PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Rape trial collapses, Huge failings in police disclosure
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,045
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



BBC Link

Absolutely shocking incompetence on the part of the police. You know you’ve gone badly wrong if even the prosecution barrister is criticising you.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Monster 900
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 08:17
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,378
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
From: Wales
Member No.: 8,984



QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 22:05) *
Hopefully the continuing public stream of disclosure failures will at some point result in a system less ludicrous than relying on the prosecution to play nice with the defence, in an adversarial system. Scant consolation to the people now being wrongly prosecuted, and convicted, though.


Absolutely agree.

A barrister interviewed on BBC news this morning was saying that this problem goes a lot further than just sex offence cases and the review should be extended to all areas of the judicial system

This post has been edited by Monster 900: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 08:40


--------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Links :- 1. NIP Wizard, 2. Speeding - Likely penalty calculator, 3. How to deal with PPC tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 09:08
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,372
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That story can’t be true, Allison said no-one was in jail because of poor disclosure, surely we should believe her......


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 10:30
Post #43


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 6,985
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



Unfortunately some of her initiatives in the recent past haven't exactly served to give the impression of a disinterested CPS committed to ensuring fair and even-handed treatment of the defence. There's clearly no appetite on the CPS's side to acknowledge that there's a systemic issue with disclosure, rather than it being a problem somehow limited to current rape cases.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 11:33
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,372
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Some of the articles linked on the last page make it clear it’s far more that just rape cases.

As you note, they seem to have fortgotten the role of the CPS which is to achieve justice, not chase numbers at its expense.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?



--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monster 900
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:32
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,378
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
From: Wales
Member No.: 8,984



QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10) *
I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?


Good question.

I would have thought that full disclosure to the defence of all the evidence collected should be the standard. I was quite shocked when I found out that the police and prosecution decide which evidence should be disclosed to the defence.

I'm actually amazed that under such circumstances anyone is ever acquitted.


--------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Links :- 1. NIP Wizard, 2. Speeding - Likely penalty calculator, 3. How to deal with PPC tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 13:00
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,303
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10) *
I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?


A system that accepts its faults and does not try its dammedest to cover them up. If the rule is disclose all relevant evidence and the person responsible does not let a jury decide on PCoJ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 15:08
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,045
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10) *
I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?


A system that accepts its faults and does not try its dammedest to cover them up. If the rule is disclose all relevant evidence and the person responsible does not let a jury decide on PCoJ

Are you suggesting that where there has been a failure in disclosure (proved to what standard?) a criminal prosecution (of whom?) should automatically follow? No two stage test (reasonable prospect of conviction and in the public interest)?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 18:19
Post #49


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,256
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 10:30) *
There's clearly no appetite on the CPS's side to acknowledge that there's a systemic issue with disclosure, rather than it being a problem somehow limited to current rape cases.


I was very recently involved in a criminal trial (speeding). The accused had received a notice from the police "Court Presentation Officer" stating that there was no unused material, which the accused considered strange as he knew that there was a video recording of the incident. However, having been shown the clip when he was stopped by the police, he did not feel that it was anything that the bench need to trouble themselves with.


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 18:28
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,303
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 15:08) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 13:00) *
QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10) *
I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?


A system that accepts its faults and does not try its dammedest to cover them up. If the rule is disclose all relevant evidence and the person responsible does not let a jury decide on PCoJ

Are you suggesting that where there has been a failure in disclosure (proved to what standard?) a criminal prosecution (of whom?) should automatically follow? No two stage test (reasonable prospect of conviction and in the public interest)?


Not at all. the tests can be carried out. if a person is responsible ( senior officer or CPS) and they do not disclose evidence. Their would seem to be a reasonable chance for success. And public interest. Looking up coppers or other charged with upholding the law who do not do so. Most would say is in the public interest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 19:18
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,045
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 18:28) *
Not at all. the tests can be carried out. if a person is responsible ( senior officer or CPS) and they do not disclose evidence. Their would seem to be a reasonable chance for success. And public interest. Looking up coppers or other charged with upholding the law who do not do so. Most would say is in the public interest.

