Advice needed re:Police charge

[New Haven Neil]

It's ludicrous to criminalise a young person for that - unless there's a back story we're not aware of.

[BlackRat]

Hi Stewart,

From the case information you've previously posted one could be tempted to say "haven't the Police got anything better to do".....

 

p.s. Hope it all goes ok for G.

Of course they have, I'm sure everyone involved is overjoyed at the thought of all the aggro, paperwork, additional requests from The CPS, social services etc in what is an overheated family spat.

 

Once the Police are involved they have no discretion, this having been removed many years ago, what with national crime recording standards for kick off.

 

At the end of the day, there is sufficient evidence to charge x3 offences, so they have to charge, having been told to do so by the CPS.

 

Don't like it?

 

Write to your MP, the plod for one will be over joyed to see the system changed.

 

Trust me, I know.

[stewartingram]

A quick update on today's bail appointment, but firstly a very warm thanks for the support shown on here. RMWeb rises to the occasion again!

 

We attended the Police Station, to find the PC in charge of the case was not present, but to be fair he was from a different Division. So another PC had been appointed instead.

G was booked in, then in my presence was charged with 3 offences, to appear at Youth Offenders Court on 27th April.

Offence 1 was "beating his Dad", relating to the street incident.

Offence 2 was "beating his Mum" relating to the bedroom phone incident.

Offence 3 was "beating his Dad" relating to an earlier incident, mentioned during discussion in their interviews, an overstated claim regarding a tussle over a broom in everyone's opinion. And I'm trying not to take sides here.

The Duty Solicitor was contacted on the phone, an appointment is arranged for next week.

 

I will update any progress.

 

Stewart

 

In the rush to post the above, I forgot to add:

 

As he is to appear in court, he is on further bail - unlimited conditions​ - which means I was returning him home to his parents. Yes I did check with the Police that that was correct, and they thought it unusual that he was returning home to be with his parents, the victims in this case. Mind you, the pleasure on both sides, including his younger sisters, when he got home was a delight to see, many tears were shed and big hugs all round.

There are no further back issues of crime related things involved. However there is obviously a case of G drifting apart from his family over recent times; this has I feel now shown up as a plea for help in a number of ways (including contacting us just before the incident and afterwards constant attention seeking for medical matters such as an aching shoulder etc, followed by not taking prescribed medicines). However this evening we had a call from him asking for his tablets, he promised to try taking them again. I've noticed a few positive changes in the last few days.

Lets hope the solicitor can bring some help too, I thing he has learnt his lesson.

 

Stewart

[lightengine]

Surely at some stage, either to the police or to the solicitor, the statement should be corrected to show what his mother said and the fact that it was omitted from the statement. Just because she signed it surely doesnt exclude her amending it. If not, the solicitor should be made aware of the omittance.

[BlackRat]

Mum can add what she likes, whenever she likes as long as it's factual.

 

She can also add a victim impact statement, in which she can outline her wishes and the effect that the events are having upon her and her family.

 

Pretty much standard stuff really.

 

One of the difficulties is these days (take the broom incident for instance), once the Plod are aware or suspect a crime has been committed, it HAS to be recorded as such (a crime) and then HAS to be investigated.

 

I was carpeted more than once for attempting to use discretion and in one case, a mum reporting her son for a telling off because he had been taking money from her purse, to buy drugs and had hit her, turned into an investigation for, at one stage, burglary, assault, and also robbery, I was threatened with discipline as I refused to tow the party line.

 

I always took the opinion that I was independent, was paid to be impartial and refused to bow down to either HQ or home office diktat.

 

Surprisingly enough, I was never promoted!

 

But at least I can look at myself in the mirror and I still stand by any decision I made.

 

Unfortunately I was a rare breed.

 

Ps the lad mentioned above, once 'sorted' joined the Forces, and is now a very successful (and wealthy) civilian diver in the oil and gas industry over seas.

 

I see him now and then and he still thanks me for doing what I did, when I did, which tells me I was right, and the Home Office and here today gone tomorrow Chief Officer was wrong.

[Ozexpatriate]

Even worse (from an unintended consequences standpoint) than mandatory investigation procedures are mandatory sentencing laws.

