Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a complaint
to the police that they were assaulted by Person B. The police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B believes that the recording of the incident is sufficient to demonstrate that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of the venue has reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is of the opinion that the footage supports B's account of the incident. Person B informed the police that CCTV of the incident is
available when being interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording, and Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have already sent the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the police appear not to have carried out a full investigation prior to making the decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect, as B will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court and, if correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B has suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV amounts to malpractice,
since it has increased the prospect of an unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to hear if charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I am a little surprised that the police didn't ask
for a copy of the CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have an opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit will not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors made by the police).
Mark
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a
complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B. The
police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B believes
that the recording of the incident is sufficient to demonstrate
that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of the venue has
reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is of the opinion that
the footage supports B's account of the incident. Person B informed
the police that CCTV of the incident is available when being
interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording, and
Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have already sent
the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the police appear
not to have carried out a full investigation prior to making the
decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect, as B
will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court and, if
correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B has suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV amounts
to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of an
unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to hear if
charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I am
a little surprised that the police didn't ask for a copy of the
CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have an
opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what
would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present
when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid
solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit will
not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors made by
the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what
happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount
to an assault even if B believes his actions were justified in some
way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a
complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B. The
police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B believes
that the recording of the incident is sufficient to demonstrate
that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of the venue has
reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is of the opinion that
the footage supports B's account of the incident. Person B informed
the police that CCTV of the incident is available when being
interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording, and
Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have already sent
the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the police appear
not to have carried out a full investigation prior to making the
decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect, as B
will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court and, if
correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B has
suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV amounts
to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of an
unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to hear if
charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I am
a little surprised that the police didn't ask for a copy of the
CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have an
opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what
would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present
when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid
solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit will
not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors made by
the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what
happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount
to an assault even if B believes his actions were justified in some
way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
But surely without viewing the footage, nobody will know if it is of
value or not? Person B may be proved correct by the CCTV.
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:29:16 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a
complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B. The
police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B believes
that the recording of the incident is sufficient to demonstrate
that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of the venue has
reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is of the opinion
that the footage supports B's account of the incident. Person B
informed the police that CCTV of the incident is available when
being interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording,
and Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have
already sent the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the
police appear not to have carried out a full investigation prior
to making the decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect, as
B will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court and, if
correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B has
suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV amounts
to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of an
unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to hear if
charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I
am a little surprised that the police didn't ask for a copy of the
CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have
an opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what
would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present
when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid
solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit
will not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors
made by the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what
happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes
amount to an assault even if B believes his actions were justified
in some way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either
side.
But surely without viewing the footage, nobody will know if it is of
value or not? Person B may be proved correct by the CCTV.
My point is that his account of events may coincide with the other
party's account of events and the CCTV might confirm this. But the
actions B admitted to may still amount to an assault even if B
believes his actions were blameless.
On 15 Apr 2024 16:32:54 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:29:16 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a
complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B. The
police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B believes
that the recording of the incident is sufficient to demonstrate
that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of the venue has
reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is of the opinion
that the footage supports B's account of the incident. Person B
informed the police that CCTV of the incident is available when
being interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording,
and Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have
already sent the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the
police appear not to have carried out a full investigation prior
to making the decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect, as
B will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court and, if
correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B has
suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV amounts
to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of an
unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to hear if
charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I
am a little surprised that the police didn't ask for a copy of the
CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have
an opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what
would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present
when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid
solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit
will not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors
made by the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what
happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes
amount to an assault even if B believes his actions were justified
in some way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either
side.
But surely without viewing the footage, nobody will know if it is of
value or not? Person B may be proved correct by the CCTV.
My point is that his account of events may coincide with the other
party's account of events and the CCTV might confirm this. But the
actions B admitted to may still amount to an assault even if B
believes his actions were blameless.
I understand that, but without seeing the footage, nobody will ever know which is the case.
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what happened, >even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount to an assault even >if B believes his actions were justified in some way that makes them in his >view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
On 15/04/2024 17:40, Davey wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:32:54 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:29:16 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a
complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B.
The police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B
believes that the recording of the incident is sufficient to
demonstrate that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of
the venue has reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is
of the opinion that the footage supports B's account of the
incident. Person B informed the police that CCTV of the
incident is available when being interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording,
and Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have
already sent the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the
police appear not to have carried out a full investigation prior
to making the decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect,
as B will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court
and, if correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be
acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B
has suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV
amounts to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of
an unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to
hear if charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that
far, but I am a little surprised that the police didn't ask for
a copy of the CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have
an opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what
would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present
when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid
solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit
will not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors
made by the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of
what happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's
eyes amount to an assault even if B believes his actions were
justified in some way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either
side.
But surely without viewing the footage, nobody will know if it is
of value or not? Person B may be proved correct by the CCTV.
My point is that his account of events may coincide with the other
party's account of events and the CCTV might confirm this. But the
actions B admitted to may still amount to an assault even if B
believes his actions were blameless.
I understand that, but without seeing the footage, nobody will ever
know which is the case.
I don't think you have quite followed. If B has admitted to something
that amounts to an assault, even if B does not think it is, the CCTV
is irrelevant.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:57:41 +0100
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 15/04/2024 17:40, Davey wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:32:54 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:29:16 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 at 17:11:22 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Following a minor contretemps in a public venue, Person A made a >>>>>>> complaint to the police that they were assaulted by Person B.
The police interviewed Person B under caution.
The location of the incident is covered by CCTV. Person B
believes that the recording of the incident is sufficient to
demonstrate that the complaint is unjustified. The operator of
the venue has reviewed the CCTV at Person B's request, and is
of the opinion that the footage supports B's account of the
incident. Person B informed the police that CCTV of the
incident is available when being interviewed.
However, the police have not requested a copy of the recording,
and Person B's solicitor informs them that the police have
already sent the file to the CPS. Person B is concerned that the >>>>>>> police appear not to have carried out a full investigation prior >>>>>>> to making the decision to refer it to the CPS.
Now, in the long run, this shouldn't have any negative effect,
as B will, if charged, produce the CCTV as evidence in court
and, if correct in their assessment of what it shows, will be
acquitted.
I'm more interested in this from a procedural aspect. Person B
has suggested that the failure of the police to view the CCTV
amounts to malpractice, since it has increased the prospect of
an unnecessary court case and left them in limbo waiting to
hear if charges will be brought. I'm not sure I would go that
far, but I am a little surprised that the police didn't ask for
a copy of the CCTV.
Does anyone with more knowledge of police procedure than me have >>>>>>> an opinion on this? Assuming that a charge is brought, but B is
acquitted on the basis of the CCTV evidence, would there be any
mileage in a formal complaint about the police? And, if so, what >>>>>>> would be procedure for going about this?
(To anticipate a likely question: The duty soliciter was present >>>>>>> when B was interviewed and, if charged, B will be eligible for
legal aid and so will be represented in court. But the legal aid >>>>>>> solicitor will only be dealing with the case itself, his remit
will not extend to the meta-aspects of the case such as errors
made by the police).
Mark
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of
what happened, even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's
eyes amount to an assault even if B believes his actions were
justified in some way that makes them in his view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either
side.
But surely without viewing the footage, nobody will know if it is
of value or not? Person B may be proved correct by the CCTV.
My point is that his account of events may coincide with the other
party's account of events and the CCTV might confirm this. But the
actions B admitted to may still amount to an assault even if B
believes his actions were blameless.
I understand that, but without seeing the footage, nobody will ever
know which is the case.
I don't think you have quite followed. If B has admitted to something
that amounts to an assault, even if B does not think it is, the CCTV
is irrelevant.
Has B made such an admission?
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what happened, >> even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount to an assault even
if B believes his actions were justified in some way that makes them in his >> view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
I am reliably informed that the CCTV shows no contact between A and B.
To give a little more detail, B was helping to move a portable ramp used to enable a disabled person in a mobility scooter to go down some steps. A allegedly made an insulting remark to B. B responded by throwing down the ramp and walking away. A alleged that B deliberately struck A with the ramp. The CCTV apparently supports B's assertion that they simply threw the ramp
to the ground, and that not only did the ramp not make contact with A but that A was not close enough for it to have done so, even accidentally.
