Jump to content

Fatal Hit & Run


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

Just speculating but perhaps something else was going on at the same time and they possibly thought there may be a link between the two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

What was really scary was the mob mentality of 3FM followers (and others) wanting some kind of vigilante justice against those who were wrongly arrested. Typical IOM mentality. 

Unfortunately it's not just the IoM mentality, we have thick tw@s everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Unfortunately it's not just the IoM mentality, we have thick tw@s everywhere.

We seem to be going for the Gold Standard of thick tw@ts on the island

Like the world tin bath races, we have the only competition so we must be the best at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

You need to understand the difference between reasonable cause to SUSPECT and reasonable cause to BELIEVE. 

the former, on a scalar has been described as ‘an informed hunch’, or 2/10 on the scale. The latter is ‘pretty darn sure’ and is more an 8 or 9 out of 10.

Reasonable cause to suspect is where the power to arrest sits. The officer has to satisfy a necessity test, and then the custody sergeant has to be convinced there is a need to detain in order to secure and preserve evidence (forensics, prevent interference with potential witnesses etc) and to obtain evidence by questioning, which is giving the suspect their opportunity to give their aid of the story.

So in answer to your question, there does indeed only have to be a ‘crumb’ of evidence for an arrest to be an option. That then opens up a raft of other investigative tools around search and seizure of evidence, whilst also fiercely protecting the suspects legal rights, with the likes of JW at their side.

If there appears to be sufficient evidence to charge, the matter is laid before the AG’s who will apply the evidential test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors (see 4.7 to 6.5). If there is a decision to charge, one will also be taken on whether to bail or not prior to appearance at court.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derek Flint said:

You need to understand the difference between reasonable cause to SUSPECT and reasonable cause to BELIEVE. 

the former, on a scalar has been described as ‘an informed hunch’, or 2/10 on the scale. The latter is ‘pretty darn sure’ and is more an 8 or 9 out of 10.

Reasonable cause to suspect is where the power to arrest sits. The officer has to satisfy a necessity test, and then the custody sergeant has to be convinced there is a need to detain in order to secure and preserve evidence (forensics, prevent interference with potential witnesses etc) and to obtain evidence by questioning, which is giving the suspect their opportunity to give their aid of the story.

So in answer to your question, there does indeed only have to be a ‘crumb’ of evidence for an arrest to be an option. That then opens up a raft of other investigative tools around search and seizure of evidence, whilst also fiercely protecting the suspects legal rights, with the likes of JW at their side.

If there appears to be sufficient evidence to charge, the matter is laid before the AG’s who will apply the evidential test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors (see 4.7 to 6.5). If there is a decision to charge, one will also be taken on whether to bail or not prior to appearance at court.

 

"fiercely protect"?  Sorry, Derek, that is neither demonstrated in the culture or attitudes of the police, and that is a general observation not confined to the IOM.  The police are tuned to be critical and dubious of information provided to them and the default is to be suspicious.  That does not sit well with "fiercely protecting" the legal rights of those under investigation.  Sure, they will, in the main, observe the procedural requirements, but to dress that up as "fiercely protecting" is over- egging that particular pudding. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gladys said:

"fiercely protect"?  Sorry, Derek, that is neither demonstrated in the culture or attitudes of the police, and that is a general observation not confined to the IOM.  The police are tuned to be critical and dubious of information provided to them and the default is to be suspicious.  That does not sit well with "fiercely protecting" the legal rights of those under investigation.  Sure, they will, in the main, observe the procedural requirements, but to dress that up as "fiercely protecting" is over- egging that particular pudding. 

Not every arrested person wants an advocate while they're in police custody - however, it is their right to have one if they so wish, and that is explained to them by the custody officer upon their arrival into custody at a police station.  The detained person can change their mind about wanting/not wanting an advocate at any time, which again is explained to them at the outset, and in any reviews of their detention.   I should imagine in situations where a detainee does not want an advocate, then the role of protecting their rights etc while in police custody probably rests with the custody officer, but others on this forum may know differently.  Anyway, as far as I can tell the rules governing police detention are laid out in the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 - a recommended read for insomniacs by the look of it - and ancillary Codes of Practice.   I've read media reports where the defending advocates have looked for breaches in police procedures, so I guess that if these breaches are proven then it could result in the police case being thrown out.  In more serious cases - but in reality every case - I can well imagine Facebook going into total meltdown if a case gets thrown out because the police failed to adhere to laid down procedures.  Not to mention the waste of public money.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

Most likely because people like you would go on a week later asking why there had been no update and how useless the police are as in your experience of watching the Bill everything is wrapped up nicely in an hour.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

Most likely because people like you would go on a week later asking why there had been no update and how useless the police are as in your experience of watching the Bill everything is wrapped up nicely in an hour.

The only thing you lot wrap up in an hour is your feckin sandwiches

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, John Wright said:

There will clearly be a record of their arrest, the interviews, and the bail and NFA. But it’s not public. It doesn’t form part of their previous convictions/criminal record. It was an arrestable offence so speculative dna samples will have been taken. Can’t remember how long that is kept for off top of my head.

When you travel to the US (and possibly other countries too) there is a box you have to fill out on the application 'have you ever been arrested' . Not 'convicted', no time limit mentioned.  Now they'll have to tick the 'yes' box forever, and there's a good chance they'll not be allowed in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bombay Bad Boy said:

When you travel to the US (and possibly other countries too) there is a box you have to fill out on the application 'have you ever been arrested' . Not 'convicted', no time limit mentioned.  Now they'll have to tick the 'yes' box forever, and there's a good chance they'll not be allowed in. 

a win for the americans then.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People like me would prefer more care was taken before innocent people suffered all kinds of abuse.   People like me don’t appreciate rushed actions but prefer everyone involved gets treated fairly and the correct result.  Crowing has no place in the justice system there are real human beings involved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bombay Bad Boy said:

When you travel to the US (and possibly other countries too) there is a box you have to fill out on the application 'have you ever been arrested' . Not 'convicted', no time limit mentioned.  Now they'll have to tick the 'yes' box forever, and there's a good chance they'll not be allowed in. 

I think the ticket price would stop that being a real problem long term TBH

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

I think the ticket price would stop that being a real problem long term TBH

dunno, there must be quite a few quid in some illicit activities or they wouldn't be worth the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...