Duty Solicitors
25 April 2009, 08:22 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give them the written disclosure, tell them that is all I'm willing to disclose and then spend another fifteen minutes fending off their questions repeating "I've already disclosed everything I am willing to, in relation to this investigation"
I sometimes say it in my sleep
One solicitor asked me if his client had any previous. I couldn't help but say "He's your client. Ask him!"
It amazed me at first how the officers and duty solicitors would talk to each other on first term names, but I expect they see each other that often they do get to know each other pretty well. The ones at my nick even put into the tea fund
The funniest encounter I've had with a brief during an interview was during my first investigation into a TWOC. The crim claimed he had been seeing a married woman and tried to use her as his alibi. He didn't feature on any CCTV for the whole day at the place he claimed to have met her. My partner challenged him on the existance of this woman. He gave some bull and said "You wouldn't like it if it was your wife" to which point my mate through back "How would you like it if she was yours?", we were both trying not to laugh, especially when the solicitor piped up "I don't think that's appropriate, officers"
Last edited by ScoobyWon't; 25 April 2009 at 08:58 PM. Reason: multitasking failure
25 April 2009, 08:23 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
90% conviction rate does seem extremely high and would imply to me a self fulfilling prophecy, ie if the CPS have bothered to bring to trial then it must be a guilty so the magistrates need not even think about it's merits.
Seems unlikely to me, perhaps the stats refer to only one particular type of case?
Seems unlikely to me, perhaps the stats refer to only one particular type of case?
25 April 2009, 08:32 PM
#63
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, on further investigation it seemed that stat was being somewhat propped up by the motoring convictions which are a) numerous in number and b) carry a very high conviction rate. My interpretation for my category of crime is a conviction rate of 80% which is still rather worryingly high.
25 April 2009, 08:37 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, on further investigation it seemed that stat was being somewhat propped up by the motoring convictions which are a) numerous in number and b) carry a very high conviction rate. My interpretation for my category of crime is a conviction rate of 80% which is still rather worryingly high.
25 April 2009, 08:40 PM
#65
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My whole case relies heavily on the prosecution being able to prove that I had the thought to commit a crime. I fleet between taking comfort that such a thing will be hard to prove but I also have a burning belief that from the instant I enter that room everyone will be trying their best to see me convicted 
25 April 2009, 08:52 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I enjoy the post-interview disclosure to solicitors.
I give them the written disclosure, tell them that is all I'm willing to disclose and then spend another fifteen minutes fending off their questions repeating "I've already disclosed everything I am willing to, in relation to this investigation"
I sometimes say it in my sleep
One solicitor asked me if his client had any previous. I couldn't help but say "He's your client. Ask him!"
It amazed me at first how the officers and duty solicitors would talk to each other on first term names, but I expect they see each other that often they do get to know each other pretty well. The ones at my nick even put into the tea fund
The funniest encounter I've had with a brief during an interview was during my first investigation into a TWOC. The crim claimed he had been seeing a married woman and tried to use her as his alibi. He didn't feature on any CCTV for the whole day at the place he claimed to have met her. My partner challenged him on the existance of this woman. He gave some bull and said "You wouldn't like it if it was your wife" to which point my mate through back "How would you like it if she was yours?", we were both trying not to laugh, especially when the solicitor piped up "I don't think that's appropriate, officers"
I give them the written disclosure, tell them that is all I'm willing to disclose and then spend another fifteen minutes fending off their questions repeating "I've already disclosed everything I am willing to, in relation to this investigation"
I sometimes say it in my sleep
One solicitor asked me if his client had any previous. I couldn't help but say "He's your client. Ask him!"
It amazed me at first how the officers and duty solicitors would talk to each other on first term names, but I expect they see each other that often they do get to know each other pretty well. The ones at my nick even put into the tea fund
The funniest encounter I've had with a brief during an interview was during my first investigation into a TWOC. The crim claimed he had been seeing a married woman and tried to use her as his alibi. He didn't feature on any CCTV for the whole day at the place he claimed to have met her. My partner challenged him on the existance of this woman. He gave some bull and said "You wouldn't like it if it was your wife" to which point my mate through back "How would you like it if she was yours?", we were both trying not to laugh, especially when the solicitor piped up "I don't think that's appropriate, officers"
Why are you talking about post-interview disclosure? Surely at post interview everything will have been disclosed during the course of the interview anyway so there won't be a lot left to disclose post interview other than bail issues.
Could it be that what you meant to say was Pre-Interview??
It's a fair cop I think Officer!!
25 April 2009, 08:56 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to give you any advice as we don't know what the incident was. During your interview, the interviewing officer would have had a definition of the crime, with points to prove and would have questioned you around that.
Here's an example of what I have had to deal with (No real names used):
I arrested Victoria at the scene where she had set fire to her neighbours fence which got out of control and caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to his property. She was also shouting anti-gay remarks at her neighbour as she'd found her husband in bed with him. She was also nicked on suspicion of crim dam for spray painting anti-gay slogans on his shop.
Section 1 (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that an offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson. For a person to be found guilty of causing criminal damage by fire, at least some of the damage must have been caused by fire, but this does not include smoke damage. For the offence to be proven there must be an intent or an element of of recklessness in relation to the use of fire.
This offence is triable either way:
Summarily: six months imprisonment and/or fine.
On indictment: life imprisonment.
Points to prove:
Date and location of the suspect
Without lawful excuse
Destroyed/Damaged
Property to the value of
Intention to destroy/damage property or;
Being reckless whether it was destroyed/damaged
Intent or an element of recklessness in relation to the use of fire.
It is necessary to prove both the Actus Reas (guilty act) and the Mens Rea (guilty mind) in order to gain a conviction in this example. The guilty act of causing criminal damage has already been proven as the damage is done. It is therefore necessary to prove the guilty mind in relation to the offence. Both S1 (1) (Criminal damage) and S1 (3) (arson) require the guilty mind to demonstrate either intent or recklessness.
If Victoria should admit to deliberately meaning to damage or destroy the property of another (Elton) then the intent is shown.
However, if Victoria claims not to have had intent, then it must be shown that she acted recklessly.
A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
It is essential to apply the subjective test as established in R v G and R 2003 where it was asked if you could be found reckless if the defendant subjectively did not perceive a risk in his/her mind, of damage or destruction, as a consequence of his/her actions.
Defences/Excuses:
He/she had permission from the owner of the property to cause damage.
The owner would have given permission if he/she had known of the damage and circumstances.
His/her property was in immediate need of protection by reasonable means.
Also in the above scenario I would want to look into endangering life etc and apply the same points to prove/defences when questioning on those lines.
As most of the other cops on here have also said, we can't really advise as we don't know the situation. We don't know if you were in and charged immediately, or if you were bailed for further enquiries etc. Often if you are repeatedly bailed it's due to the necessity to gather further evidence. It will also depend on what evidence they have against you.
Here's an example of what I have had to deal with (No real names used):
I arrested Victoria at the scene where she had set fire to her neighbours fence which got out of control and caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to his property. She was also shouting anti-gay remarks at her neighbour as she'd found her husband in bed with him. She was also nicked on suspicion of crim dam for spray painting anti-gay slogans on his shop.
Section 1 (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that an offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson. For a person to be found guilty of causing criminal damage by fire, at least some of the damage must have been caused by fire, but this does not include smoke damage. For the offence to be proven there must be an intent or an element of of recklessness in relation to the use of fire.
This offence is triable either way:
Summarily: six months imprisonment and/or fine.
On indictment: life imprisonment.
Points to prove:
Date and location of the suspect
Without lawful excuse
Destroyed/Damaged
Property to the value of
Intention to destroy/damage property or;
Being reckless whether it was destroyed/damaged
Intent or an element of recklessness in relation to the use of fire.
It is necessary to prove both the Actus Reas (guilty act) and the Mens Rea (guilty mind) in order to gain a conviction in this example. The guilty act of causing criminal damage has already been proven as the damage is done. It is therefore necessary to prove the guilty mind in relation to the offence. Both S1 (1) (Criminal damage) and S1 (3) (arson) require the guilty mind to demonstrate either intent or recklessness.
If Victoria should admit to deliberately meaning to damage or destroy the property of another (Elton) then the intent is shown.
However, if Victoria claims not to have had intent, then it must be shown that she acted recklessly.
A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to -
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
It is essential to apply the subjective test as established in R v G and R 2003 where it was asked if you could be found reckless if the defendant subjectively did not perceive a risk in his/her mind, of damage or destruction, as a consequence of his/her actions.
Defences/Excuses:
He/she had permission from the owner of the property to cause damage.
The owner would have given permission if he/she had known of the damage and circumstances.
