| 24 Hours in Police Custody 17:50 - Nov 29 with 4894 views | britferry |
Anyone watch the channel 4 program last night?
If not, watch it on catch up, its shocking.
The UK justice system is broken. |  |
| |  |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:28 - Dec 5 with 706 views | KeithHaynes |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 11:48 - Dec 5 by felixstowe_jack |
Mysterious explosions reported at two Russian airbase both deep in Russian well out of range of anything the Ukrainians posses. |
Hopefully local resistance sick of Putin. |  |
| |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:40 - Dec 5 with 685 views | Sirjohnalot |
This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why you get a solicitor before you say anything to the police and why it is vital to get one in interview and why the right to legal advice has to be sacrament and why people like me do what we do. It is not all about defending scum.
He was originally arrested for s18 assault, (which is grievous bodily harm with intent) he was interviewed for s20 assault (GBH without intent) which has to be right. They’d not be able to show that he intended to cause serious harm.
Law here is very clear. It’s covered under s76 (5A) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk). Essentially it says that you are allowed to use disproportionate force in defending your house. (even if you are genuinely mistaken) You are not allowed to use disproportionate force Thinking behind it is that you cannot be expected to be thinking rationally when you wake up at 3am in the morning and someone is in your house but on the other hand you cannot act as a vigilante and effect revenge as you are (quite rightly) peed off.
So, eg, if you wake up and someone is there in your house and you hit them with a cricket bat resulting in them falling down the stairs, you are not guilty. If however, after 10 minutes of them being unconscious you go back down and belt them another 20 times, you are guilty as that is grossly disproportionate.
So in this case, if he had chased them outside and punched them in the 1st couple of minutes, he would not be charged Main issue this man had is that is not what he did. He got into his car, pursued them and essentially rammed them off the road as he was angry (understandably) but unfortunately, legally unacceptable. Chasing after them, perusing them and knocking them off the road is, unfortunately, grossly disproportionate. It is not a spur of the moment action, it is a lengthy, continuing deliberate action.
Personal opinion, the burglars deserved all they got, no sympathy whatsoever and I feel terribly sorry for this man. I case I would hate to prosecute, but would do if so instructed (in the same way as I have to defend people like the burglars)
I have just finished prosecuting a household aggravated burglary, firearm case where the householder stabbed and killed one of the burglars. He wasn’t charged, but they were. Very satisfying getting a conviction but his life was destroyed, has tried to kill himself a few times. Reason he was not charged is that it was dark, they had weapons (firearms, machetes, hammers etc) and he grabbed a knife and killed one. Clearly self defence.
Him saying that the law does not punish them may well be right, but unfortunately it adds to the revenge angle and is neither here not there as far as the law is concerned.
Just getting to the stage where he is walking to court. Unfortunately, the charge was a correct one. He would not have stood a chance in front of a jury.
As far as the sentence is concerned, anything under 24 months can be suspended. I disagree with the Judge here and am surprised that it was not suspended. In order to give one a judge has to consider whether eg, the person can be rehabilitated, (clearly the case here) whether there are other reasons (wife had to have an abortion, is now at risk from revenge) and whether it does not offend the principle of justice (not here).
Judge, also, however, cannot be swayed by public reaction. He or she is independent. It may have worth looking at whether it was appealable but it would be unlikely as it was not ‘grossly disproportionate’ Court of Appeal will not interfere.
Thankfully, he would have been eligible for what is called a Home Detention Curfew meaning that he would have been eligible for release 2/3 of the way through the half way point. So around 8 months.
Terribly sad case but the conviction was (legally) spot on. Without it, we would simply have vigilante justice in the street.
Just looked at he was charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. That's interesting that they did not charge him with assault. Unfortunately, what he said at the scene to the police knackered him for any defence for that.
Also seen that he lost £50,000 on legal fees, which seems to suggest he hired a KC. Gvnt have cut legal aid so much that he would not have qualified for legal aid in any event. Glad to see that the British Public raised money for him. You know the terrible thing ? Had he run it and been found 'not guilty' he would not have had his money back. Gvnt stopped that.
edit the force that the England footballerwould have been allowed to use would have been very high as they were all armed. (inclduing lethal force)
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:50 - Dec 5 with 665 views | controversial_jack |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:40 - Dec 5 by Sirjohnalot |
This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why you get a solicitor before you say anything to the police and why it is vital to get one in interview and why the right to legal advice has to be sacrament and why people like me do what we do. It is not all about defending scum.
