Police Bail law change....

[Corsair7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13957873

Nightmare for the authoritiies?

[obob]

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

[Elroy Blue]

obob said:

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

So when you arrest a Paedo whose just shagged your 5 year old daughter how prey tell do you get all the forensics back in such a limited time frame. How do you send off his encrypted hard drive to see all the otehr kids he's been abusing and get the evidence back in a few hours.

A drink driver who provides a blood sample. Currently takes two-three weeks to get the results back. They will now get off scott free.

It's another victory for the criminals, aided bet yet another inept, incompetent judge.

[Gargamel]

Guidance from Scotland Yard says that police will also no longer have the power to detain a suspect who breaches their bail conditions or fails to surrender.

Surely this will never stand up.

[Oakey]

obob said:

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

My ex business partner was on bail for four years before he finally went to trial and got two and a half years for fraud. The case file was something like 600-1000 pages long.

Do you really think something like that could be done in four days?

[obob]

Oakey said:

obob said:

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

My ex business partner was on bail for four years before he finally went to trial and got two and a half years for fraud. The case file was something like 600-1000 pages long.

Do you really think something like that could be done in four days?

Police bail?

[obob]

Elroy Blue said:

obob said:

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

So when you arrest a Paedo whose just shagged your 5 year old daughter how prey tell do you get all the forensics back in such a limited time frame. How do you send off his encrypted hard drive to see all the otehr kids he's been abusing and get the evidence back in a few hours.

A drink driver who provides a blood sample. Currently takes two-three weeks to get the results back. They will now get off scott free.

It's another victory for the criminals, aided bet yet another inept, incompetent judge.

No they won't you just charge them when you have evidence, instead of having innocent people in limbo for 5 months until the police work out ou have absolutely nothing to do with the case.

[turbobloke]

Elroy Blue said:

A drink driver who provides a blood sample. Currently takes two-three weeks to get the results back. They will now get off scott free.

Can't see that. The result of the test, not available on initial arrest, will be the new evidence required to re-arrest, as per the article. And as per obob's post.

As to the overall position, it's good to see more balance in favour of those arrested. The persumption by police and no small number on here is that somebody arrested is automatically guilty of something, not so as they are still innocent - the police have become over-zealous in arresting people without real cause. Not that their DNA was of relevance to inreasingly lazy post-event policing.

So this would be a timely rebalancing in favour of innocent people.

[Elroy Blue]

turbobloke said:

Can't see that. The result of the test, not available on initial arrest, will be the new evidence required to re-arrest, as per the article. And as per obob's post.

As to the overall position, it's good to see more balance in favour of those arrested. The persumption by police and no small number on here is that somebody arrested is automatically guilty of something, not so as they are still innocent - the police have become over-zealous in arresting people without real cause. Not that their DNA was of relevance to inreasingly lazy post-event policing.

So this would be a timely rebalancing in favour of innocent people.

You should write for the Daily Mail.

[turbobloke]

Oakey said:

obob said:

Good! Either you have evidence to charge someone or you don't.

My ex business partner was on bail for four years before he finally went to trial and got two and a half years for fraud. The case file was something like 600-1000 pages long.

Do you really think something like that could be done in four days?

Wait for the convincing evidence to emerge and re-arrest. Or wait in the first place, which would (shock horror) mean the police have to actually do some work before depriving people of their freedom.

What you're saying is that there was a hope and a prayer lasting four years and it happened to come good. Fine in that case, not in others.

[turbobloke]

Elroy Blue said:

turbobloke said:

Can't see that. The result of the test, not available on initial arrest, will be the new evidence required to re-arrest, as per the article. And as per obob's post.

As to the overall position, it's good to see more balance in favour of those arrested. The persumption by police and no small number on here is that somebody arrested is automatically guilty of something, not so as they are still innocent - the police have become over-zealous in arresting people without real cause. Not that their DNA was of relevance to inreasingly lazy post-event policing.

So this would be a timely rebalancing in favour of innocent people.

You should write for the Daily Mail.

Does it pay well? I'm reassuringly expensive.

And was my comment inaccurate in some way or was it spot on and opposed your viewpoint and so annoyed you?

No need for any more 'new evidence' on that score

[Northern Munkee]

And without any restrictions permitted like surrender your passport, the serious or the wealthy will be off.

More self serving madness from the lawyering industry.... Ooman rights.

[Elroy Blue]

turbobloke said:

.

And was my comment inaccurate in some way

turbobloke said:

The persumption by police and no small number on here is that somebody arrested is automatically guilty of something, not so as they are still innocent - the police have become over-zealous in arresting people without real cause.

There you go..widely inaccurate and not based on any fact other than your own opinion. If you'd like to present some facts (and an article from the Daily Mail doesn't count I'm afraid), I'd be happy to consider them

[obob]

Northern Munkee said:

And without any restrictions permitted like surrender your passport, the serious or the wealthy will be off.