An innocent mistake doesn’t support a conviction for PCOJ. So presumably they should be interviewed (by whom? Their own force?) to establish the ingredients of the offence first before a charging decision has been made. Or should a separate offence of negligent non-disclosure be created? What exactly is it you want?


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 20:10
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,303
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 19:18) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 18:28) *
Not at all. the tests can be carried out. if a person is responsible ( senior officer or CPS) and they do not disclose evidence. Their would seem to be a reasonable chance for success. And public interest. Looking up coppers or other charged with upholding the law who do not do so. Most would say is in the public interest.

An innocent mistake doesn’t support a conviction for PCOJ. So presumably they should be interviewed (by whom? Their own force?) to establish the ingredients of the offence first before a charging decision has been made. Or should a separate offence of negligent non-disclosure be created? What exactly is it you want?


Not an argument. Having seen first hand the propensity of the police not to disclose evidence, I want those that do so to be held accountable. It can be done. Those far more able than me can work out the detail

Edit

first part reads wrong. It should be i don't want an argument

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 21:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 21:00
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,726
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Member No.: 1,326



QUOTE (Monster 900 @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:32) *
QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 12:10) *
I'm interested to know what alternative system could replace the current one?


Good question.

I would have thought that full disclosure to the defence of all the evidence collected should be the standard. I was quite shocked when I found out that the police and prosecution decide which evidence should be disclosed to the defence.

I'm actually amazed that under such circumstances anyone is ever acquitted.


Me too. I was always under the impression that the prosecution had an obligation to disclose all the evidence they intended to rely on, and also to disclose other relevant information they don't intend to rely on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 21:00
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,045
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 20:10) *
Not an argument. Having seen first hand the propensity of the police not to disclose evidence, I want those that do so to be held accountable. It can be done. Those far more able than me can work out the detail

I agree; people should be held accountable. It probably requires a tiered approach though, where different levels of culpability (negligent, deliberate) attract different consequences (adverse costs orders, sanctions by professional regulators, disciplinary action, prosecution).


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monster 900
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 21:30
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,378
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
From: Wales
Member No.: 8,984



How about just changing to an inquisitorial system, instead of an adversarial one, where the body that gathers the evidence is independent of both prosecution and defence.



--------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Links :- 1. NIP Wizard, 2. Speeding - Likely penalty calculator, 3. How to deal with PPC tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 22:24
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,372
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Back in 1994 the leading officer in the Kiszko case and the leading forensics officer were both charged with PCOJ, however the cases were dropped as it was submitted that 20 years after the event they couldn’t receive a fair trial.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 19:30
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,305
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Monster 900 @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 21:30) *
How about just changing to an inquisitorial system, instead of an adversarial one, where the body that gathers the evidence is independent of both prosecution and defence.

For all its faults, I'd still rather be tried in an adversarial common law jurisdiction than an inquisitorial civil system, any day. The idea of an "investigating magistrate" as they have on the continent is hardly a solution, on the contrary it would mean the judiciary would no longer be independent at all.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
progbloke
post Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 12:09
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 295
Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Member No.: 3,329



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 23:24) *
Back in 1994 the leading officer in the Kiszko case and the leading forensics officer were both charged with PCOJ, however the cases were dropped as it was submitted that 20 years after the event they couldn’t receive a fair trial.


Which makes you wonder if anyone charged in the light of Hillsborough (29 years ago) will be convicted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 21:04
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 302
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



Autistic man tasered

So when the cctv surfaces showing that the police version of events isn't exactly accurate, the charges are dropped.

Isn't lying on a witness statement PCOJ?

Funnily enough a police investigation showed nothing wrong. I guess they're just so used to their officers lying that it's just normal now.


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:53
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,045
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Richy320 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 21:04) *
Isn't lying on a witness statement PCOJ?

Not invariably.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 17:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.