I enquired about whether anyone was being prosecuted after a RTA (I
was not involved) and received the following response -

"As for any prosecution I cannot say.I am sure if there is one you
will read it in the local news as we cannot give this information from
this office"

Not knowing the procedures - is this reasonable, or am I being given
the brush off ?

Thanks

Daytona

Daytona wrote:
I enquired about whether anyone was being prosecuted after a RTA (I
was not involved) and received the following response -

"As for any prosecution I cannot say.I am sure if there is one you
will read it in the local news as we cannot give this information from
this office"

Not knowing the procedures - is this reasonable, or am I being given
the brush off ?

IIUC, the police do not take decisions on whether to prosecute - the CPS
does. The CPS will, presumably, get the file, will look at it to see if
it there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest
(eg check that the police themselves behaved lawfully) and then will
make a decision.

I get the impression that the police officers involved will get to know
(especially if the matter is not being prosecuted because of their
mistakes) but otherwise it is basically out of their hands and most of
them will only find out when it appears in the local paper...

--
Sue

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:30:09 +0000, Palindr?me
wrote:

The CPS will, presumably, get the file, will look at it to see if
it there is sufficient evidence

I probably asked them the wrong question then, as I don't even know if
it got to this stage.

and whether it is in the public interest
(eg check that the police themselves behaved lawfully) and then will
make a decision.

I've never understood 'public interest'. It seems to me as if it could
be used in a discriminatory fashion. Isn't it a method of sidelining
the courts ?

Thanks

Daytona

Daytona wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:30:09 +0000, Palindr?me
wrote:


The CPS will, presumably, get the file, will look at it to see if
it there is sufficient evidence


I probably asked them the wrong question then, as I don't even know if
it got to this stage.


and whether it is in the public interest
(eg check that the police themselves behaved lawfully) and then will
make a decision.


I've never understood 'public interest'. It seems to me as if it could
be used in a discriminatory fashion. Isn't it a method of sidelining
the courts ?


I've only heard one side of the story - from CPS legal staff who seem to
have a pretty low opinion of police officers (Doubtless the police
officers have a similar opinion of CPS legal staff). But dropping
relatively minor prosecutions so as not to expose the actions of the
police officers concerned to legal scrutiny does seem quite a regular
happening..

--
Sue

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:30:27 +0000, Palindr☻me wrote:

dropping
relatively minor prosecutions so as not to expose the actions of the
police officers concerned to legal scrutiny does seem quite a regular
happening..

Yes, a senior policeman told me that even serious cases can be in the
balance in this respect.

In message ,
=?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= writes
But dropping relatively minor prosecutions so as not to expose the
actions of the police officers concerned to legal scrutiny does seem
quite a regular happening..

I have no view but another take on that could be that the CPS dont take
it further because they know that police cock ups mean there is no way
the case would be proven in court, so if that is the case why bother
incurring the expense of taking it to court?
--
John Boyle