Jasper
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
Another legal injustice
A mate of mine has just been done for assault and battery. He was walking down a main road in Brighton at night when he was grabbed from behind and
pulled down. As he went down he lashed out and hit the guy in the side of his head with his fist in self defence.
Now my mate is 5'4" and the other guy is 6'2". My mate has no criminal record at all, the other guy has lots of previous and
is a known town drunk.
It was all seen by a policeman, who report it. He later went on to change his report to say he also kicked him when he was down.
There were 3 indepedent witnesses, all who testified in court.
Everyone in the court agreed it was self defence including the magistrate, the court usher told him 'no way will they convict you', the
copper had to retract his statement that he kicked him as all the other witnesses said he didn't. The other guy didn't even turn up.
The magistrate said he used excessive force, BUT the other guy had no injuries, no bruising or anything to show from it at all.
So the magistrate has convicted him, but then gave him no fine, no communtiy service, no nothing.
So my mate now has a criminal record, he was looking to open a pub/bar/restaurant in the next couple of years, highly unlikely they will give him an
alcohol license now ..... he's gutted.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
Appeal!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 01:51 PM |
|
|
Yeah - he's checking with his solicitor whether to or not ....
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
TigerB6 Paul
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
Thats ridiculous - how can they have convicted?? As said - clearly appeal!!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
In the current political environment I'd be appealing and getting the local MP wannabee's involved.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
gottabedone
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
try the IPCC as well
He may also be able to have the "conviction" quashed
Steve
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
i did jury duty once. the case was over a fight between two guys.
there were quite a few events leading up to it but the basic jist was
one chap was upset with another for talking to his girlfriend, so went over and was shouting and squaring up to him. the chap tried to walk off but
the boyfriend was obviously looking for a punch up. after 20 odd mins of arguing the chap lashed out and kicked two barrels of crap out of the girls
boyfriend. ended up in court and the guy walked out scott free because he was provoked and felt threatened by the girls boyfriend.
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
g/f was on jury service recently. she'd come home crying some nights due to either what she's heard in the court or because of the other
people on the jury.
Lets just say the "tried by your equals" should be changed to "tried by mentally competent equals".
Appeal and hope you get a jury made up of people with some brains.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
No jury, trial was in front of a magistrate, if it went to appeal it will be in front of a judge and a magistrate ... I'll let him know about
the IPCC.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 03:46 PM |
|
|
Why the IPCC? It wasn't the police that convicted him it was the courts.
Just to add that a police officer can't really retract a statement especially when he was just giving a witness account and certainly not under
pressure because some other people saw differently. The judge may choose to dismiss it if they thinks it was mistaken.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
The police officers original statement apparently did not have anything about him kicking the guy on the floor. This was added later. During the trial
yesterday the kicking was mentioned by the policeman and was denied by my mate and the witnesses. I don't know what exactly happened but the
kicking part was ignored by the magistrate. The way the police dealt with it was brought into question at the time.
Don't know anymore than that.....
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
se7en
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 06:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mistergrumpy
Why the IPCC? It wasn't the police that convicted him it was the courts.
Just to add that a police officer can't really retract a statement especially when he was just giving a witness account and certainly not under
pressure because some other people saw differently. The judge may choose to dismiss it if they thinks it was mistaken.
For the CPC to prosecute it is on the say-so of the police. If the police do not recommend prosecution then the CPC would not proceed.
From CPS website The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and
Wales.
You can appeal but if I was in your shoes I would be going to a solicitor and instructing him to take a case of assault against the yob.
|
|
|
se7en
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
Sorry, posted twice
[Edited on 6/3/10 by se7en]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 6/3/10 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
look on the bright side, a lad i know got 17 years last week.
Must say that wasnt a legal injustice though, he was guilty as charged!
[Edited on 6/3/10 by JoelP]
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 7/3/10 at 12:53 AM |
|
|
I'm not too up on court procedures, they're a bit of a mystery to me. Who's the CPC? You've lost me a bit there but it's
my understanding that the CPS are their own entity and were originally brought in to recommend on charging decisions to the police. This role has
progressed to the point where they now decide whether prosecution goes ahead at all in all but some minor cases.
They are not employed by the police and so the IPCC would not cover them I think.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 7/3/10 at 07:31 AM |
|
|
mistergrumpy is corret there, the police present a file to the CPS and they then decide if its worth progressing on.
|
|
|