Of course, it is possible that this could still be interpreted as common assault if it genuinely gave A cause to fear attack. But A is alleging not merely assault but battery, claiming to have been deliberately struck with the ramp by B. If the account I have been given of the CCTV is accurate then the evidence does rebut[1] that claim.
[1] In the correct sense of the term.
Mark
I will present a couple of possibilities:
(1) The police were inclined to NFA the incident, but strongly believed
'A' would appeal this decision, meaning they'd likely send it the the
CPS for review in any event. Easier, quicker and 'better' for everyone >(except 'B', who's going to have to wait a while longer to get his NFA >letter), as the police can then paint the CPS as the "bad guys" over the >decision not to charge.
(2) Here is a link to the CPS Charging Standard for Common Assault (s.39 >Criminal Justice Act 1988) [^1].
It is possible that in the statement 'B' has made, he has admitted to >committing an act by which he recklessly caused 'A' to suffer or
apprehend immediate unlawful violence, (e.g. by throwing the ramp to the >ground in the manner he did).
'A' may be alleging assault and battery (which would be charged as
"Assault by beating") from which the CCTV would show no battery took
place, but that doesn't mean that the charge with which the CPS may
proceed is what 'A' wants. They may be looking at a charge of Common
Assault for which they believe they have grounds to make a case without
the CCTV.
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what happened, >> even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount to an assault even
if B believes his actions were justified in some way that makes them in his >> view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
I am reliably informed that the CCTV shows no contact between A and B.
To give a little more detail, B was helping to move a portable ramp used to enable a disabled person in a mobility scooter to go down some steps. A allegedly made an insulting remark to B. B responded by throwing down the ramp and walking away. A alleged that B deliberately struck A with the ramp. The CCTV apparently supports B's assertion that they simply threw the ramp
to the ground, and that not only did the ramp not make contact with A but that A was not close enough for it to have done so, even accidentally.
Of course, it is possible that this could still be interpreted as common assault if it genuinely gave A cause to fear attack.
But A is alleging not
merely assault but battery,
claiming to have been deliberately struck with
the ramp by B. If the account I have been given of the CCTV is accurate then the evidence does rebut[1] that claim.
[1] In the correct sense of the term.
On 15/04/2024 21:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 15 Apr 2024 16:18:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
One thing I would be concerned about is that B's statement of what happened,
even if confirmed by CCTV, may in the police's eyes amount to an assault even
if B believes his actions were justified in some way that makes them in his >>> view not an assault.
If this is so then the CCTV would be of limited value to either side.
I am reliably informed that the CCTV shows no contact between A and B.
To give a little more detail, B was helping to move a portable ramp used to >> enable a disabled person in a mobility scooter to go down some steps. A
allegedly made an insulting remark to B. B responded by throwing down the
ramp and walking away. A alleged that B deliberately struck A with the ramp. >> The CCTV apparently supports B's assertion that they simply threw the ramp >> to the ground, and that not only did the ramp not make contact with A but
that A was not close enough for it to have done so, even accidentally.
Of course, it is possible that this could still be interpreted as common
assault if it genuinely gave A cause to fear attack.
Only if B had the intent to cause that fear.
But A is alleging not
merely assault but battery,
I thought battery relied on contact.
claiming to have been deliberately struck with
the ramp by B. If the account I have been given of the CCTV is accurate then >> the evidence does rebut[1] that claim.
[1] In the correct sense of the term.
I'm wondering what B said in his interview under caution. He should have
a copy. Either way, if the evidence is introduced in court I'd wager a
not guilty verdict on the basis of the CCTV, as long as that was the
only occasion an alleged crime took place.
Furthermore A might have to explain why his version of events is very different from CCTV evidence. Whether the police pursue a claim of
Wasting Police Time is another question.
On 16/04/2024 11:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/04/2024 21:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
But A is alleging not
merely assault but battery,
I thought battery relied on contact.
It does. And can be bumped up to ABH if the contact causes bruising,
which I suspect being deliberately hit with a disabled ramp would.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:03:51 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,495 |