His/her property was in immediate need of protection by reasonable means.
Also in the above scenario I would want to look into endangering life etc and apply the same points to prove/defences when questioning on those lines.
As most of the other cops on here have also said, we can't really advise as we don't know the situation. We don't know if you were in and charged immediately, or if you were bailed for further enquiries etc. Often if you are repeatedly bailed it's due to the necessity to gather further evidence. It will also depend on what evidence they have against you.
25 April 2009, 08:57 PM
#71
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question about the police interview as well. At the time I didn't realize the severe manner in which the police were treating my incident. I was fully honest and co-operative with the police during interview as I thought it was all a misunderstanding and they'd send me on my way with a warning. I was totally gobsmacked when they arrested me.
My question is, if I had only confirmed the bare minimum (name and address iirc) would that have harmed my defense or made me look guilty by refusing to co-operate and answer questions. I now fear that by answering the questions as honestly and fully as possible that I'll have harmed my defense
My question is, if I had only confirmed the bare minimum (name and address iirc) would that have harmed my defense or made me look guilty by refusing to co-operate and answer questions. I now fear that by answering the questions as honestly and fully as possible that I'll have harmed my defense
25 April 2009, 08:57 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 April 2009, 09:01 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question about the police interview as well. At the time I didn't realize the severe manner in which the police were treating my incident. I was fully honest and co-operative with the police during interview as I thought it was all a misunderstanding and they'd send me on my way with a warning. I was totally gobsmacked when they arrested me.
My question is, if I had only confirmed the bare minimum (name and address iirc) would that have harmed my defense or made me look guilty by refusing to co-operate and answer questions. I now fear that by answering the questions as honestly and fully as possible that I'll have harmed my defense
My question is, if I had only confirmed the bare minimum (name and address iirc) would that have harmed my defense or made me look guilty by refusing to co-operate and answer questions. I now fear that by answering the questions as honestly and fully as possible that I'll have harmed my defense
As the caution says: You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you later rely on something in court that you fail to mention when questioned.
Basically, that means the court could think that you didn't say anything to the police as you had no defense, and your defense now, is due to you having got people to lie on your behalf after being bailed.
25 April 2009, 09:05 PM
#75
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that to adequately impart enough information in relation to the case I'd have to go into considerable detail and I'd rather not do that publicly, sorry.
The process was:
- The police came to talk to me but I was out and my partner spoke to them. They told her nothing.
- The next day I phoned them to make arrangements to speak to them as I was, understandably, worried. They arrived, briefly explained the complaint and 'detained me'. Whatever that means?
- They took me to the station and put me in a cell for 4 hours whilst they undertook investigations.
- They interviewed me and then after the interview arrested and charged me.
- I was taken to an overnight prison and then to court in the morning to tender a plea.
- I was released on bail having pleaded not-guilty.
My entire life has pretty much been destroyed since.
The process was:
- The police came to talk to me but I was out and my partner spoke to them. They told her nothing.
- The next day I phoned them to make arrangements to speak to them as I was, understandably, worried. They arrived, briefly explained the complaint and 'detained me'. Whatever that means?
- They took me to the station and put me in a cell for 4 hours whilst they undertook investigations.
- They interviewed me and then after the interview arrested and charged me.
- I was taken to an overnight prison and then to court in the morning to tender a plea.
- I was released on bail having pleaded not-guilty.
My entire life has pretty much been destroyed since.
25 April 2009, 09:10 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 3,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to take a stab in the dark, you've done this on many occasion and obviously not been caught, it can't be murder or rape as surely you'd know it was wrong. My guess is you're an underwear thief, stealing knickers off womens washing lines for your own pleasure
25 April 2009, 09:25 PM
#78
From your earlier posts, you are expecting the matter to be dealt with at Magistrates court. I am somewhat confused as you were denied bail after charge for a summary offence with no previous convictions. This is unusual unless you have been charged with an either way or indictable offence or pose a risk to witnesses etc. Without details of the charge, you will not recieve any genuine meaningful advice. Not being nosey, mate, just tryingto help. Bob
25 April 2009, 09:35 PM
#80
I'll take a stab in the dark as well.......from the snippets so far I'd guess firearms offence...plinking tin cans when someone walks nearby.
