Police Snooper gets £270 fine and Community Service
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5650549/Fe...
As that looks like a clear cut abuse of position and breach of trust I am struggling to see why she shouldn't be tried in a Court of Law for Misconduct in a Public Office?
So she's been given Community Service and a £270 fine. Why wasn't she in Court for Misconduct in a Public Office?
I thought most prosecutions started from the most serious offence and then drop down to lesser ofences if there's insufficient intent or the offence isn't 'made out'?
She was using taxpayer funded systems and data for her own little 'homer' project. I don't think an Internal Misconduct hearing is good enough really. I think professional standards policies make it fairly clear you can't use information on police computer systems for your own benefit or purpose.
I think the punishment is out of kilter with that meted out for driving offences. I am supposed to take driving offences seriously when serious crimes like that, from someone in a position of trust, gets slapped wrists? It's illogical and inconsistent.
As that looks like a clear cut abuse of position and breach of trust I am struggling to see why she shouldn't be tried in a Court of Law for Misconduct in a Public Office?
So she's been given Community Service and a £270 fine. Why wasn't she in Court for Misconduct in a Public Office?
I thought most prosecutions started from the most serious offence and then drop down to lesser ofences if there's insufficient intent or the offence isn't 'made out'?
She was using taxpayer funded systems and data for her own little 'homer' project. I don't think an Internal Misconduct hearing is good enough really. I think professional standards policies make it fairly clear you can't use information on police computer systems for your own benefit or purpose.
I think the punishment is out of kilter with that meted out for driving offences. I am supposed to take driving offences seriously when serious crimes like that, from someone in a position of trust, gets slapped wrists? It's illogical and inconsistent.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 24th April 10:36
carinaman said:
As that looks like a clear cut abuse of position and breach of trust I am struggling to see why she shouldn't be tried in a Court of Law for Misconduct in a Public Office?
Well they had to pick one charge and chose the one they did, you can't be tried for multiple offences on the same facts. Only the CPS will know and frequently will have a lot more facts at hand than will be revealed in a newspaper report. While the Misconduct offence can carry a life sentence that wouldn't have happened anyway. depends really on whether the sentence is appropriate rather than the charge really?The Rookie said:
Well they had to pick one charge and chose the one they did, you can't be tried for multiple offences on the same facts. Only the CPS will know and frequently will have a lot more facts at hand than will be revealed in a newspaper report. While the Misconduct offence can carry a life sentence that wouldn't have happened anyway. depends really on whether the sentence is appropriate rather than the charge really?
Not really. I thought the punishment should fit the crime, not the other way around.If you apply that logic where would you be with murder and manslaughter, where the difference is intent?
You don't decide which offence to indict so it fits the wanted sentence.
This police officer couldn't resist temptation. She could so she did.
By crime, I meant the act committed, not the particular statute they chose to use to prosecute that crime, so if the punishment fitted the crime then it didn't matter which statute they prosecuted that crime under.
Murder and manslaughter are different crimes as well as different statutes.
Murder and manslaughter are different crimes as well as different statutes.
dacouch said:
I am not an expert but assume they went with the charge they knew she was likely to be found guilty of at court, higher charges come with the risk of a jury finding her not guilty
Fair point.But not using police systems for private purposes would've been made clear in their IT usage policy.
It seems her intent was used in her defence, but as a breach of IT usage policy and misusing police IT systems while holding public office.
Part of my problem with it could be such misuse of police systems is a well known no no, and it's stated it's wrong in a formal policy.
It could seem a public office holding police officer thought the rules didn't apply to them.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 24th April 12:17
TooMany2cvs said:
carinaman said:
So she's been given Community Service and a £270 fine.
And is also going to lose her career and 20yrs-worth of police pension entitlement.How often do Judges use the law to send a 'clear message'? I'm not sure what message this case sends.
I've got no idea why i'm entering this rambling thread which will go on and on and on and on but, she has a criminal conviction, will lose her job, pension, plastered over the papers and it's still not good enough!
It really is laughable that you wrote that you're not sure what message this sends out. Have you ever thought that you're maybe not making the most of your life?
It really is laughable that you wrote that you're not sure what message this sends out. Have you ever thought that you're maybe not making the most of your life?
The Rookie said:
...you can't be tried for multiple offences on the same facts. ...
For some reason I didn't know this.I assumed that if for example a motorist were caught doing 180mph on the hard shoulder past slow moving traffic that they'd be done for speeding and dangerous driving.
But I guess it would just be dangerous driving then?
Instead of wibbling on with your usual incoherence and police wrong-doing boner, why not use a search engine for 30 second to find some answers? Although that would assume you actually want answers as opposed to attention.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-p...
Summary of the below: Where's there's a suitable statutory offence that should be used rather than misconduct in a public office.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-p...
Summary of the below: Where's there's a suitable statutory offence that should be used rather than misconduct in a public office.
CPS said:
Policy:
Where there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case, with the 'public office' element being put forward as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 does not go so far as to prohibit the use of misconduct in public office where there is a statutory offence available. There is, however, earlier authority for preferring the use of statutory offences over common law ones. In R v Hall (1891) 1 QB 747 the court held that where a statute creates (or recreates) a duty and prescribes a particular penalty for a wilful neglect of that duty the remedy by indictment is excluded.
In R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL63 at paragraph 30 the House of Lords confirmed this approach, saying:
"Good practice and respect for the primacy of statute require that conduct falling within the terms of a specific statutory provision should be prosecuted under that provision unless there is good reason for doing otherwise."
The use of the common law offence should therefore be limited to the following situations:
Where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal;
Where there is a statutory offence but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it. This might arise because of evidential difficulties in proving the statutory offence in the particular circumstances; because the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct.
Where there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case, with the 'public office' element being put forward as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 does not go so far as to prohibit the use of misconduct in public office where there is a statutory offence available. There is, however, earlier authority for preferring the use of statutory offences over common law ones. In R v Hall (1891) 1 QB 747 the court held that where a statute creates (or recreates) a duty and prescribes a particular penalty for a wilful neglect of that duty the remedy by indictment is excluded.
In R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL63 at paragraph 30 the House of Lords confirmed this approach, saying:
"Good practice and respect for the primacy of statute require that conduct falling within the terms of a specific statutory provision should be prosecuted under that provision unless there is good reason for doing otherwise."
The use of the common law offence should therefore be limited to the following situations:
Where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal;
Where there is a statutory offence but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it. This might arise because of evidential difficulties in proving the statutory offence in the particular circumstances; because the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct.
I'm wondering how long she'll be suspended on full pay & rations whilst internal proceedings carry on- I suspect it will be several months.
How long does it take to convene a board to establish whether she has a conviction, conclude she should be gone & remove her from post? Surely even an incompetent HR department can do it in a day or so?
How long does it take to convene a board to establish whether she has a conviction, conclude she should be gone & remove her from post? Surely even an incompetent HR department can do it in a day or so?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff