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 Smouldering Stoat » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:28 pm

If you are believed to have committed multiple offences, then there is no reason why you cannot be charged with them all. A minor offence that wasn't worth prosecuting on its own might be included with other charges, because there would be little or no cost to doing so and it would be proper for the Court to deal with everything.

If you have not admitted the offence then you are ineligible for a caution.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:39 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:If you are believed to have committed multiple offences, then there is no reason why you cannot be charged with them all. A minor offence that wasn't worth prosecuting on its own might be included with other charges, because there would be little or no cost to doing so and it would be proper for the Court to deal with everything.

If you have not admitted the offence then you are ineligible for a caution.



Steady on , it is just 2, and there is still a cost. Surely a day in court at least ,viewing CCTV , calling witnesses, pre case work is an expense. Also when the OP is found NOT guilty , he might have a crminal record he might not otherwise of had.
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:42 pm

Steady on - how do you say the accused will acquire a criminal record as a result of being acquitted?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:06 pm

If he is convicted of the criminal damage charge ONLY but cleared of the other charge, he would have a criminal record ONLY because the CPS decided to pursue both charges. Where's if another person committed the same criminal damage offence they almost certainly NOT be brought to court due to the CPS not pursuing the issue.

Even if he is convicted of BOTH, it still seems grossly unfair, if the public interest test fails for one when assessed on its own merits but works if you factor in the other offence.

In this case the OP is now really f*****, as he has 2 criminal offences on his record and the record isn't going to say it is criminal damage of £5, it is going to say harassment and criminal damage and 99.9% of people looking at that will assume that both acts were commissioned at the same time and that it was a domestic violence incident. Also I would even say the criminal damage charge would look far worse on the crminal record than harassment

The point of all this that it seems wrong to NOT evaluate both on their own merits.
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:24 pm

Perhaps another person would not have been charged with the criminal damage, but the CPS are permitted to look at these things in the round and every situation is unique. If a suspect is accused of numerous offences that would be something that the Crown would be entitled to consider when deciding whether to prosecute.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:28 am

dls wrote:
That is no possible reason, indeed it is the reverse of a reason for damaging the book.


The issue if he thought the book was his for keeps , then in his mind it was his property to damage. Totally irrelevant whether if it was a stupid thing to do or whether he didn't actually know it wasn't his.

You can burn your mortgage free house to the ground and it won't be criminal damage , do with a mortgage and it is a different story
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:42 am

but don't claim on the insurance!
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:50 am

veritas2409 wrote:You can burn your mortgage free house to the ground and it won't be criminal damage , do with a mortgage and it is a different story


Not always true.
"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: 3261
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:13 am

Yes , not always true
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby dls » Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:36 pm

Furthermore with 1 very minor conviction to his name and the aggravating factors in the case , it should be a no brainer. The other issue it is apparent they haven't even viewed the CCTV footage. In their favour they might say that it won't cost much to prosecute as there is an another charge but I think they should realise the Op's determination to fight this. Either way still a certain level of cost , far far higher than £5. There is also the issue why the police didn't offer a FPN , a caution or indeed why the CPS don't do so. It will be interesting to hear their response


It is of course possible that the arrestee's extraordinary behaviour as described was enough to persuade them that some court intervention was necessary for his own protection.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest