Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Are police allowed to lie to get a confession?
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
tenature
Just pulling on to my drive when I was approached by an officer in an unmarked Kia Sportage. I'll admit I may have been a little over the limit, not 100%, but definitely not more than 10%.

When he asked how fast I was going I said that I couldn't remember. He claimed I was flying down the road, he'd struggled to catch up with me, and that I was easily doing 60mph. When I replied that there was absolutely no way I was going 60 he said "well how fast were you going?" I said I didn't know and he said "I was just going to give you a warning, but if you want to be like that we'll take it further".

Clearly he lied about my speed in hopes that I'd confess. He left saying he was putting a marker on the car for speeding, which I'm fairly sure is also BS... Can he actually lie to get someone to confess to something?
The Rookie
Bluntly yes they can.
notmeatloaf
Yes, although of course in court they are "mistaken" even if obviously lying. There is a good example of interview techniques on YouTube and this is one of them.

Human nature is that you tend to want to meet somewhere in the middle. So police officer goes "you must have been going about 60mph [in a 30mph limit". You know you were doing about 50, so you say "I might have been a little over the limit, but I was only doing 40mph".

Great. Confessed to speeding already. Recorded in notebook.

Frankly this is why a non-adversarial justice system would be better for low level traffic offences but that's a whole other debate. In non-adversarial systems a confession extracted by a mistaken/lying officer is not automatically grounds to convict.
southpaw82
It will all come down to whether the lie (if it was a lie, i.e. a deliberate untruth) would adversely affect the proceedings. If so, it can be excluded, either under PACE (ss 76 or 78) or at common law.
cp8759
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 10 Oct 2021 - 23:26) *
Frankly this is why a non-adversarial justice system would be better for low level traffic offences but that's a whole other debate. In non-adversarial systems a confession extracted by a mistaken/lying officer is not automatically grounds to convict.

So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

Frankly the idea of an inquisitorial system is crap. Imagine what it would be like if magistrates and adjudicators alike got to conduct their own investigations. We have to guide them by the hand as it is.

You could just pass a law saying the police cannot lie, but I don't see why you would want to do that.
TryOut
QUOTE (tenature @ Sun, 10 Oct 2021 - 22:05) *
Just pulling on to my drive when I was approached by an officer in an unmarked Kia Sportage. I'll admit I may have been a little over the limit, not 100%, but definitely not more than 10%.

When he asked how fast I was going I said that I couldn't remember. He claimed I was flying down the road, he'd struggled to catch up with me, and that I was easily doing 60mph. When I replied that there was absolutely no way I was going 60 he said "well how fast were you going?" I said I didn't know and he said "I was just going to give you a warning, but if you want to be like that we'll take it further".

Clearly he lied about my speed in hopes that I'd confess. He left saying he was putting a marker on the car for speeding, which I'm fairly sure is also BS... Can he actually lie to get someone to confess to something?

Maybe the officer was explaining his opinion to you, that opinion being different to your own.

What do you think the officer could:
A. Gain by making up the speed
B. Lose by lying about it

You admit you were driving above the limit, it seems there are 2 separate opinion about by how much.
klx250s
The police will lie from first contact until you are sent down, they don't care and know full well that there is never any comeback off the so called IOPC or their own PSD.
The Rookie
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 09:57) *
The police will lie from first contact until you are sent down, they don't care and know full well that there is never any comeback off the so called IOPC or their own PSD.

As it's perfectly legitimate for them to do so (where they have a reasonably held belief an offence has been committed as the OP admits was the case here), why would the IOPC or PSD do anything else?

You're not really adding anything are you?
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 08:42) *
QUOTE (tenature @ Sun, 10 Oct 2021 - 22:05) *
Just pulling on to my drive when I was approached by an officer in an unmarked Kia Sportage. I'll admit I may have been a little over the limit, not 100%, but definitely not more than 10%.

When he asked how fast I was going I said that I couldn't remember. He claimed I was flying down the road, he'd struggled to catch up with me, and that I was easily doing 60mph. When I replied that there was absolutely no way I was going 60 he said "well how fast were you going?" I said I didn't know and he said "I was just going to give you a warning, but if you want to be like that we'll take it further".

