Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Kardassian Vulture

Prosecution becomes Persecution by Government Policy?

Recommended Posts

Courier P2 Jan 18 2019 prints a side article with a deeply disturbing undercurrent,states that "High Bailiff slates police in drugs case'.Apparantly a man was being prosecuted for iilegal drugs.He was brought to court and was given a discharge because 'the police had not provided test results confirming [drugs]..it was not the first time this had happened" in the words of Jayne Hughes. To me,this demonstrates the highly central protectionist approach of the Court and the scapegoating of the Police.The Prosecutions service,part of the Attourney General's Office as are the Courts, is responsible for the prosecution,the Police are not.Yet not even a whisper of mention about her collegues incompetence.For the Attourney General to issue a prosecution there must already be evidence likely to result in a succesful prosecution.And yet there wasn't.On what basis then and with what evidence was this prosecution advanced to Court at all.Personal whim? Authoritarian abuse of power,or Government Policy? Prosecuting without evidence happens normally in the relms of third world dictatorships, not advanced modern democracies. In places intent on persecuting the public for the demonstration of absolute Power instead of prosecuting for the intent of justice,there is wholesale breakdown in society,and mass population emigration.Sounding familiar? And what of the testing services that failed in this case.Failed again.Maybe because it wasn't drugs,or maybe there was a whole heap of incompetence with the testing center.Again.This does not inpire any confidence in our testing services,which has been admonished over many years looking at back reports.That our Judicial processes are deeply biased and parade a deeply rooted system of blame and scapegpoatism to protect the friends in high places is testament to how the whole of our Governmental system works. Jason Moorhouse,under FOI,found our 'guilty' rate extraodinarily high,confirming the average Joe has poor access to justice via good advocates,or the Court judgements are following an extreme plan of prosecution and persecution.Do you think we have an open,transparant,honest trustworthy system of justice, or does this case confirm other findings of a dire sytem intent of persecuting the least well off and most vulnerable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't uncommon. Former poster Censorship loved highlighting this kind of nonsense.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It isn't uncommon. Former poster Censorship loved highlighting this kind of nonsense.

Nonsense? A prosecution without evidence? Its scandalous.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the prosecution success rate is down to mainly charging guilty people?

The courts are not 'responsible' for the prosecution, only the conduct of the trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Nonsense? A prosecution without evidence? Its scandalous.

Take into account who made that stupid statement and it really means very little.

Prosecutions with no credible evidence is attempted more times than you think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it looks as if immediately  it was the fault of the Police:

Quote

A man charged with cannabis possession has been given a two-year conditional discharge. Deputy High Bailiff Jayne Hughes was critical of the way the case was handled after she heard the police had not provided test results confirming the substance was cannabis and had not weighed it. She said it was not the first time this had happened.

Darren James Foster, of Mona Street, Douglas, admitted paying £40 for cannabis, which the court heard, he handed to police when officers attended his house on another matter on January 9. Representing himself in court, Foster, aged 47, said that he suffered from arthritis and used cannabis to alleviate the pain.

As it would have been their responsibility to arrange it to be weighed and tested.  They don't seem to have bothered as he had admitted to it, but if he had actually been represented I suspect his advocate would have advised him to change his plea and he would have had to be acquitted.  But it wasn't without evidence because there was an admission.

A more relevant question is why he was charged at all.  Once a crime has been reported and admitted, the Police are pretty much obliged[1] to pass it on to the AG's Office to make the decision as whether to prosecute.  Last July the Chief Constable was complaining about the amount of police time being taken up and Malarkey was saying that we shouldn't prosecuting for small amounts.  There have since been talks about licencing medical cannabis.  And yet here is someone else with a small amount which he claims is for medical purposes is before the Courts.  

So you do have to ask why the AG's Office is bothering to waste everyone's time like this - I suppose it's because it's an 'easy win' - which may also explain the high success rate.  If you only bother with crimes based on how easy they are to prosecute, rather than how serious they are, then you're bound to have a high guilty rate - and more serious criminals are going to know that being awkward will end up with charges being dropped.

 

[1]  Though I don't know how much latitude they would have about cautions in this case.  It could also be that the Police didn't expect a prosecution and so decided not to waste time and money getting the evidence analysed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Take into account who made that stupid statement and it really means very little.

Prosecutions with no credible evidence is attempted more times than you think

Is that aimed at me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Is that aimed at me?

So you’re not as stupid as you make out then...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a fucking idiot. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my post. Lets break it down. There are 3 main parts. Instances like this are a nonsense, they are not uncommon, and the poster Censorship raised it frequently. There is a giant thread on here about exactly these kind of cases. Andy Onchan is possibly right that it is scandalous that these things keep happening, maybe, I raised it in that thread about the guy with mental health issues locked in a cell with no toilet only to piss in it and then get charged, and then have it thrown out of court. Either malicious or incompetent, one or the other, certainly nonsensical. What is your fucking problem? You've got serious comprehension issues, ask borderline retarded questions (although possibly not as bad as lightbulb) you have no sense of nuance, and on the occasions you actually get a joke you're one of those annoying twats who feels the need to explain it. An absolute banana.

Edited by TheTeapot
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

You're a fucking idiot. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my post. Lets break it down. There are 3 main parts. Instances like this are a nonsense, they are not uncommon, and the poster Censorship raised it frequently. There is a giant thread on here about exactly these kind of cases. Andy Onchan is possibly right that it is scandalous that these things keep happening, maybe, I raised it in that thread about the guy with mental health issues locked in a cell with no toilet only to piss in it and then get charged, only for it to be thrown out of court. Either malicious or incompetent, one or the other, certainly nonsensical. What is your fucking problem? You've got serious comprehension issues, ask borderline retarded questions (although possibly not as bad as lightbulb) you have no sense of nuance, and on the occasions you actually get a joke you're one of those annoying twats who feels the need to explain it. An absolute banana.

Stop backtracking sweary boy.

You clearly posted Censorship loved highlighting this kind of nonsense. Not my fault if you lack the basic principles of posting clearly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neil Down said:

Stop backtracking sweary boy.

You clearly posted Censorship loved highlighting this kind of nonsense. Not my fault if you lack the basic principles of posting clearly...

I know. I said that. There's a giant thread about it. It's the one where Mr Flint kept offering him biscuits. You're a numbskull. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

In this case it looks as if immediately  it was the fault of the Police:

As it would have been their responsibility to arrange it to be weighed and tested.  They don't seem to have bothered as he had admitted to it, but if he had actually been represented I suspect his advocate would have advised him to change his plea and he would have had to be acquitted.  But it wasn't without evidence because there was an admission.

A more relevant question is why he was charged at all.  Once a crime has been reported and admitted, the Police are pretty much obliged[1] to pass it on to the AG's Office to make the decision as whether to prosecute.  Last July the Chief Constable was complaining about the amount of police time being taken up and Malarkey was saying that we shouldn't prosecuting for small amounts.  There have since been talks about licencing medical cannabis.  And yet here is someone else with a small amount which he claims is for medical purposes is before the Courts.  

So you do have to ask why the AG's Office is bothering to waste everyone's time like this - I suppose it's because it's an 'easy win' - which may also explain the high success rate.  If you only bother with crimes based on how easy they are to prosecute, rather than how serious they are, then you're bound to have a high guilty rate - and more serious criminals are going to know that being awkward will end up with charges being dropped.

 

[1]  Though I don't know how much latitude they would have about cautions in this case.  It could also be that the Police didn't expect a prosecution and so decided not to waste time and money getting the evidence analysed.

How in the name of Sweet JC on a bike could the IoM authorities bring a case to Court without even having tested the substance in question to ascertain that it was an illicit substance?

Is there any end to the the lack of professionalism and sheer incompetence on this Island?

Edited by Non-Believer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

I know. I said that. There's a giant thread about it. It's the one where Mr Flint kept offering him biscuits. You're a numbskull. 

Well done, you didn’t resort to swearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

How in the name of Sweet JC on a bike could the IoM authorities bring a case to Court without even having tested the substance in question to ascertain that it was an illicit substance?

Is there any end to the the lack of professionalism and sheer incompetence on this Island?

NO!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×