Skip to main content

Happy New Year

I hope you all had a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.

I don't have anything particularly interesting to talk about at the moment, so I thought I'd take the chance to talk about what I got up to over the "break".

Most of my Xmas and New Year was spent drink driving... not me, but my clients.  I was on duty Xmas Day and had a couple of calls for drink drivers who were denying being the driver and who the police had decided to interview (no idea why since they hardly ever seem to interview them at any other time even when they do deny driving).

As a firm believer in seasonality I took the regular clamp down on drink driving as a chance to set up a little website to attract some more business, which didn't turn out so bad.  As a result I have been thinking quite a lot about drink driving this festive season, although I am quite please that none of my clients have actually managed to hurt anybody on the roads, unlike one chap I saw in court today who mowed a pedestrian down while both drunk and disqualified!

Aside from drink drivers I have also spent the break dealing with the other big Xmas past time - beating up your loved ones!  I've had about 6 domestic violence cases over the last week ranging form the moderately serious to the sort where I'm scratching my head as to why he was arrested, more about that in a moment.  Most of the cases were what you'd expect, a man assaulting his female partner - the most serious of which was a threat to choke the victim. 

All of them involved the same combination of triggers: 1. Close proximity for a long period or time; and 2. Lots and lots of booze, in fact so much booze that most of the clients (and complainants) were unable to give full accounts of what had happened.

One case is worth mentioning in the "I can't understand why he was arrested" category.  Police are called by a wife who says she's been assaulted by her husband.  Police arrive and the wife gives her account, which is that her husband had been in contact with his ex so the ex could have contact with their kids who live with him.  Current wife doesn't like this and says she flew off the handle and attacked her husband initially with fists and then when he put his hand up to ward off her blows she bit him.  Shortly after she told police that she threw a glass bottle at him, which broke a window.

He gave an identical account in all respects except he says she threw his mobile telephone, destroying it along with the window, and not a bottle.

For reasons I cannot fathom the police arrested him, held him in a cell for 14 hours and then interviewed him during which they asked virtually no questions.  He gave his account and the officer said, "that's what she told us", quickly read her account then ended the interview and NFA'd the case!

Comments

  1. Perhaps they thought that the two of them shouldn't be left together?
    although why they didn't arrest *her*... Could they have done so, if he didn't reuqest it / want to press charges?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assault is a criminal offence. My (lay) understanding is that that means it is a matter between the crown and the defendant. The victim isn't a party, so their wishes are of no legal consequence (although obviously without their testimony the trial won't last very long).

      Perhaps they thought he might have coerced her into changing her story before they arrived, and were expecting to get slightly different versions of a made up story. When they got the same version, they realised it must have been the truth.

      Delete
    2. Bagpuss, yes they could have arrested her. The police don't need a complaint to have been made to arrest somebody providing the office has ground to believe a crime has taken place and arrest is necessary.

      Anon, I didn't get the impression from the officers that they were looking out for anything like that, but you do make a very good point.

      Delete
    3. Without going into details, but similar circumstances, I asked the attending policeman why she was not arrested. His answer? 'Because she phoned us first'

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…