Clearly he lied about my speed in hopes that I'd confess. He left saying he was putting a marker on the car for speeding, which I'm fairly sure is also BS... Can he actually lie to get someone to confess to something?

Maybe the officer was explaining his opinion to you, that opinion being different to your own.

What do you think the officer could:
A. Gain by making up the speed
B. Lose by lying about it

You admit you were driving above the limit, it seems there are 2 separate opinion about by how much.


Sums it up really. The officer possibly exaggerated by the same amount the OP under-exaggerated....human nature being as it is.
klx250s
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 09:04) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 09:57) *
The police will lie from first contact until you are sent down, they don't care and know full well that there is never any comeback off the so called IOPC or their own PSD.

As it's perfectly legitimate for them to do so (where they have a reasonably held belief an offence has been committed as the OP admits was the case here), why would the IOPC or PSD do anything else?

You're not really adding anything are you?



''As it's perfectly legitimate for them to do so'',,,,even in the witness box that has happened plenty of times over the years?

''You're not really adding anything are you?'',,,, and you are adding how?

''why would the IOPC or PSD do anything else?'',,,, because believe it or not they supposed to hold the police up to high standards of honesty and integrity (or so I thought).
The Rookie
Points in turn...
They mustn't lie in the witness stand no, its a serious criminal offence, being mistaken and wrong is different to lying of course although a surprising number of people don't seem to have the English comprehension skills to understand that difference.

I'm adding by pointing out the ridiculousness of what you posted obviously.

Indeed, but as lying to potential suspects is a legitimate 'ruse de guerre' why would they do anything in that case? Holding them to the standard still means they can do it - it appears still don't get it? Example already given up thread.
klx250s
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:18) *
Points in turn...
They mustn't lie in the witness stand no, its a serious criminal offence, being mistaken and wrong is different to lying of course although a surprising number of people don't seem to have the English comprehension skills to understand the difference.

I'm adding by pointing out the ridiculousness of what you posted obviously.

Indeed, but as lying to potential suspects is a legitimate 'ruse de guerre' why would they do anything in that case? Holding them to the standard still means they can do it - it appears still don't get it? Example already given up thread.


''They mustn't lie in the witness stand'',,,, yet still do.

''being mistaken and wrong is different to lying'',,,, but they will still stand by their 'mistake' as their ego's won't let them admit it.

''Holding them to the standard still means they can do it'',,,, well maybe that needs addressing then.

Why do your replies contain veiled insults, do you have a dog in the fight here?
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.
klx250s
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.



''where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant'' I have often thought that this situation was grossly unfair and stacked against a 'poor' defendent, the system should be the both sides are given the same amount of taxpayer's money, from what I have gleaned Legal Aid has now been reduced to very basic defence cost (if you are eligible at all).
The Rookie
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:36) *
''Holding them to the standard still means they can do it'',,,, well maybe that needs addressing then.

Well have you lobbied your MP to change the law then? If not you are accepting (as I do) that it's a practice that can be considered a 'necessary evil'.

As for lying in the stand, if there is evidence it's usually robustly investigated. I note you don't comment on the difference.
klx250s
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:18) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:36) *
''Holding them to the standard still means they can do it'',,,, well maybe that needs addressing then.

Well have you lobbied your MP to change the law then? If not you are accepting (as I do) that it's a practice that can be considered a 'necessary evil'.

As for lying in the stand, if there is evidence it's usually robustly investigated. I note you don't comment on the difference.



´´. I note you don't comment on the difference.´´,,,, because I have no intension of getting into a circular arguement.
The Rookie
It's not a circular argument, it's a very important difference.

Not commenting suggests you don't know the difference though so I'll make a note of that and apply it as required.
TryOut
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.



''where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant'' I have often thought that this situation was grossly unfair and stacked against a 'poor' defendent, the system should be the both sides are given the same amount of taxpayer's money, from what I have gleaned Legal Aid has now been reduced to very basic defence cost (if you are eligible at all).

How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.
klx250s
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.



