and CPS do succeed against travellers, who make up a disproportionately large percentage of the prison population.

So I have supplied evidence, however they are saying without me attending court etc, it cant be used.

They could be issued with a £400 fixed penalty.

The problem there is twofold:

1) They have the option to decline / ask for a court hearing.

2) An out of court disposal shouldn't be issued unless the evidence is sufficient to support a prosecution.

[DaveCWK]

You read stories of the council fining mrs miggins, who accidentally uses an unlicensed waste removal company & whose details were tracked from an old bank statement in the dumped rubbish. I can't believe the council won't act with clear video evidence!

[Gareth79]

julian64 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Criminal courts apply strict rules of evidence. Hearsay is only admissible in limited circumstances.

Hearsay is representation of fact or opinion made by a person otherwise than in oral evidence in court, when tendered as evidence of any fact asserted. Thus a photo or a film is hearsay and calls for verification by oral evidence.

Interesting. Why doesn't that apply to speed cameras, or CCTV cameras?

As mentioned, it does. The CCTV/speed camera operators, administrators and engineers will be available if required to attend court and explain how the evidence was collected. If you create a video then it's not that you will be requried to attend, but should be willing to, should the defence require it. They ask because they don't want to get all the way to court and then find out you have no intention of attending.

[Centurion07]

Breadvan72 said:

Criminal courts apply strict rules of evidence. Hearsay is only admissible in limited circumstances.

Hearsay is representation of fact or opinion made by a person otherwise than in oral evidence in court, when tendered as evidence of any fact asserted. Thus a photo or a film is hearsay and calls for verification by oral evidence.

That sounds insane to me, especially as prosecutions arise from CCTV and dash cam footage without said verification.

I assume there is some sort of rationale behind it though...?

[SteveScooby]

Centurion07 said:

That sounds insane to me, especially as prosecutions arise from CCTV and dash cam footage without said verification.

I assume there is some sort of rationale behind it though...?

Take, for example, a prosecution for shoplifting. Although the primary evidence may well be the CCTV, which shows the suspect enter the store, pick something up, put it up his jumper and leave without paying. For a prosecution to be successful a statement will also be needed from the security guard/manager/whoever to give further details. Such as, when and where the offence occurred, the value of items stolen, who identified the suspect and how they know them etc.

[Centurion07]

I accept there are examples where a witness statement would be needed to corroborate but to just automatically apply that to EVERY instance is ridiculous.

Also, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?

[julian64]

So my CCTV catches someone sticking a knife into someone's chest out on the road. The police turn up to find a dead body with a knife sticking out of him. They ask me for my CCTV footage which clearly shows the face of both.

I am then required to testify that I put the cameras up ten years ago and my address. If I refuse to do this, the killer gets away with it?

Surely the law can't be as cut and dry as previously suggested. I'll assume best practice from the police is to collect all information, but in the circumstance the CCTV is all they have from me, I'm pretty sure they'd use it. Surely some video would be so damming as to not require corroboration.

[rscott]

Centurion07 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Criminal courts apply strict rules of evidence. Hearsay is only admissible in limited circumstances.

Hearsay is representation of fact or opinion made by a person otherwise than in oral evidence in court, when tendered as evidence of any fact asserted. Thus a photo or a film is hearsay and calls for verification by oral evidence.

That sounds insane to me, especially as prosecutions arise from CCTV and dash cam footage without said verification.

I assume there is some sort of rationale behind it though...?

All the police portals for submitting dash cam footage require the person submitting the footage to agree they will provide evidence in court if required for a prosecution.

[Bigends]

Centurion07 said:

I accept there are examples where a witness statement would be needed to corroborate but to just automatically apply that to EVERY instance is ridiculous.

Also, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?

They can remain anonymous to the offenders. I posted earlier about special measures in place for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses

[98elise]

Centurion07 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Criminal courts apply strict rules of evidence. Hearsay is only admissible in limited circumstances.

Hearsay is representation of fact or opinion made by a person otherwise than in oral evidence in court, when tendered as evidence of any fact asserted. Thus a photo or a film is hearsay and calls for verification by oral evidence.

That sounds insane to me, especially as prosecutions arise from CCTV and dash cam footage without said verification.

I assume there is some sort of rationale behind it though...?

Same here. People have been done using their own footage as evidence.

To the average person video evidence would be more reliable than a witness.

[Centurion07]

Bigends said:

Centurion07 said:

I accept there are examples where a witness statement would be needed to corroborate but to just automatically apply that to EVERY instance is ridiculous.

Also, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?

They can remain anonymous to the offenders. I posted earlier about special measures in place for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses

Yes but as I said, you can't just request, as a witness in any old case, that the court provide anonymity for you, can you?

[Bigends]

Centurion07 said:

Bigends said:

Centurion07 said:

I accept there are examples where a witness statement would be needed to corroborate but to just automatically apply that to EVERY instance is ridiculous.

Also, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?

They can remain anonymous to the offenders. I posted earlier about special measures in place for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses

Yes but as I said, you can't just request, as a witness in any old case, that the court provide anonymity for you, can you?

Yes, as long as the witness makes their concerns clear to Police that special measures are needed. The court file is updated to that effect

[Centurion07]

Every day is a school day.

Why is that not just standard procedure then? Only make the witness identity available to the judge and legal teams in EVERY case, that way the entire population knows the situation and would, IMO, result in a lot more people testifying.

There is no logical reason to let the defendant know the identity of a random witness to their crime as opposed to someone actually involved in it in some way.

[anonymous-user]

I believe the courts have to approve special measures.

[EU_Foreigner]

Shouldn't that always be the case when dealing with criminals though? Especially those of a certain reputation, they will always intimidate the witness.

It would always be an obstacle for witnesses to appear if they are named / shown in court.

[Bigends]

flashbang said:

I believe the courts have to approve special measures.

Agreed but the service needs to be offered to the witness in the first place

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

flashbang said:

I believe the courts have to approve special measures.

Agreed but the service needs to be offered to the witness in the first place

Indeed. When giving a witness statement, they will ask you if you think you are a vulnerable witness or have a communication need.

[anonymous-user]

The idea of making all witnesses in all criminal cases anonymous is a very bad one that has not been thought through by those suggesting it. Allowing anonymous denunciation is a slippery slope away from a free society. Take for example a case of an alleged offence invoking neighbours or colleagues. Personal grudges and grievances may impact on witness credibility. Witness anonymity offends against the general principle of open justice, and so should be granted only in clear cases where the need for it is shown.

[Centurion07]

As long as the judge and legal teams are satisfied as to the identity and relevance of the witness, I don't understand the need for the defendant to also know?