Hope it all works out
Shaun
Hope it all works out
Shaun
25 April 2009, 09:58 PM
#82
Police denied you bail. You were not bailed after charge, you went straight to court.Bail is to be preferred unless police are satisfied that you either pose a risk to yourself or others, you are likely to intefere with witnesses or obstruct the natural course of justice, are likely to not appear having been bailed, or there are suspects/ property outstanding. As you have no previous convictions, the police have no grounds to suspect you will not appear. I can only summise you have been charged with an either way or indictable offence. If the matter is indictable, it will be haeard at Crown Court and your duty solicitor will instruct a barrister to act on your behalf.
Last edited by s70rjw; 25 April 2009 at 10:01 PM.
25 April 2009, 10:09 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, my thoughts too. The duty brief being any good would be the last of your worries.
Plus, it's highly unlikely to get a custodial for any 1st offence at a Mags' court.
Sounds like a serious one from the info divulged so far if you were denied bail depsite having no previous form.
I think I have guessed what you are accused of, but won't list it on here.
Plus, it's highly unlikely to get a custodial for any 1st offence at a Mags' court.
Sounds like a serious one from the info divulged so far if you were denied bail depsite having no previous form.
I think I have guessed what you are accused of, but won't list it on here.
25 April 2009, 10:12 PM
#84
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the police didn't bail me but put me in the cells overnight. That really surprised me and I really don't know why that was the case. All I'd have done is gone straight home and then turned up to court the next morning. The police were really brutal with me to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for the police service but I have to say that the reliance staff were superb as were the prison officers and the people in court. They kept me in a separate cell from all the low-lifes which was one saving grace.
You've got me thinking now though. I just thought the night in the cells was standard practice but I'm going to ask my solicitor why I was kept in if you guys are saying that it's not normal unless the crime is serious.
You've got me thinking now though. I just thought the night in the cells was standard practice but I'm going to ask my solicitor why I was kept in if you guys are saying that it's not normal unless the crime is serious.
25 April 2009, 10:20 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah.
Maybe you were arrested late on and bedded down overnight before being interviewed? Did you get picked up in the morning and taken to court in a secure vehicle?
Do you have a trial date for a Magistrates' Court?
Lots of questions, but if you were denied bail then there's something weird going by what you have said. This is because denying bail is very hard for someone with no previous convictions and has a permanent address unless the offence is serious or there is a real risk to someone's safety (like a partner) if bail is granted.
Maybe you were arrested late on and bedded down overnight before being interviewed? Did you get picked up in the morning and taken to court in a secure vehicle?
Do you have a trial date for a Magistrates' Court?
Lots of questions, but if you were denied bail then there's something weird going by what you have said. This is because denying bail is very hard for someone with no previous convictions and has a permanent address unless the offence is serious or there is a real risk to someone's safety (like a partner) if bail is granted.
25 April 2009, 10:22 PM
#87
No the police didn't bail me but put me in the cells overnight. That really surprised me and I really don't know why that was the case. All I'd have done is gone straight home and then turned up to court the next morning. The police were really brutal with me to be honest. I lost a lot of respect for the police service but I have to say that the reliance staff were superb as were the prison officers and the people in court. They kept me in a separate cell from all the low-lifes which was one saving grace.
You've got me thinking now though. I just thought the night in the cells was standard practice but I'm going to ask my solicitor why I was kept in if you guys are saying that it's not normal unless the crime is serious.
You've got me thinking now though. I just thought the night in the cells was standard practice but I'm going to ask my solicitor why I was kept in if you guys are saying that it's not normal unless the crime is serious.
25 April 2009, 10:24 PM
#88
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police arrived at my house at around 2:00pm after I'd phoned them in the morning and made arrangements for them to come round. They told me I was being detained for questioning and took me to the police station. They put me in a cell for around 4 hours whilst they conducted inquiries. They came back and interviewed me and subsequently arrested me. They put me back in the cell for an hour or so before taking me to a larger police station with many more cells at around 8:00pm. I was put in a cell overnight and then taken to court in the morning at around 8:00am. I appeared at around 2:00pm and was bailed at the back of 3. In total I was imprisoned for around 24 hours.
^^^that normal?
^^^that normal?
25 April 2009, 10:27 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No!
You sure you weren't arrested before being placed in the cell for 4 hours and then further arrested for a seperate offence after?
You can't be detained without being arrested.
You sure you weren't arrested before being placed in the cell for 4 hours and then further arrested for a seperate offence after?
You can't be detained without being arrested.