He was originally arrested for s18 assault, (which is grievous bodily harm with intent) he was interviewed for s20 assault (GBH without intent) which has to be right. They’d not be able to show that he intended to cause serious harm.
Law here is very clear. It’s covered under s76 (5A) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk). Essentially it says that you are allowed to use disproportionate force in defending your house. (even if you are genuinely mistaken) You are not allowed to use disproportionate force Thinking behind it is that you cannot be expected to be thinking rationally when you wake up at 3am in the morning and someone is in your house but on the other hand you cannot act as a vigilante and effect revenge as you are (quite rightly) peed off.
So, eg, if you wake up and someone is there in your house and you hit them with a cricket bat resulting in them falling down the stairs, you are not guilty. If however, after 10 minutes of them being unconscious you go back down and belt them another 20 times, you are guilty as that is grossly disproportionate.
So in this case, if he had chased them outside and punched them in the 1st couple of minutes, he would not be charged Main issue this man had is that is not what he did. He got into his car, pursued them and essentially rammed them off the road as he was angry (understandably) but unfortunately, legally unacceptable. Chasing after them, perusing them and knocking them off the road is, unfortunately, grossly disproportionate. It is not a spur of the moment action, it is a lengthy, continuing deliberate action.
Personal opinion, the burglars deserved all they got, no sympathy whatsoever and I feel terribly sorry for this man. I case I would hate to prosecute, but would do if so instructed (in the same way as I have to defend people like the burglars)
I have just finished prosecuting a household aggravated burglary, firearm case where the householder stabbed and killed one of the burglars. He wasn’t charged, but they were. Very satisfying getting a conviction but his life was destroyed, has tried to kill himself a few times. Reason he was not charged is that it was dark, they had weapons (firearms, machetes, hammers etc) and he grabbed a knife and killed one. Clearly self defence.
Him saying that the law does not punish them may well be right, but unfortunately it adds to the revenge angle and is neither here not there as far as the law is concerned.
Just getting to the stage where he is walking to court. Unfortunately, the charge was a correct one. He would not have stood a chance in front of a jury.
As far as the sentence is concerned, anything under 24 months can be suspended. I disagree with the Judge here and am surprised that it was not suspended. In order to give one a judge has to consider whether eg, the person can be rehabilitated, (clearly the case here) whether there are other reasons (wife had to have an abortion, is now at risk from revenge) and whether it does not offend the principle of justice (not here).
Judge, also, however, cannot be swayed by public reaction. He or she is independent. It may have worth looking at whether it was appealable but it would be unlikely as it was not ‘grossly disproportionate’ Court of Appeal will not interfere.
Thankfully, he would have been eligible for what is called a Home Detention Curfew meaning that he would have been eligible for release 2/3 of the way through the half way point. So around 8 months.
Terribly sad case but the conviction was (legally) spot on. Without it, we would simply have vigilante justice in the street.
Just looked at he was charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. That's interesting that they did not charge him with assault. Unfortunately, what he said at the scene to the police knackered him for any defence for that.
Also seen that he lost £50,000 on legal fees, which seems to suggest he hired a KC. Gvnt have cut legal aid so much that he would not have qualified for legal aid in any event. Glad to see that the British Public raised money for him. You know the terrible thing ? Had he run it and been found 'not guilty' he would not have had his money back. Gvnt stopped that.
edit the force that the England footballerwould have been allowed to use would have been very high as they were all armed. (inclduing lethal force)
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Similar to what i posted earlier.it wasn't self defence. It was with intent. It would be easy for any juror to come to this conclusion. | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:56 - Dec 5 with 662 views | Sirjohnalot |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:50 - Dec 5 by controversial_jack |
Similar to what i posted earlier.it wasn't self defence. It was with intent. It would be easy for any juror to come to this conclusion. |
Intent to seriously injure would have been hard to prove, and I don't think a jury would have convicted him on it. Jury, take a vow to reach a conviction on the evidence, not sympathy. Feel unbelievably sorry for him. Life affected forever, may have to change their names etc | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:13 - Dec 5 with 640 views | britferry |
the police officers said as much, he chased them for 5 mins in a red mist of anger. I agree, it should have been suspended.