''where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant'' I have often thought that this situation was grossly unfair and stacked against a 'poor' defendent, the system should be the both sides are given the same amount of taxpayer's money, from what I have gleaned Legal Aid has now been reduced to very basic defence cost (if you are eligible at all).

How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.


not all, never been in trouble with Old Bill ever, but I am aware at the ease that they will lie and cover up for each other including the PSD.
TryOut
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:44) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.



''where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant'' I have often thought that this situation was grossly unfair and stacked against a 'poor' defendent, the system should be the both sides are given the same amount of taxpayer's money, from what I have gleaned Legal Aid has now been reduced to very basic defence cost (if you are eligible at all).

How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.


not all, never been in trouble with Old Bill ever, but I am aware at the ease that they will lie and cover up for each other including the PSD.

Your evidence would be of interest I am sure.
klx250s
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:27) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:44) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:03) *
QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 00:48) *
So you want a justice system that is less effective at detecting offences?

It's the polices job to detect and charge offences, not the courts.

If having a legally qualified judge for all cases rather than lay magistrates results in more acquittals, that doesn't show the system isn't working. It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police and where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant, and can threaten to bring in ex coppers/expert witnesses at huge cost for any technical argument.



''where the CPS has deeper pockets than any defendant'' I have often thought that this situation was grossly unfair and stacked against a 'poor' defendent, the system should be the both sides are given the same amount of taxpayer's money, from what I have gleaned Legal Aid has now been reduced to very basic defence cost (if you are eligible at all).

How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.


not all, never been in trouble with Old Bill ever, but I am aware at the ease that they will lie and cover up for each other including the PSD.

Your evidence would be of interest I am sure.


Still ongoing but trust me when I have finished with them I'll be posting the full story ALL the evidence on every social media site I can get it posted on including here if I'll allowed to lol.
peodude
I don't doubt they're are corrupt police officers out there, but it's a massive organisation, there's bound to be a few bad eggs. Likewise there is 'bad' nurses in the NHS, but they can't all be tarred with the same brush. There's a bit of a jump between an officer 'lying' as an interview technique (have you never called someones bluff?) and lying under oath in court though.
klx250s
QUOTE (peodude @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 15:18) *
I don't doubt they're are corrupt police officers out there, but it's a massive organisation, there's bound to be a few bad eggs. Likewise there is 'bad' nurses in the NHS, but they can't all be tarred with the same brush. There's a bit of a jump between an officer 'lying' as an interview technique (have you never called someones bluff?) and lying under oath in court though.


Not just ''a few bad eggs'' though is it, look at the Wayne Couzens clusterf%ck and how his colleagues called him ''The Rapist'' and his involement in prostitution not to mention him taking home handcuffs at the end of his shift, but all kept silent, talk about alarm bells going off!!
cp8759
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:47) *
It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police...

Do you have any evidence of such "partnerships"?

QUOTE (klx250s @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 16:23) *
Not just ''a few bad eggs'' though is it, look at the Wayne Couzens clusterf%ck and how his colleagues called him ''The Rapist'' and his involement in prostitution not to mention him taking home handcuffs at the end of his shift, but all kept silent, talk about alarm bells going off!!

Just to correct the record here, it is reported that he bought some cuffs on ebay, and did not use his police-issue ones.

That being said:

1) Police routinely take their PPE home with them, they can certainly take their stab-vest, handcuffs & ASP baton (but not tasers, CS or PAVA spray or firearms, unless they are given specific authority for operational reasons).
2) Handcuffs are in no way restricted, you can buy speedcuffs on ebay as a civilian, see https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?&_nkw=speedcuffs

I do agree that there have been some systemic failings here, there were at least two reports linking him to sexual offences and yet somehow he was allowed to carry firearms on behalf of the state.
bobthesod
If there are any serving officers on here. could you please explain the 'i had to do 60 ( or whatever) to catch you up) bolloxspeak you use thereby implying that the other driver was going like jehosphat and wahy do some use it as ir proves tiddly squat

to a 7 year old doing pre school physics it is quite obvious that when a moving object (A) passes either a stationary object/or even another moving one (B) then B must move faster that A is if they are going to catch them otherwise depending on the various speeds of A and B then B<A B will never catch A and gap increases. the same speed B=A gap wil reaminb contstant , assuming that instant acceleration is possible or B>A then B wiil catch up

Luckiily i have never been in this position to point it out, but it might make interesting case points should the aggrieved driver wish to take it to court esp if he has proof ( dash cam of speed being done) and he was within the limits usually used

I might add that i am sitting in bed recovering from a total knee op on Tues, so am at a very loose end loL
NewJudge
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 12:47) *
It shows the weakness of the system here where magistrates can form partnerships with the police...

In what way do magistrates form partnerships with the police?
andy_foster
The Magistrates themselves have to be independent and impartial, although they will have their own biases.
The Magistrates' Courts Service, who employed the Legal Advisors formed part of the Safety Camera Partnerships.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:03) *
How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.

I don't really see why "public interest" comes into costs. AFAIK there are no cases that have been dropped due to CPS costs being too high.

Nevertheless, your point is irrelevant. CPS will always almost have greater financial resources they are prepared to commit - such as paying crooked "experts" like Garratt to testify. Theoretically I could spend similar amounts, but most defendants have to weigh costs against chances of being found not guilty. Once the CPS wheel out so called "expert" witnesses, it is almost always a better bet to plead guilty even if you know you are not guilty.

With non-adversarial justice systems the ability for the prosecution to overwhelm the defence doesn't exist, because the judge decides on the award of costs based on the case. If you spend a disproportionate amount on expert witnesses, you don't recover the cost.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 17:16) *
Do you have any evidence of such "partnerships"?

Loads of information a quick Google away. Essentially the clerks are part of an organisation that is in partnership (and receives funds from) the police.

Magistrates are supposedly independent and wholly rely on legal advice from the clerk.

Still, the attitude of many magistrates courts clerks makes it obvious they don't see themselves as a pseudo-prosecutor. If you're naïve.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t16523.html
cp8759
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:03) *
How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.

I don't really see why "public interest" comes into costs. AFAIK there are no cases that have been dropped due to CPS costs being too high.

It does happen and the Code for Crown Prosecutors says as much. If it's going to cost a million quid to obtain a conviction for a summary offence, the CPS would just let it go. In the grand scheme of things costs should be a minor consideration, as you don't want criminals to get away with it.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
With non-adversarial justice systems the ability for the prosecution to overwhelm the defence doesn't exist, because the judge decides on the award of costs based on the case. If you spend a disproportionate amount on expert witnesses, you don't recover the cost.

The same is true with our system? The court has to take into account all the circumstances of the case, as well as proportionality, and costs are literally the last thing after fines, compensation to victims, victim surcharge and so on. I've seen a case where the prosecution wanted around £1,100 for what eventually turned into a guilty plea, the magistrates said that given all the circumstances of the case they could have £100. The court's powers and discretion around costs have nothing to do with it being adversarial vs inquisitorial.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 17:16) *
Do you have any evidence of such "partnerships"?

Loads of information a quick Google away. Essentially the clerks are part of an organisation that is in partnership (and receives funds from) the police.

Magistrates are supposedly independent and wholly rely on legal advice from the clerk.

The safety camera partnerships don't exist any more? Clerks are paid by the Ministry of Justice.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
Still, the attitude of many magistrates courts clerks makes it obvious they don't see themselves as a pseudo-prosecutor. If you're naïve.

If you have complex points of law to argue (i.e. if for example you're not happy with the advice given to the magistrates by the clerk), you draw this to the court's attention at the earliest opportunity and ask that the case be allocated to a district judge.
NewJudge
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
Loads of information a quick Google away. Essentially the clerks are part of an organisation that is in partnership (and receives funds from) the police.

Magistrates are supposedly independent and wholly rely on legal advice from the clerk.

Still, the attitude of many magistrates courts clerks makes it obvious they don't see themselves as a pseudo-prosecutor. If you're naïve.

I think you must differentiate between magistrates and HMCTS. It is true that in some areas HMCTS did join the local "safety camera partnership" along with the police and local authority. However, that is a big step from suggesting that "magistrates form partnerships with the police". I happen to believe that HMCTS should not be involved with SCPs. But where they are, I do not see that having an adverse effect on the impartiality of the magistrates themselves. Magistrates are the sole arbiters of matters of fact and the sole decision makers when sentencing. The Legal Advisor's role is to advise them on matters of law and to draw their attention to relevant guidance. They enter the retiring room only by invitation.
TryOut
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 14:03) *
How do you work that out? The CPS often discontinue cases that "...are not in the public interest..." and a cost implication will have been considered. While the pockets may be deeper, they are not infinite.
I figure your online demeanor is after a battle has been lost perhaps.

I don't really see why "public interest" comes into costs. AFAIK there are no cases that have been dropped due to CPS costs being too high.

The obvious question would be: Why do you think you are in any position to know?
I have known loads of cases dropped because of costs, especially when the Crown consider an appeal.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
Nevertheless, your point is irrelevant. CPS will always almost have greater financial resources they are prepared to commit - such as paying crooked "experts" like Garratt to testify. Theoretically I could spend similar amounts, but most defendants have to weigh costs against chances of being found not guilty. Once the CPS wheel out so called "expert" witnesses, it is almost always a better bet to plead guilty even if you know you are not guilty.

With non-adversarial justice systems the ability for the prosecution to overwhelm the defence doesn't exist, because the judge decides on the award of costs based on the case. If you spend a disproportionate amount on expert witnesses, you don't recover the cost.

Costs don't have to be eliminated by altering the adversarial format of the court. Scotland is an adversarial system but costs are down to each party and are not awarded by the court or state to either party.
WHen you spend a silly amount on a defence solicitor you also have a limit on the claim when you win, quite rightly as some are outrageous.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 23:36) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Oct 2021 - 17:16) *
Do you have any evidence of such "partnerships"?

Loads of information a quick Google away. Essentially the clerks are part of an organisation that is in partnership (and receives funds from) the police.

Magistrates are supposedly independent and wholly rely on legal advice from the clerk.

Still, the attitude of many magistrates courts clerks makes it obvious they don't see themselves as a pseudo-prosecutor. If you're naïve.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t16523.html

No court clerk has anything to do with a safety camera partnership or ever has done.

I have never seen a court clerk prosecute a case but I have often seen them assist a LIP.

Your limited exposure and direct experience of prosecuting cases is obvious.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 21:06) *
Your limited exposure and direct experience of prosecuting cases is obvious.

Your pro-police bias is also obvious.

The only people who think the magistrates courts are fit for purpose are the CPS and police, because it is beneficial to them to have a system loaded against the defendant.

Hence why almost half of crown court appeals against magistrates convictions or sentences are successful, and the rate of successful appeals is increasing.

Still, I get the impressions Wayne Couzens could be locked in a room with your family and you'd be totally happy knowing the police are demi-gods who can do no wrong.
klx250s
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 21:06) *
Your limited exposure and direct experience of prosecuting cases is obvious.

Your pro-police bias is also obvious.

The only people who think the magistrates courts are fit for purpose are the CPS and police, because it is beneficial to them to have a system loaded against the defendant.

Hence why almost half of crown court appeals against magistrates convictions or sentences are successful, and the rate of successful appeals is increasing.

Still, I get the impressions Wayne Couzens could be locked in a room with your family and you'd be totally happy knowing the police are demi-gods who can do no wrong.


Well said, 100% agree.
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 22:18) *
Still, I get the impressions Wayne Couzens could be locked in a room with your family and you'd be totally happy knowing the police are demi-gods who can do no wrong.


Although I don't disagree with your cynicism, it's also fair to say ifyou were locked in a room with any police officer you'd assuming that s/he was necessarily a murdering rapist. There are bad apples in all walks of life (Harold Shipman was a doctor - doctors aren't inherently bad for example).

I'd suggest the law is wrong on many things (for many reasons) and judges/mags incompetent in some cases - but a tiny minority of coppers who are bad doesn't make me fear any interaction with statistically the hage majority doing their job.
TryOut
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 22:18) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 12 Oct 2021 - 21:06) *
Your limited exposure and direct experience of prosecuting cases is obvious.

Your pro-police bias is also obvious.

The only people who think the magistrates courts are fit for purpose are the CPS and police, because it is beneficial to them to have a system loaded against the defendant.

Hence why almost half of crown court appeals against magistrates convictions or sentences are successful, and the rate of successful appeals is increasing.

Still, I get the impressions Wayne Couzens could be locked in a room with your family and you'd be totally happy knowing the police are demi-gods who can do no wrong.

There have been a lot of wayward scab-lifters too...or have you omitted them from your consideration? You can't say your own profession is clear of offenders, indeed the list of offenders would far outstrip the police offender perhaps.

Are you really surprised by an appeal rate of success of around 50/50? Surely not.

Magistrates courts are loaded, the crown have to prove the case, the defendant has to prove nothing. I would say the loading is firmly in the favour of the defendant. You appear to be confused nurse.
baggins1234

[/quote]
There have been a lot of wayward scab-lifters too...or have you omitted them from your consideration?
[/quote]

Of course he has, because, again, it doesn’t fit an agenda.

Did people castigate every single doctor after Shipman?

Likewise, is every nurse a monster after the Beverley Allitt events?

Both were also in positions of trust and were responsible for far more than one death…. Probably 255 more in fact….

What Couzens did was horrific and he will deservedly never be released.

To Notmeatloaf…. With regard to your comment about locked rooms with families… presumably you’d be happy for your relatives to be locked in with Shipman and Allitt respectively?

Yes, I’m a cop and proud to be one. I make mistakes like everyone else. It’s called being human. But I’ve never done anything criminally wrong. This goes for the vast majority of my colleagues too.

Unfortunately the 21st century hysteria surrounding Police bashing, mainly from uninformed sources doesn’t make my life any easier.

However I find it easier and fairer not to join the bandwagon of slinging muck at other professions when one individual does something wrong.

I guess you could call it being professional rather than being a keyboard warrior?






TryOut
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 12:50) *


I guess you could call it being professional rather than being a keyboard warrior?

Call it common sense perhaps.
baggins1234
QUOTE (TryOut @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 16:12) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 12:50) *


I guess you could call it being professional rather than being a keyboard warrior?

Call it common sense perhaps.


Absolutely, but more often than not, that trait appears to be as scarce as fuel was three weeks ago
TryOut
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 16:12) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 12:50) *


I guess you could call it being professional rather than being a keyboard warrior?

Call it common sense perhaps.


Absolutely, but more often than not, that trait appears to be as scarce as fuel was three weeks ago

laugh.gif
TryOut
Oooops, here we go: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ore-throat.html
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TryOut @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 12:24) *
Magistrates courts are loaded, the crown have to prove the case, the defendant has to prove nothing. I would say the loading is firmly in the favour of the defendant. You appear to be confused nurse.

No, the defendant has to provide a defence to the allegations. You can't ask the prosecution to prove every point they are making - the so called "fishing expedition".

Though why if you think the police and magistrates courts are so perfect you are on a "fightback forum" is somewhat mystifying, Surely no-one should need help as the system is so amazing.
southpaw82
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 21:14) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 12:24) *
Magistrates courts are loaded, the crown have to prove the case, the defendant has to prove nothing. I would say the loading is firmly in the favour of the defendant. You appear to be confused nurse.

No, the defendant has to provide a defence to the allegations. You can't ask the prosecution to prove every point they are making - the so called "fishing expedition".


You definitely can. It’s called putting the prosecution to proof.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 21:38) *
You definitely can. It’s called putting the prosecution to proof.

You can't ask them to prove every point of every sentence they say - "prove that legislation exists", "prove it was enacted properly", "prove it hasn't subsequently been repealed" -throughout the entire trial. You have to form a defence and put them to proof based on that defence. For the most part to defend a case you need to have some active role and strategy.

Excepting of course if your defence is that the legislation doesn't exist/hasn't been enacted/has been repealed.
southpaw82
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 22:37) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 21:38) *
You definitely can. It’s called putting the prosecution to proof.

