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 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:59 am

atticus wrote:Recommending works of fiction will not assist the OP, even if it shows off one's erudition.


Understanding fiction is an essential skill for any lawyer of either side.
"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: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:15 am

I always carry a volume of FR Leavis with me. should we recommend it to the OP?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19893
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:25 am

atticus wrote:I always carry a volume of FR Leavis with me. should we recommend it to the OP?


Google is wonderful. It is no surprise to me whatever that you are so attached to the works of someone described as a literary critic.
(I'd put a suitable yellow blob here to indicate gentle amusement, but I know how much you dislike them)

As for the OP, I am convinced that nothing will please him short of complete and utter agreement to his opinions followed by a whip round to fund endless court actions that will make the Bloody Sunday enquiries appear no more than a dirty look from a traffic warden.
"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: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby blig » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:24 pm

An alternative and very dull interpretation of this:

A person in custody has indicated s/he may have a mental health condition which is for some reason unclear. While advice is being sought on this, a book is damaged and the person is observed acting oddly with a foam mattress. A decision is made to send the person to hosiptal for an assessment and so is sent by ambulance arriving an hour later, where the person is checked over by a qualified medical professional before being returned.

Obviously I have no idea what happened but is there anything which shows the very dull interpretation is unreasonable?
blig
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:14 am

unreasonable in what sense ? , the desription or the events being reasonable

You forgot to mention that the CS told him they were giving "him a copy of the book" during the booking in process , twice he refused it , Gods knows how it was given to him. Forgot to mention that the reason the OP might of been a little upset because he knew well the arrest was malicious , the search , seizure and entry at his premises was unlawful. He went to hosiptal because he had chest pains , sky high blood pressure , exacerbating his existing conditions and this was in no doubt caused by the defendant being placed in unlawful custody

Anyhow no great worries , the OP will say it was his honset belief he was given a copy of the book to keep AND his arrest for this offence was itself unlawful as the first arrest was unlawful
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby dls » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:52 am

You forgot to mention that the CS told him they were giving "him a copy of the book" during the booking in process , twice he refused it , Gods knows how it was given to him.


The custody sergeant was faced with someone upset and spouting legal opinions at him. Those opinions may have appeared doubtful. He therefore sensibly says - 'look at this'. He is clearly trying to assist the person arrested to calm down and to begin to talk in a way which might allow things to be sorted. That is no possible reason, indeed it is the reverse of a reason for damaging the book.

You yourself are expressing legal opinions as to which you have yet to persuade anyone.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12273
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:21 am

You are also describing someone (or yourself, that has not yet been made clear) who was in a state of considerable distress and anxiety who as a result may not be able to accurately recall exactly what happened and may well place an interpretation upon events that does not reflect reality as we know it.
"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: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:25 am

veritas2409 wrote:Anyhow no great worries , the OP will say it was his honset belief he was given a copy of the book to keep AND his arrest for this offence was itself unlawful as the first arrest was unlawful


The first part might be worth a run if the court is feeling generous, or if CPS finds out and can't be bothered for the sake of a couple of quid. The bit in red is pure bollocks. Such if my belief.
"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: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:26 pm

If the defendant had, out of rage, gone on to murder the Custody Sergeant, would the unlawfulness of his original arrest render his arrest for that offence unlawful? Surely not, and the same principle surely applies to other offences. Even if that were so, it would not be a defence to a charge.

Can we take it this is not the only charge? It would seem not to pass the public interest test alone.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6368
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:04 pm

Can we take it this is not the only charge? It would seem not to pass the public interest test alone.


It isn't the only charge but the other charge(sec2 PHA 1997) is totally unrelated to the this. The CPS have been asked as perlude to a possible judicial review to explain why they justify this decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong but they can't take into consideration this other charge as the OP hasn't been convicted. It would seem he would be punished twice.

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
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron