Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

PACE 78

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:31 pm

1. We don't know all the facts, we just know your opinions.

2. Because you don't like what happened that doesn't mean it was wrong in law.

3. You are telling us what the law is, not asking.

4. Have the confidence in your superior knowledge and fight it all the way to the supreme court.

5. Let us know how you get on.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:48 pm

Supreme court? , European court of justice , but might have to hurry up to go that route

The facts are pretty agreed by all parties at this stage , it is off course up to the judge to exclude , the CPS obviously object

As I see it there has been a slow drift towards excluding evidence and there hasn't really being such a case of miniscule value against malicious police action and that a case can be made for it

Off course if somebody can show me a similar case I that would be great
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:11 pm

veritas2409 wrote:As I see it there has been a slow drift towards excluding evidence
...As you see it. Your view does not appear to be shared here.

How will excluding evidence obtained in a search that you say was unlawful assist you on a charge of criminal damage arising out of events in the police station? What am I missing?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18889
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:06 pm

veritas2409 wrote: police neglience in giving him the book

Seriously?
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:56 pm

Totally seriously

1) The defendant refused it in his custody checkin gently pushing it back to CS, unclear of how it ended up in his care
2) The defendant was risk assessed as a risk , hence shorts confiscated
3) Wrong to say you have to give a detainee the book , only have to make it available
4) Defendants warning about his health were ignored and unfortuately warnings came true
5) CS should of seen the defendant was distressed and was banging on the door with foam blanket
6) CS should of seen the defendant banging the door with book and confiscated it in order to protect his property and the defendant from self harm

Do you guys seriously think police misconduct/mistakes/incompetence should automatically be ignored?
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:28 pm

Not at all. The Police should be answerable to the courts in the same way as everyone else. That is an entirely separate matter from the criminal allegations against you. You say that your arrest, and the search and seizure of your property were unlawful, and if that is the case then you would have grounds for an action against the Police. Perhaps wisely you do not (unless I have missed something) tell us what it was that rendered those actions unlawful. As shootist has said in your other thread, it is really quite difficult for the Police to make an unlawful arrest.

It is altogether unclear (to me at least) why the supposed misconduct by the Police should lead to the evidence against you being suppressed. If there is a video of you damaging the Code of Conduct then from what you say, it would appear that you are in fact guilty. As a layman it doesn't seem unreasonable to give you a Copy of the Code of Conduct given that you were apparently strenuously arguing that your detention was unlawful, and I find the suggestion that the evidence against you ought to be suppressed because the Police were supposedly negligent in giving you something which you went on to damage to be remarkable. Perhaps you have a plea of mitigation. You are certainly in need of legal advice.

I trust you had a Solicitor when you were in custody?
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:35 pm

I trust you had a Solicitor when you were in custody?



After I returned to custody after 3 hours stuck in an ambulance. I was told that Mr X was my duty solicitor. X appeared at the hatch , and basically refused to discuss the case. I thought it was odd. Anyhow 2.5 hours later I was told that Mr X couldn't represent me as he was professionally embarassed as he knew the alleged victim of the alleged harassment(a police officer). To be fair the Custody Sergeant said he was embarassed to tell me this as he had repeatedly assured Mr X would be my duty solicitor. So after the stress of the day there was no way I could wait in the cell for another 3 hours and despite what they say that would of been the time.

Perhaps not the sharpest move but understandable under the circumstances , off course they took full advantage and there is a reason for PACE C 6.6 , the requirement for an inspector or more senior to speak to somebody about changing their mind about legal reps. One was informed but custody record confirms he didn't think he was required to speak to me

Search. seizure , entry , arrest unlawful as arrest for summary only offence. Admitted by CPS , so you can't beat that , just that to them it means nothing in their view regarding evidence even though search output ruled out
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

veritas2409 wrote:Totally seriously

1) The defendant refused it in his custody checkin gently pushing it back to CS, unclear of how it ended up in his care


You know this how? I assume that this prisoner wasn't actually you. I also think you don't sound like a legal representative. I suppose you could have been arrested at the same time, but, basically, how do you know this?
* Edit: So it was you all the time. :roll: OK, I'll leave it at that as far as this bit is concerned.

2) The defendant was risk assessed as a risk , hence shorts confiscated


Prisoners will routinely be deprived of any clothes that have a drawstring or similar, even if they've spend more time down the nick than some of the officers. The custody sergeant has a box to tick especially for this, and no custody sergeant will ever want to miss ticking a box

3) Wrong to say you have to give a detainee the book , only have to make it available


OK, you have PACE, the Human Rights Act, and the Geneva Convention down pat, as well as the constitution and the Magna Carta. If your friend is as disturbed as you say then he may well have asked for it and then forgot why he wanted it.

4) Defendants warning about his health were ignored and unfortuately warnings came true


Please read Catch-22 and One Flew Over The cuckoo's Nest for a guide to self diagnosed mental health problems.

5) CS should of seen the defendant was distressed and was banging on the door with foam blanket


Well dang me! Never in all my 22 years as a police officer did I ever hear someone bang on a cell door whether with a foam blanket or anything else. Can this be true?

6) CS should of seen the defendant banging the door with book and confiscated it in order to protect his property and the defendant from self harm

K
What was he going to do, read himself to death?

But seriously. You have come onto a legal forum populated by some very astute, erudite people, and all you seem to have done is tell us all what the law is. OK, you know best, go for it. Demand that the the CPS are defrocked, the barristers wigs are burnt, the officers are transported to the colonies and their ferrets strangled, and that your friend is compensated to the tune of several million. You are the Perry Mason of litigants in person, or at least the doyen of McKenzie friends. BAILII will light up at the mention of your name. Go to it. Or just go.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:22 am

1) OK, you have PACE, the Human Rights Act, and the Geneva Convention down pat, as well as the constitution and the Magna Carta. If your friend is as disturbed as you say then he may well have asked for it and then forgot why he wanted it.

ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF DEFENDANT TELLING CS HE DIDN'T WANT BOOK

2)Please read Catch-22 and One Flew Over The cuckoo's Nest for a guide to self diagnosed mental health problems.

CS WAS GIVEN CERTIFIABLE INFORMATION HE CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT

3) CS should of seen the defendant banging the door with book and confiscated it in order to protect his property and the defendant from self harm

HE SHOULD OF FORSEEN DAMAGE TO BOOK AND CONFISCATED FOR HIS EMPOYERS AND DEFENDANTS BENEFIT. IF SOMEBODY IS IN YOUR CARE YOU SHOULD YOUR BEST TO SEE AS THEY DON'T DO DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THEIR STATE

Anyhow why waste time with this defence when the defendant will just say he thought the book was his. This is true as defendant was told he was been given a copy and wasn't told anything to the contrary.
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:48 am

Recommending works of fiction will not assist the OP, even if it shows off one's erudition.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18889
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest