Body Found

[John Wright]

I'm answering the request for legal eagle comment on a purely theoretical basis and with no reference to any alleged or supposed or speculated facts about the current case. The less said about that until the police investigation is completed, and either the arrested persons are released or charged, and in the latter case until after the trial is over, the better in terms of risk to a fair trial and or the risk of someone being sued or prosecuted for defamation of contempt etc.

 

Curiosity is a natural human trait, but sometimes we have to curb ourselves, or be curbed, for all sorts of reasons. Writing on here is very different to chatting in the pub, it is more or less permanent and is preserved. There are many examples of people posting in the social media who have got into trouble, been sued, been charged, dealt with for contempt or even caused trials to be aborted.

 

There are clear guidelines issued to the media, but not yet to social media correspondents. That is about to change in the UK

 

A question is posed about conversations being taped. Calls into the police station may well be taped. If a senior inspector calls the media to brief them is there a need to tape and preserve and should the media be warned? I cant answer that. Good practice probably indicates it should although why there should be private briefings rather than a press conference or dissemination by fax, or e-mail rather escapes me at present

 

In relation to custody time limits generally, and definitely not about the current case, as Gladys and Derek Flint have observed, the time limits in the Codes under the Police Powers and Procedures Act may be suspended or not even start. They do not commence at arrest, only when the arrested person arrives at the police station and is detained and they may subsequently be suspended or initial limits extended up to maximum 96 hours

 

So imagine a case where two drivers are racing each other and both crash into a third party car driven in the other direction by someone who is driving perfectly, on the correct side of the road, at a sensible speed. The innocent third party is killed outright, both the racers are seriously injured. The police are called and as a result of independent evidence from a bystander who saw the crash and from the driver of a car they over took they are both arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. Because of their injuries they are taken to Nobles, as is racer 1's passenger, and detained for scans, observation and treatment. They are not detained in custody, even although they are arrested. The PPP time limits do not start to run.

 

After 36 hours racer 1 is discharged from Nobles and taken to Police HQ. His detention is authorised by the custody officer. The custody clock starts ticking only as he is booked in by the custody officer, so the 96 hours does not even start, nor does questioning, until a day and a half after the incident. He's actually discharged and transferred to custody at midnight and it would be unfair to him to interview through the night so the interview is scheduled for 10 in the morning so racer 1 can sleep and be mentally fit to undergo a long day, or two; of questioning .

 

The police can hardly comment at that stage apart from something very basic because they do not have racer 1's explanation. There may actually be a good explanation, a defence and no offence. The witnesses may have mistaken what they think they saw. The police and AG's office cannot charge. The police are maintaining an open mind. Their job is to gather evidence, not act as evidence gatherers, judge and jury.

 

Racer 2 is more seriously injured and not discharged for a week, racer 2 is then transferred into custody, racer 2's time starts then after 168 hours under arrest but at Nobles. . In the mean time at hour 36 of detention racer 1 has a seizure whilst resting in his cell, is transferred back to hospital for a scan. Time is suspended. whilst tests are run. Time starts again when he returns to custody at Police HQ.

 

In the meantime the police are evidence gathering, forensics, examinations, pathologist, taking statements from witnesses and gathering CCTV and analysing it all. It would be improper to give out any facts other than bare essentials that are incontrovertible, such as identity of deceased, once family told, and brief explanation of type of incident and time of arrest.

 

The 2 racers in hospital may never be charged, they have not been charged. They are presumed innocent until proved guilty. They are as protected by Data Protection as much as you or I and the police cannot issue names until after charge when the fact of charge and court appearance become public etc.

 

So lack of info or comment is not a conspiracy or a withholding of info or a deliberate attempt to stop the posters on here who are curious from speculating. Its just good practical application of the law.

 

As driver 1 is questioned it becomes evident that he wasn't racing, there was a seriously ill person on the back seat who wasn't injured, he had called an ambulance and he was driving fast as he had been told the ambulance was elsewhere and he should get the ill person to hospital urgently to preserve life. He was on the correct side of the road driving very fast on an unrestricted road and racer 2 must have thought he was challenging for a race because after he had over taken racer 2 racer two then proceeded to try and over take him and force him off the road and the oncoming "innocent car" swerved into his path to avoid racer 2. At this stage racer 2 is still in hospital and not detained and has not been questioned. racer 1 is bailed for further enquiries. CCTV seems to support his story, so do the taped phone calls to 999 and the evidence of his passenger.

 

Really good that police didn't release anything speculative to the media and of course they still have to interview racer 2.

[ScotsAlan]

Good post JW.

[manxman1980]

I suspect it has more to do with the local media pay and conditions rather than Government censorship.

 

And also, people working in local media are also more likely to be a bit more sensitive than the ambitious hacks of the national press.

 

I reckon the Manx press do a good job on the whole. As do the Manx Police.

 

I know of a few people in the local media who try and exploit local connections rather than act sensitively.

[ScotsAlan]

 

 

I suspect it has more to do with the local media pay and conditions rather than Government censorship.

 

And also, people working in local media are also more likely to be a bit more sensitive than the ambitious hacks of the national press.

 

I reckon the Manx press do a good job on the whole. As do the Manx Police.

I know of a few people in the local media who try and exploit local connections rather than act sensitively.

Is that on a daily basis or once a decade?

 

And what is the topic?

 

Best bull in show.

 

Minister in dogging scandal.

 

I have not seen much evidence of your claims of tabloid reporting techniques in the Manx press.

 

Manx forums always likes evidence to back up factual posts. No evidence? yeah. Whatever. Your just a gossip like us :-)

[manxman1980]

ScotsAlan - I have sent you a private message regarding my experiences. For everyone else I have my reasons for not disclosing the details which include protecting my own anonymity and also that of the other people involved.

 

As to MF liking evidence to back up claims? Really??!

 

Back to the main topic though... Good to see Derek Flint & JW posting clear explanations of the procedures in events such as these.

[ScotsAlan]

ScotsAlan - I have sent you a private message regarding my experiences. For everyone else I have my reasons for not disclosing the details which include protecting my own anonymity and also that of the other people involved.

 

As to MF liking evidence to back up claims? Really??!

 

Back to the main topic though... Good to see Derek Flint & JW posting clear explanations of the procedures in events such as these.

Will read your pm next time I am on a pc.

[Domino]

JW - are you suggesting that rider no. 2 might have topped this bloke?

[Mr. Sausages]

And what happened to the passenger?

[Blade Runner]

 

JW - are you suggesting that rider no. 2 might have topped this bloke?

 

 

 

And what happened to the passenger?

 

And more importantly, I would question why this accident has not been reported in the press/ media..................................

 

[WTF]

Good post JW.

 

it comes out in hardback next week at all good charity shops.

[tameelf]

is it cheaper than toilet paper wtf

[Lonan3]

No cyclists involved?

[Blade Runner]

 

No cyclists involved?

 

It will likely turn out that the car swerved into the path of the other because it was trying to get past a group of cyclists out on a training run - 4 or 5 abreast.

[manxman1980]

"Police can confirm that they have, this evening, charged a 45 year old Castletown man with the murder of Neil Edward ROBERTS, who was found dead in a house in Queen Street, Castletown, in the early hours of Sunday 1st December 2013.

The man has been detained at Police Headquarters and will appear at Douglas Courthouse tomorrow morning.

A 47 year old woman who was also arrested in connection with the incident remains under arrest."

 

From the Isle of Man Constabulary facebook page

[Lonan3]

 

 

No cyclists involved?

 

It will likely turn out that the car swerved into the path of the other because it was trying to get past a group of cyclists out on a training run - 4 or 5 abreast.

Ahh, right. Now it makes sense!