What gets everyone's backs up, is that the 2 scum bags didnt get jail time, not that it would have taught them a lesson, they were out robbing cars, what 8 weeks after the incident, so what would jail have done? castration would have been better, with a rusty old saw | |
| |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:29 - Dec 5 with 630 views | Sirjohnalot |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:13 - Dec 5 by britferry |
the police officers said as much, he chased them for 5 mins in a red mist of anger. I agree, it should have been suspended.
What gets everyone's backs up, is that the 2 scum bags didnt get jail time, not that it would have taught them a lesson, they were out robbing cars, what 8 weeks after the incident, so what would jail have done? castration would have been better, with a rusty old saw |
Love that you don’t just want to castrate them but with a rusty old saw too ; ) | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:31 - Dec 5 with 623 views | onehunglow |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:13 - Dec 5 by britferry |
the police officers said as much, he chased them for 5 mins in a red mist of anger. I agree, it should have been suspended.
What gets everyone's backs up, is that the 2 scum bags didnt get jail time, not that it would have taught them a lesson, they were out robbing cars, what 8 weeks after the incident, so what would jail have done? castration would have been better, with a rusty old saw |
It begs this question.
Does a householder have a duty of care to an intruder
He cannot affix stuff that would injure anyone trying to gain access and any force used in the house and in the immediate vicinity has to be assessed as not excessive.
This is our problem | |
| |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:38 - Dec 5 with 617 views | Jack123 |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 19:40 - Dec 5 by Sirjohnalot |
This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why you get a solicitor before you say anything to the police and why it is vital to get one in interview and why the right to legal advice has to be sacrament and why people like me do what we do. It is not all about defending scum.
He was originally arrested for s18 assault, (which is grievous bodily harm with intent) he was interviewed for s20 assault (GBH without intent) which has to be right. They’d not be able to show that he intended to cause serious harm.
Law here is very clear. It’s covered under s76 (5A) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk). Essentially it says that you are allowed to use disproportionate force in defending your house. (even if you are genuinely mistaken) You are not allowed to use disproportionate force Thinking behind it is that you cannot be expected to be thinking rationally when you wake up at 3am in the morning and someone is in your house but on the other hand you cannot act as a vigilante and effect revenge as you are (quite rightly) peed off.
So, eg, if you wake up and someone is there in your house and you hit them with a cricket bat resulting in them falling down the stairs, you are not guilty. If however, after 10 minutes of them being unconscious you go back down and belt them another 20 times, you are guilty as that is grossly disproportionate.
So in this case, if he had chased them outside and punched them in the 1st couple of minutes, he would not be charged Main issue this man had is that is not what he did. He got into his car, pursued them and essentially rammed them off the road as he was angry (understandably) but unfortunately, legally unacceptable. Chasing after them, perusing them and knocking them off the road is, unfortunately, grossly disproportionate. It is not a spur of the moment action, it is a lengthy, continuing deliberate action.
Personal opinion, the burglars deserved all they got, no sympathy whatsoever and I feel terribly sorry for this man. I case I would hate to prosecute, but would do if so instructed (in the same way as I have to defend people like the burglars)
I have just finished prosecuting a household aggravated burglary, firearm case where the householder stabbed and killed one of the burglars. He wasn’t charged, but they were. Very satisfying getting a conviction but his life was destroyed, has tried to kill himself a few times. Reason he was not charged is that it was dark, they had weapons (firearms, machetes, hammers etc) and he grabbed a knife and killed one. Clearly self defence.
Him saying that the law does not punish them may well be right, but unfortunately it adds to the revenge angle and is neither here not there as far as the law is concerned.
Just getting to the stage where he is walking to court. Unfortunately, the charge was a correct one. He would not have stood a chance in front of a jury.
As far as the sentence is concerned, anything under 24 months can be suspended. I disagree with the Judge here and am surprised that it was not suspended. In order to give one a judge has to consider whether eg, the person can be rehabilitated, (clearly the case here) whether there are other reasons (wife had to have an abortion, is now at risk from revenge) and whether it does not offend the principle of justice (not here).
