Transport Secretary Louise Haigh admits pleading guilty

[Gareth79]

MrBogSmith said:

Shen then found the phone and switched it back on, and it 'triggered police attention', apparently the phone company called the police.

I doubt the phone companies inform the police every time a reported stolen phone is turned on, seems much more likely that Aviva's IT security department had a ping when the phone was turned on and ran a "Find my iPhone/device" and saw it was at her house. If she had reported several devices lost/stolen and they had suspicions then it might have caused them to lose patience.

[gazza285]

Also, where do they get their pants?

[MrBogSmith]

Gareth79 said:

MrBogSmith said:

Shen then found the phone and switched it back on, and it 'triggered police attention', apparently the phone company called the police.

I doubt the phone companies inform the police every time a reported stolen phone is turned on, seems much more likely that Aviva's IT security department had a ping when the phone was turned on and ran a "Find my iPhone/device" and saw it was at her house. If she had reported several devices lost/stolen and they had suspicions then it might have caused them to lose patience.

Something like that sounds more likely.

It sounds like there's some dishonestly in there somewhere and she wasn't just a 'victim' of bad legal advice.

[milesgiles]

Happy to throw her solicitor under the bus knowing perfectly well they can’t comment due to client confidentiality

[Earthdweller]

MrBogSmith said:

Gareth79 said:

MrBogSmith said:

Shen then found the phone and switched it back on, and it 'triggered police attention', apparently the phone company called the police.

I doubt the phone companies inform the police every time a reported stolen phone is turned on, seems much more likely that Aviva's IT security department had a ping when the phone was turned on and ran a "Find my iPhone/device" and saw it was at her house. If she had reported several devices lost/stolen and they had suspicions then it might have caused them to lose patience.

Something like that sounds more likely.

It sounds like there's some dishonestly in there somewhere and she wasn't just a 'victim' of bad legal advice.

It is possible she went NC to more serious allegations in interview and was subsequently charged with them

Then agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the Mags court to avoid a committal

[Camoradi]

LH: "Whilst walking through London, as a lone young woman, I was subjected to a physical attack so terrifying that I was in fear for my life. In the immediate aftermath of the assault an almost primeval survival instinct kicked in, something too powerful for me to resist. As I clung onto precious life, I knew my only hope was to get my work phone upgraded. Only then would I, and by extension, all women, be safe"

Lawyer: "I think we should probably stick to "no comment" "

[Waitforme]

To me the colour of her hair suggests criminality and poor judgment

[tim0409]

gazza285 said:

Also, where do they get their pants?

You could hide/conceal a lot of mobile phones in them I suppose.

[BikeBikeBIke]

MrBogSmith said:

Something
If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.

You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.

The problem here isn't the NC interview. The problem (if she had a decent case) was pleading guilty. And pleading guilty got her a conditional discharge which I assume she was happy with at the time.

[bitchstewie]

[nikaiyo2]

Camoradi said:

LH: "Whilst walking through London, as a lone young woman, I was subjected to a physical attack so terrifying that I was in fear for my life. In the immediate aftermath of the assault an almost primeval survival instinct kicked in, something too powerful for me to resist. As I clung onto precious life, I knew my only hope was to get my work phone upgraded. Only then would I, and by extension, all women, be safe"

Lawyer: "I think we should probably stick to "no comment" "

Phew at least according to Rachel reeves CV she was on hand to make sure no real harm came to Louise, only her phone got lost but not lost, only semi lost.

[Earthdweller]

BikeBikeBIke said:

MrBogSmith said:

Something
If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.

You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.

The problem here isn't the NC interview. The problem (if she had a decent case) was pleading guilty. And pleading guilty got her a conditional discharge which I assume she was happy with at the time.

If you have made a genuine mistake, had a honestly held belief that at the time you reported something it was correct, but you later found out to be an error as she has claimed

Why would you NOT tell the Police at the first available opportunity as it is a credible and accepted defence

The problem IS the NC interview because she has failed to account for her actions and as you rightly say the court can take such inference from that as it sees fit

It's pretty much an admission of guilt and she would know that too having been a Constable

All she would have to do is prove the mistake she claimed to have made was reasonable

[MrBogSmith]

BikeBikeBIke said:

You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.

"Shouldn't matter" - just what you want to hear when facing trial.

If you have a defence your aim is to not get charged. Not NC, get changed, then raise a defence at court and hope it works out and take a gamble with an adverse inference.

A reasonable defence raised at interview puts a big hurdle in front of the prosecution. I'm not sure what magic evidence gathering you think the police can do when an obvious defence is raised around the mes rea to spring on someone at court (which can't / wouldn't happen in any event). It's hardly like the police aren't going to anticipate standard defences in the first place and ask the same questions in an NC interview.

BikeBikeBIke said:

The problem here isn't the NC interview. The problem (if she had a decent case) was pleading guilty. And pleading guilty got her a conditional discharge which I assume she was happy with at the time.

If you strategy is to minimise damage you'd be looking for a caution which requires an admission at interview. Not try and get a lesser conviction.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", comes to mind.

[The Gauge]

BikeBikeBIke said:

You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.

You do know that a court hearing isn't the first time the CPS (not police as you state) learn of a persons defence?

[BikeBikeBIke]

The Gauge said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.

You do know that a court hearing isn't the first time the CPS (not police as you state) learn of a persons defence?