[sp1]

Mum can add what she likes, whenever she likes as long as it's factual.

She can also add a victim impact statement, in which she can outline her wishes and the effect that the events are having upon her and her family.

Pretty much standard stuff really.

One of the difficulties is these days (take the broom incident for instance), once the Plod are aware or suspect a crime has been committed, it HAS to be recorded as such (a crime) and then HAS to be investigated.

I was carpeted more than once for attempting to use discretion and in one case, a mum reporting her son for a telling off because he had been taking money from her purse, to buy drugs and had hit her, turned into an investigation for, at one stage, burglary, assault, and also robbery, I was threatened with discipline as I refused to tow the party line.

I always took the opinion that I was independent, was paid to be impartial and refused to bow down to either HQ or home office diktat.

Surprisingly enough, I was never promoted!

But at least I can look at myself in the mirror and I still stand by any decision I made.

Unfortunately I was a rare breed.

Ps the lad mentioned above, once 'sorted' joined the Forces, and is now a very successful (and wealthy) civilian diver in the oil and gas industry over seas.

I see him now and then and he still thanks me for doing what I did, when I did, which tells me I was right, and the Home Office and here today gone tomorrow Chief Officer was wrong.

When I was young (back in the mid 70's) we still had a 'traditional Bobby' - he knew everyone locally, and everyone knew him. So when I, and some friends, were caught playing where we shouldn't- I didn't get the traditional 'clip round the ear' but was taken home, and my father made sure I didn't do it again.

Nowadays, I would probably have ended up with a criminal record which would mean I couldn't do the job I now do, for a silly thing that hurt no-one (luckily) - all we were doing were playing in some old derelict houses.

There is no common sense these days!

[royaloak]

When I was young (back in the mid 70's) we still had a 'traditional Bobby' - he knew everyone locally, and everyone knew him. So when I, and some friends, were caught playing where we shouldn't- I didn't get the traditional 'clip round the ear' but was taken home, and my father made sure I didn't do it again.

Nowadays, I would probably have ended up with a criminal record which would mean I couldn't do the job I now do, for a silly thing that hurt no-one (luckily) - all we were doing were playing in some old derelict houses.

There is no common sense these days!

Nowadays if the Police took you home there is more chance of the parents suing the copper for assaulting their child!

 

I have very little respect for the Police (I do have my reasons) but I do understand that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place with one hand tied behind their backs and with the need to 'solve' as many crimes as possible, with ever dwindling resources, will normally go after the easy targets as often as possible rather than tackle 'real' crimes as it looks better on paper to 'solve' 5 easy crimes instead of one 'proper' crime.

[BlackRat]

Define 'proper crime' please?

[rockershovel]

Define 'proper crime' please?

I wouldn't include prosecuting people who post idiotic things on Twitter, especially when the charge ends up being thrown out of court, as happened recently.

 

Reverting to the OP, I can't help noticing that various additional details have emerged by degrees; the clearest possible illustration of the need for proper legal advice in good time.

[jjb1970]

A friend of mine has a wonderful way of putting this - there is no such thing as being half pregnant. In law you break the law, the Police have a job to do and as has been said they're between a rock and a hard place. In this case the shock of facing the legal consequences of his actions may be just what he needs to get back on the straight and narrow.

[BlackRat]

I wouldn't include prosecuting people who post idiotic things on Twitter, especially when the charge ends up being thrown out of court, as happened recently.

Reverting to the OP, I can't help noticing that various additional details have emerged by degrees; the clearest possible illustration of the need for proper legal advice in good time.

The police don't prosecute people, the Crown PROSECUTION Service does.

 

The police gather facts and report them to the CPS.

 

That's how it's been for over 30 years now.

 

Aim your criticism of them, ta.

[BoD]

..... or at the people who come up with the laws, rules and targets that have to be enforced, followed or met.

 

 

Edit: not to distract from the initial issue, for which those involved have my sympathy. I was fortunate in that when my son was involved in a minor misdemeanour a good few years ago the police officer involved was able to use discretion and bring him home and we could discuss and, thankfully, resolve the issue.