More self serving madness from the lawyering industry.... Ooman rights.

YOu don't surrender your passport on police bail, the condition is to turn up at a certain time and date. That's it.

[turbobloke]

Elroy Blue said:

turbobloke said:

.

And was my comment inaccurate in some way

turbobloke said:

The persumption by police and no small number on here is that somebody arrested is automatically guilty of something, not so as they are still innocent - the police have become over-zealous in arresting people without real cause.

There you go..widely inaccurate and not based on any fact other than your own opinion. If you'd like to present some facts (and an article from the Daily Mail doesn't count I'm afraid), I'd be happy to consider them

I don't need to do anywhere near as much as you suggest since firstly I don't set precedents in law via PH, or determine how lazy police investigative procedure is as that's up to police braid. High Court Judge Mr Justice McCombe already put this into case law. You now need to argue your case, or those with the same view as you need to argue it, in the Supreme Court or via Parliament and emergency legislation.

All you have offered in your posts is your own view as a counterpoint to mine, you have adduced no 'facts' of your own to support your side of the argument that I can see, so your accusation is also a tad hypocritical. However you can always quote those facts from an earlier post of yours, if I missed them.

As to your repeated Daily Mail mentions, this substitute for reasoned argument in your posts merely exposes your own perception of how weak your case is, if you felt it was stronger you wouldn't need to resort to hiding behind such a figleaf.

Not that it worked anyway

[Elroy Blue]

No, I base my argument on serving nearly twenty years in the Police, with the appropriate knowledge of how much harder it has become to arrest, investigate and charge. But don't let that minor fact get in the way.

[AndrewW-G]

Elroy Blue said:

So when you arrest a Paedo whose just shagged your 5 year old daughter how prey tell do you get all the forensics back in such a limited time frame. How do you send off his encrypted hard drive to see all the otehr kids he's been abusing and get the evidence back in a few hours.

A drink driver who provides a blood sample. Currently takes two-three weeks to get the results back. They will now get off scott free.

It's another victory for the criminals, aided bet yet another inept, incompetent judge.

Please read the article, it states very clearly, that nobody can be held on police bail for more than 96 hours, unlesss charged, however if new evidence comes to light, they can then be charged . . . . in the case of your Daily Mail style examples, the Paedo (no doubt ANOTHER member of Merseyside constabulary found shagging a 15 year old) would be charged when his hard drive has been examined as that would be new evidence and the drunk (no doubt ANOTHER labour MP) would be re-arrested and charged once the results of the test are known.

This clarification of the law, is simply there to stop the current mass abuse of the system by BIB and isn’t a bad thing

[Oakey]

obob said:

Police bail?

As far as I know, they just kept bailing him over and over until they knew what they were charging him with.

[Elroy Blue]

AndrewW-G said:

Please read the article, it states very clearly, that nobody can be held on police bail for more than 96 hours, unlesss charged, however if new evidence comes to light, they can then be charged . . . . in the case of your Daily Mail style examples, the Paedo (no doubt ANOTHER member of Merseyside constabulary found shagging a 15 year old) would be charged when his hard drive has been examined as that would be new evidence and the drunk (no doubt ANOTHER labour MP) would be re-arrested and charged once the results of the test are known.

This clarification of the law, is simply there to stop the current mass abuse of the system by BIB and isn’t a bad thing

If only it was as simple as that! I'm afraid it isn't. If this isn't changed, it's going to massive implications and criminals will be the one smiling.

[turbobloke]

Elroy Blue said:

No, I base my argument on serving nearly twenty years in the Police, with the appropriate knowledge of how much harder it has become to arrest, investigate and charge. But don't let that minor fact get in the way.

So, a vested interest viewpoint, and still no facts from that experience to suggest that your viewpoint is any more valid than that of the High Court Judge, as the point you cite as a minor fact above is merely your view on how correct you are.

It would be interesting to see some facts in the form of data or already publicised cases to show how your viewpoint is more valid than that of Mr Justice McCombe. I agree it will make police work harder, but no harder than it should have been all along. It was made easier at the expense of the liberty of innocent individuals, or their restricted freedoms.

As I don't expect to have BiB concerning themselves on my account over length of police bail terms, it's not a personal matter for me, but I have for many years held the view that police arrests often represent fishing trips and that lengthy bail terms are then used to see what can be trawled up, now a High Court Judge seems to agree.

So overall I'm pleased that even if only for a short while, police must gather sufficient evidence to justify arrest before it happens and with a short bail term attached afterwards, and that lengthy bail periods can no longer be used to substitute for effective and sufficient investigation prior to arrest.

Together with the ruling on keeping DNA information on innocent people, this is good news for natural justice but I agree it's bad news for police hunch fishing trips.