I can't see how they can unless the defence want them to know. You don't need to offer any kind of defence until the trial. In fact you don't even need to offer a defence at the trial, you can just say "They have no evidence.".

It's for the prosecution to prove, not for the defence to disprove.

In this specific case saying "it was a mistake" would prove most (but not all) elements of the offence before they even started, then all they need to prove in cpurt is that one element. Way better to say nothing which is clearly what her legal advisor told her.

If they've got enough evidence to charge you they're gonna charge you if they haven't all talking does is give them ammunition.

The law is slightly different in the UK but this guy really makes it clear how easy it is to get yourself in trouble talking to the Police.

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=3u1uRW6FAyuPMQy5

[BikeBikeBIke]

MrBogSmith said:

f you strategy is to minimise damage you'd be looking for a caution which requires an admission at interview.

Yes, if you're offered a caution you might as well confess but I was replying to someone saying if you have a defence there's no reason not to state it and I listed some!

[MrBogSmith]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Well... A defence statement is voluntary in Magistrates court cases but I can't believe it's totally compulsory in Crown court cases or at least not in detail becaise I can think of at least one Rape trial which collapsed when WhatsApps proved the guy was totally innocent on day one of the trial and the defence certainly hadn't disclosed them in advance. It would be a bit odd if some information came up during a trial that totally exonerated someone amd it wasn't admissable becaise the CPS hadn't been told in advance. Would you even be able to have an appeal, becaise the exonerating evidence wouldn't be new evidence?

So you’ve Google the disclosure manual and are trying to blag around it.

Doesn’t quite fit in with this, does it?

BikeBikeBIke said:

In fact you don't even need to offer a defence at the trial, you can just say "They have no evidence."

BikeBikeBIke said:

And the fact a lot of people give NC interviews suggests it's very common advice not to.

It doesn’t suggest that at all.

People give NC interviews mainly for:

1) The police evidence is so strong and you have no defence to provide.

2) The police evidence is so weak there’s no need to say anything.

3) You provide a pre-written statement and NC to any questions around it.

Edited by MrBogSmith on Saturday 30th November 11:56

[don'tbesilly]

https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/18625161774543913...

[BikeBikeBIke]

MrBogSmith said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

MrBogSmith said:

If you strategy is to minimise damage you'd be looking for a caution which requires an admission at interview.

Yes, if you're offered a caution you might as well confess but I was replying to someone saying if you have a defence there's no reason not to state it and I listed some!

Unfortunately you're wrong.

If you have a defence you raise it in interview for all the reasons I've mentioned.

BikeBikeBIke said:

I can't see how they can unless the defence want them to know. You don't need to offer any kind of defence until the trial. In fact you don't even need to offer a defence at the trial, you can just say "They have no evidence.".

Just go to court and say "they have no evidence".

The prosecution then produce all the evidence that led to the charge.

BikeBikeBIke said:

It's for the prosecution to prove, not for the defence to disprove.

And a reasonable defence raised at the right time makes it much hard for them to prove and is one effective way to avoid a charge in the first place.

BikeBikeBIke said:

In this specific case saying "it was a mistake" would prove most (but not all) elements of the offence before they even started, then all they need to prove in cpurt is that one element. Way better to say nothing which is clearly what her legal advisor told her.

How would it?

BikeBikeBIke said:

If they've got enough evidence to charge you they're gonna charge you if they haven't all talking does is give them ammunition.

Raising a credible defence is one of the best ways to ensure they don't have enough evidence to charge you.

BikeBikeBIke said:

The law is slightly different in the UK but this guy really makes it clear how easy it is to get yourself in trouble talking to the Police.

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=3u1uRW6FAyuPMQy5

The law is quite different and that video would be terrible advice for someone in the UK.

You should cut your losses.

You said:
"If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview."

That's not universally true, quite the opposite. Clearly sometimes it will be true, if it's driving without insurance and you've got an insurance certificate in your hand.

In this case he defence is more of a confession. There's no way saying "It was a mistake" would have got this dropped, it would have gone 90% of way to proving her guilt, all they'd have needed to argue about in court would be was it a mistake or not.

Anyway, I'll leave the last word to you. People can work out for themselves where the balance lies here.

[MrBogSmith]

BikeBikeBIke said:

You said:
"If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview."

That's not universally true, quite the opposite. Clearly sometimes it will be true, if it's driving without insurance and you've got an insurance certificate in your hand.

It is pretty much universally true.

BikeBikeBIke said:

In this case he defence is more of a confession. There's no way saying "It was a mistake" would have got this dropped, it would have gone 90% of way to proving her guilt, all they'd have needed to argue about in court would be was it a mistake or not.

Anyway, I'll leave the last word to you. People can work out for themselves where the balance lies here.

It's not a confession. A confession is admitting the offence.

It's raising a defence which is denying the offence, which is literally the opposite of admitting it.

It is in no way '90% of the way of proving guilt'. Look up the mens rea for fraud / law around dishonesty. Quite incredible 'logic' to claim a defence of an honest mistake is 90% the way to proving an offence of dishonestly...

You have no idea what effect it may have had on a prosecution since you're not in possession of the evidence.

Perhaps reflect on this as it not being a good idea to try and blag the law. It'd have made the topic a bit cleaner for those of us wanting to give some insight into her press statement.