Time To Change The Law On Drugs?

[gettafa]

On the Isle of Man the police do decide, it is up to the police whether or not they forward a matter to the Attorney General. If they don't want to - they just don't. It is a severe failing in our system of law.

But this is the Isle of Man.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, gettafa said:

On the Isle of Man the police do decide, it is up to the police whether or not they forward a matter to the Attorney General. If they don't want to - they just don't. It is a severe failing in our system of law.

But this is the Isle of Man.

But that’s is the role of the police everywhere. They act as gatekeepers, deciding what to investigate, whether to arrest, whether to do nothing, caution, divert to awareness courses or other non judicial dispositions. The prosecutions do the same, decide to proceed, or not, or divert to non judicial disposals or take the case the whole way. Then the courts exercise discretion also. The presence of discretion in a criminal justice system is totally necessary, unless you want a totalitarian state where every small infringement is reported and pursued ( think communist East Germany  and Nazi Germany ).

It isn’t a failing, its a strength.

Edited July 15, 2018 by John Wright

[Rog]

1 hour ago, Chutney said:

When the police decide which laws they are going to investigate then they no longer represent either the government or the people.

When resources are very limited it's best to go for where you get the biggest bang for the buck and not the low hanging fruit which has very little value to society when taken out.

[WTF]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

But that’s is the role of the police everywhere. They act as gatekeepers, deciding what to investigate, whether to arrest, whether to do nothing, caution, divert to awareness courses or other non judicial dispositions. The prosecutions do the same, decide to proceed, or not, or divert to non judicial disposals or take the case the whole way. Then the courts exercise discretion also. The presence of discretion in a criminal justice system is totally necessary, unless you want a totalitarian state where every small infringement is reported and pursued ( think communist East Germany  and Nazi Germany ).

It isn’t a failing, its a strength.

the strength being you can keep letting off the certain people and turn a blind eye when it suits.

[Rog]

2 minutes ago, WTF said:

the strength being you can keep letting off the certain people and turn a blind eye when it suits.

I believe that's more likely to happen in the AG's office than anywhere in the police.

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, WTF said:

the strength being you can keep letting off the certain people and turn a blind eye when it suits.

OK, I know most of you think I’m part of the system, but I’ve not seen that in the last 20+ years, if ever.

[gettafa]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

But that’s is the role of the police everywhere. They act as gatekeepers, deciding what to investigate, whether to arrest, whether to do nothing, caution, divert to awareness courses or other non judicial dispositions. The prosecutions do the same, decide to proceed, or not, or divert to non judicial disposals or take the case the whole way. Then the courts exercise discretion also. The presence of discretion in a criminal justice system is totally necessary, unless you want a totalitarian state where every small infringement is reported and pursued ( think communist East Germany  and Nazi Germany ).

It isn’t a failing, its a strength.

The Attorney General's offices - the equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service -  will decide if a case progresses to court.  But hey, what if the police don't bother informing the AG's.

As John has said. The gatekeeper is in control. The police. 

[yootalkin2me]

38 minutes ago, gettafa said:

The Attorney General's offices - the equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service -  will decide if a case progresses to court.  But hey, what if the police don't bother informing the AG's.

As John has said. The gatekeeper is in control. The police. 

Quite rightly so. Unfortunately the Police and law system is a necessary evil imho because people in general can't be trusted to do the right thing.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, gettafa said:

The Attorney General's offices - the equivalent of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service -  will decide if a case progresses to court.  But hey, what if the police don't bother informing the AG's.

As John has said. The gatekeeper is in control. The police. 

No, there are different gates and different keepers at every step all the way through the system. Not just one.

[gettafa]

Oh John, though art so naive.

 

 

Edited to say:

Perhaps I should say, too happy and trusting in your fellow establishment

Edited July 15, 2018 by gettafa

[Chutney]

7 hours ago, Rog said:

When resources are very limited it's best to go for where you get the biggest bang for the buck and not the low hanging fruit which has very little value to society when taken out.

But it’s not for the police to decide which are the ‘low hanging fruit’. I would have more understanding if the offences  they were turning a blind eye too were summary offenses but it definitely should not be stuff that is dealt with at crown court or are ‘either way’ offences .

[WTF]

11 hours ago, John Wright said:

OK, I know most of you think I’m part of the system, but I’ve not seen that in the last 20+ years, if ever.

Ahh, the blind eye bit....   LOL

[John Wright]

I’m neither naive, nor turning a blind eye. Apart from last 12 months, when I’ve been ill, I’ve been representing clients from arrest, through detention, interview, charge or not charge decisions, for 37 years. I have hands on coal face experience of what goes on, and of doing my best to ensure the best outcome ( not going through the gate marked prosecute) for clients. 

The suggestion seems to be that the police don’t take action against prominent, influential or wealthy people. It just isn’t true in my experience, which involves thousands of cases.

[Derek Flint]

13 hours ago, John Wright said:

OK, I know most of you think I’m part of the system, but I’ve not seen that in the last 20+ years, if ever.

I can think of one that was dropped by the AG’s (at the highest level)  that left us all scratching our heads at Dukes Avenue...

[asitis]

The Police have investigated prominent politicians, wealthy individuals and all manner of people with connections, there has been a number of well publicised court cases . There are a plethora of reasons why people do not even get further than the Police in respect of prosecution, the offence is not made out i.e. all the elements needed to fit the act and section of the offence are not present, there are no witnesses who can be relied upon to prove or disprove the offence, there is no forensic evidence, the complaint is malicious etc etc all this before it even gets to the next stage the AG !

The AG will then look at is there a realistic chance of a conviction, is there a manner in which this should have been disposed of etc etc.

I suspect that the percentage of people who you would describe as the man in the street who go forward to prosecution is the same pro rata as the percentage of people who you wouldn't place in that category ! The authorities cannot prosecute or not by inference, only evidence !