Oops

I left the robing room at Court today and walked in to the hall way.  Talking in the hallway were two police officers in full uniform.  Before they saw me, one said to the other in a very worried voice, "we're not gonna get away with this".  The other agreed.

Co-incidentally, at the same Court two police officers were being called to give evidence about what they had seen on CCTV.  The only problem in that case seems to be that the CCTV they claimed to have watched in October 2010 was in fact LOST in January 2010...

Comments

  1. Anonymous4 November 2010 at 20:48

    They must be corrupt then. Makes it a little easier to sleep at night that; assuming the cops are corrupt. Still, school fees are school fees and a skiing holiday is a skiing holiday. Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front? or you can always go for the process in some way, yes that's it, go for the process. And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4 November 2010 at 23:34

    Still playing to the rank and file in the peanut gallery, eh Gadget?

    Just out of curiosity as someone who claims to be a Inspector do you see nothing wrong in this? and how would you respond if the officers were under your command ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5 November 2010 at 09:03

    I'd think; well, they hear enough bullshit mitigation from solicitors, lies about 'oh, he's changed his life, he has a new girlfriend/baby etc' when they KNOW he will re-offend that they probably think it's OK. After all,. if the legal profession do it.......... but of course if they did something wrong they would be dealt with, unlike you lot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5 November 2010 at 09:05

    BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2685565/Half-of-all-criminals-re-offend-withn-a-year.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim Brown5 November 2010 at 11:31

    "Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front?"

    What an extraordinary point to make - isn't that one of the main tenets of the British legal system? The prosecutor lays it on thick, using a bit of artistic licence, based on the police statements, possibly similarly embellished and the probation officer is in the middle, possibly doing a bit of the same in one direction or the other. It's a game after all isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5 November 2010 at 21:57

    thats right. it is all a game......something i learnt very quickly joining plod.

    i still after all these years have more distain for the solicitors who quite plainly give their "cutomers" stories to tell on interview than the villians themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. silva fox6 November 2010 at 18:31

    what

    because the customers that you despise so much are not capable of making it up themselves?

    and gadget may be part of the thought police : able to know exactly how someone is going to behave in the years to come : but I dont know any solicitors who are.

    That said once gadget (in his own blog) decided that anyone who dared to plead not guilty should be remanded to prison he has rather jumped the shark.

    In his world the presumed innocent should all go to prison to think about how innocent they are. Maybe in North Korea ........


    and I would love to know how the rank and file like anon above deal the mental anguish that must be caused by the fact that the barrister who is acting for the prosecution this week (good guy) was acting for a "scrote" last week (bad guy).

    ReplyDelete
  8. silva fox6 November 2010 at 18:33

    and of course now gadget is actually endorsing perverting the course of justice ......

    Impressive

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6 November 2010 at 20:11

    'BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now'

    I'm reading, and the only thing I lose sleep over is having people like inspector gadget in positions of power in the police force. Is he for real? my grandfather fought to stop people like Gadget taking over.

    Answer me this Gadget why did you have a dishonourable discharge from the army ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Defence Brief6 November 2010 at 21:38

    "And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL."

    Funny, in my second ever post I said, "Do [solicitors] help clients fabricate their accounts to escape justice? Well, the truth is that yes some solicitors will do that... Should they do it? Of course not and the sooner such people are caught and thrown out of the profession the better."

    If only police inspectors were as good at basic investigation as they are at whinning about sking holidays and school fees.

    For the record, I have NEVER been on a sking holiday and my son does NOT go to a fee paying school.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous7 November 2010 at 02:05

    What I want to know is: why has Gadget been questioned twice about "inappropriate conduct" with children?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Defence Brief8 November 2010 at 16:07

    Has Gadget been questioned at all over inappropriate conduct with children? Well, you know what they say... no smoke without fire.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ed (not Bystander)8 November 2010 at 17:07

    And not even only the one time, it seems.

    Gadget, got anything to say? Or are you just going to just keep quiet and hope it goes away?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>