Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Entwood]

Please remember ... THIS DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE. The police send the papers on the case ... all evidence, witness statements etc etc .. to the Crown Prosecution Service .. it is the "reviewing lawyer" who decides if a case goes to Court or not.

The ability of the Police to prosecute a case was removed some years back by Nu Labour.

[omegod]

Please remember ... THIS DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE. The police send the papers on the case ... all evidence, witness statements etc etc .. to the Crown Prosecution Service .. it is the "reviewing lawyer" who decides if a case goes to Court or not.

The ability of the Police to prosecute a case was removed some years back by Nu Labour.

A load of shitbags, what they want is no record of reoffending after release as it will affect the "rehabilitated stats" I work with people on probation and it's near impossible to get them sent back to prison as it fooks up the probation service stats

[JamesV6CDX]

Please remember ... THIS DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE. The police send the papers on the case ... all evidence, witness statements etc etc .. to the Crown Prosecution Service .. it is the "reviewing lawyer" who decides if a case goes to Court or not.

The ability of the Police to prosecute a case was removed some years back by Nu Labour.

Although in this case, Del is saying that, despite positively identifying the offender, his staff have not been asked to give statements? Seems rather odd!

[Entwood]

Please remember ... THIS DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE. The police send the papers on the case ... all evidence, witness statements etc etc .. to the Crown Prosecution Service .. it is the "reviewing lawyer" who decides if a case goes to Court or not.

The ability of the Police to prosecute a case was removed some years back by Nu Labour.

Although in this case, Del is saying that, despite positively identifying the offender, his staff have not been asked to give statements? Seems rather odd!

In the opening post the Op states

.................. anyway yesterday the police told us he's been in court and been let off as they're is insufficient evidence!!! .....................................

which appears, to me anyway, that CPS took the matter to the Magistrates Court without gathering any more evidence. CPS SHOULD, (IMHO), have instructed the Officer of the Case to obtain the required statements. CPS run and manage all prosecutions and it is their responsibility to ensure the evidence is available and presented.

[JamesV6CDX]

totally agree...

[Ken T]

So who do you complain to if CPS are negligent in their duty ?. Or is it not worth it ?.

Ken



P.S. remember Del, you must use reasonable force, for defense only. Although how you define reasonable force..........

 

[Vamps]

My company had five drivers robbed last week, all one day after the other, he (the theif) then set about robbing three drivers from 2 other companies. At the weekend all of our drivers knew who he was, and we had a picture of him in all 30 cars. The police were informed and were on the hunt for him, as he'd just come out of prison after a five year stretch for an armed robbery on a Tesco store in Ashford. So anyway, we were informed Monday that he'd been caught, and the police had him in custody. Alls well that ends well me and all the other drivers thought, anyway yesterday the police told us he's been in court and been let off as they're is insufficient evidence!!! They said "because you've had pictures in the car you're drivers and the drivers from the other companies are just going on that"! Not the fact that every driver who was robbed confirmed that it was him. So he's got away with around £2000 and got off with it. This country is a sham!

Del, what is your business? I thought you were a motor trader, but you talk of drivers you do not have to answer this on here if you would rather not? I am just being nosey....