Judge, also, however, cannot be swayed by public reaction. He or she is independent. It may have worth looking at whether it was appealable but it would be unlikely as it was not ‘grossly disproportionate’ Court of Appeal will not interfere.
Thankfully, he would have been eligible for what is called a Home Detention Curfew meaning that he would have been eligible for release 2/3 of the way through the half way point. So around 8 months.
Terribly sad case but the conviction was (legally) spot on. Without it, we would simply have vigilante justice in the street.
Just looked at he was charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. That's interesting that they did not charge him with assault. Unfortunately, what he said at the scene to the police knackered him for any defence for that.
Also seen that he lost £50,000 on legal fees, which seems to suggest he hired a KC. Gvnt have cut legal aid so much that he would not have qualified for legal aid in any event. Glad to see that the British Public raised money for him. You know the terrible thing ? Had he run it and been found 'not guilty' he would not have had his money back. Gvnt stopped that.
edit the force that the England footballerwould have been allowed to use would have been very high as they were all armed. (inclduing lethal force)
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Great post and interesting reading, wow never realised that, that you lose all legal costs even if you win , is that correct? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:43 - Dec 5 with 608 views | Sirjohnalot |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:38 - Dec 5 by Jack123 |
Great post and interesting reading, wow never realised that, that you lose all legal costs even if you win , is that correct? |
Yes. Nicknamed the innocence tax. You get a tiny proportion back at legal aid rates which are very low. Welsh Tory Mp wiped out his savings defending a case he won. Tory government changed it about 10 years ago maybe.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/tag/innocence-tax/ | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 21:33 - Dec 5 with 574 views | Jack123 |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:43 - Dec 5 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes. Nicknamed the innocence tax. You get a tiny proportion back at legal aid rates which are very low. Welsh Tory Mp wiped out his savings defending a case he won. Tory government changed it about 10 years ago maybe.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/tag/innocence-tax/ |
Thanks, so I suppose if you are wrongly accused of something, but don't qualify for legal aid, even if you win your case in court, if you have had legal representation, you would lose financially anyway.
That seems so wrong.
I would think, that the cps would bring somewhat borderline cases to court with that in place. | |
| |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 21:47 - Dec 5 with 570 views | Gwyn737 |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:43 - Dec 5 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes. Nicknamed the innocence tax. You get a tiny proportion back at legal aid rates which are very low. Welsh Tory Mp wiped out his savings defending a case he won. Tory government changed it about 10 years ago maybe.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/tag/innocence-tax/ |
Absolutely frightening. | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 23:03 - Dec 5 with 548 views | Sirjohnalot |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 21:33 - Dec 5 by Jack123 |
Thanks, so I suppose if you are wrongly accused of something, but don't qualify for legal aid, even if you win your case in court, if you have had legal representation, you would lose financially anyway.
That seems so wrong.
I would think, that the cps would bring somewhat borderline cases to court with that in place. |
Cps only charge if you’re n the interests of justice and if there’s sufficient evidence. Finance isn’t the CPS’s business otherwise you’d have
Two different people, one charged, one not on the same evidence. Plus cps won’t know at that stage | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 08:33 - Dec 6 with 494 views | Sirjohnalot |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 20:31 - Dec 5 by onehunglow |
It begs this question.
Does a householder have a duty of care to an intruder
He cannot affix stuff that would injure anyone trying to gain access and any force used in the house and in the immediate vicinity has to be assessed as not excessive.
This is our problem |
Theoretically yes but in the past a judge agreed they did, ordered the householder to pay 1p compensation due to contributory negligence and no costs for him but for the burglar to pay his own costs. That was before the law changed so unless you’ve got a ‘home alone’ style set up, you’ll be fine.
You’re not correct re not being excessive, law changed so that in order to be guilty it has to be ‘grossly disproportionate’. Huge difference in the force allowable now. | | | |
| 24 Hours in Police Custody on 10:06 - Dec 6 with 473 views | controversial_jack |
There's one thing to beware of though; as with any conflict or street fight - which is basically what it will be, is, if you up the level of violence then so will they. You don't know who they are, and neither do they. It's better not to intervene unless you are being directly threatened. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