You can't ask them to prove every point of every sentence they say - "prove that legislation exists", "prove it was enacted properly", "prove it hasn't subsequently been repealed" -throughout the entire trial. You have to form a defence and put them to proof based on that defence. For the most part to defend a case you need to have some active role and strategy.

Excepting of course if your defence is that the legislation doesn't exist/hasn't been enacted/has been repealed.

Putting the prosecution to proof means requiring the prosecution to prove every element of the offence. It had nothing to do with “properly enacted” or the other nonsense you mention. The accused can literally sit there and say nothing.

It’s not a particularly good strategy (the prosecution can usually prove the offence if unchallenged) so in reality at least testing of the evidence by cross-examination would also happen - but to say you can’t require the prosecution to prove their case without putting forward a defence is wrong.
TryOut
The defence can “put the prosecution to proof” on the required elements to prove the offence. If the prosecutor has prepared the case properly then they will do that without the help of the defence. If the prosecutor fails to prove an element of the offence it’s best the defence keeps quiet on that until it is their turn.
What the prosecution don’t have to prove is every element that is on the template shopping list that defence lawyers believe they want the prosecution to prove.
Some prosecutors may get drawn into that but they shouldn’t, they should just stick to what needs proof…then it’s the defence’s turn, in addition to x-exam of course.
Unfortunately some prosecutors are duped into fulfilling a defence shopping list when it would be appropriate to return it with a polite and firm refusal.
So yes, put the prosecution to proof, that’s only right, but equally don’t take the p.
Sometimes a court clerk will intervene if things get out of hand, that’s when the defence will perceive unfairness. What they miss is that the clerk is ensuring only the relevant issues are considered by the magistrates, not the defence fantasy land FOTL b0llix that forms the superfluous “proof”.
andy_foster
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 13 Oct 2021 - 21:14) *
No, the defendant has to provide a defence to the allegations. You can't ask the prosecution to prove every point they are making - the so called "fishing expedition".

Though why if you think the police and magistrates courts are so perfect you are on a "fightback forum" is somewhat mystifying, Surely no-one should need help as the system is so amazing.


Many within the criminal justice system see their duty as one of upholding what they consider to be "justice" with little regard for the actual law. I would suggest that most people would have differing views on this depending on the circumstances - if a murderer got off on a technicality, most people would consider that unjust, but a purist would say that the law is the law (and is presumably there for a good reason).

I have heard a police witness on the stand (after the bench had retired to consider a point of law) state that he would have given different evidence if he thought that his original evidence might have been inadmissible. He also tried to storm out of court (clearly offended by the defence's refusal to accept his authoritah) until the legal advisor stopped him. The legal advisor in that case advised the bench privately relying on a case that did not support her point without any opportunity for the defence to argue the point.

Both the occifer who was happy to perjure himself and the legal advisor who clearly misled the court were clearly (and deliberately) doing what they could to prevent the accused with getting away with doing 70 in a 40 on his motorbike (for those from the dark side who were curious about which case I was referring to) on a technicality - the defence did not seek to give evidence or challenge the accuracy of the evidence against the defendant, merely the admissibility.

There is a very important legal principle called "the rule of law". In this example, the rule of law requires that the accused must be convicted properly according to the law in order to be punished, regardless of whether anyone things that "he probably did it" or not. I have been involved in a JR application for a refusal to state a case where the Administrative Court decided that the appellant had not been properly convicted at a fair trial (he was denied the assistance of a McKenzie friend), but as formed the opinion that the judge would have convicted him anyway he would not grant permission.

A cynic might suggest that the "rule of law" - the law is the law, regardless of who you are, is little more than a fairy tale to pacify the plebs while the establishment use the colour of law to separate themselves and protect themselves from the plebs.

As regards posters who are clearly from "the dark side", the site has always had an unwritten policy of granting them a tad more latitude than the rest of the rabble as they often give us insights that we otherwise would not be able to benefit from, but historically a number of them have been banned for repeatedly overstepping the mark and then accessed the site in violation of the terms prohibiting multiple accounts. As to why they are here, the same question could be asked of many of the posters who are not seeking advice for an active case, although the answers would probably be different. For fans of irony, perhaps the same could be asked of anyone who has a velocipede as an avatar?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.