ChatterBank0 min ago
Why did these people escape punishment
be warned the picture is upsetting, and can't understand how the thugs managed to get away with this crime.
http://www.dailymail....e-ANY-punishment.html
http://www.dailymail....e-ANY-punishment.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I don’t know how Lincolnshire police work but generally the Youth Offending Team (YOT) – like the Probation Service - have no remit to decide whether a prosecution is brought or not. The stated aim of YOT is to prevent young people offending. This should more properly be “reoffending” because few if any youngsters come into contact with YOT unless they have already offended. Charging decisions are solely matters for police and the CPS.
As exdc rightly says, the injuries sustained by the girl go way beyond Common Assault and a charge of ABH would have been proper. The police have the discretion to issue cautions and conditional cautions rather than to ask the CPS whether a prosecution is appropriate. What you see here is the result of the excessive use (and often abuse) by the police of such out-of-court disposals. The facility was introduced to deal with low-level crime committed usually by first-time offenders. “Mission Creep” has seen their use extended to deal with serious crime and/or repeat offenders and victims are not receiving the justice they deserve. Yesterday came reports that a woman was given a caution for making false accusations of rape (which, not surprisingly, had a profound long term impact on her alleged attacker whom she falsely accused). She should properly have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
The assault on the young girl is another excellent example of that mission creep. At the very least the matter should have been put to the CPS for a charging decision to be made. It is easy work for the police to issue a caution instead of preparing the matter for the CPS and possibly for court action. For the Lincolnshire constabulary to suggest the decision was that of the YOT does them no credit at all and brings them into disrepute.
As exdc rightly says, the injuries sustained by the girl go way beyond Common Assault and a charge of ABH would have been proper. The police have the discretion to issue cautions and conditional cautions rather than to ask the CPS whether a prosecution is appropriate. What you see here is the result of the excessive use (and often abuse) by the police of such out-of-court disposals. The facility was introduced to deal with low-level crime committed usually by first-time offenders. “Mission Creep” has seen their use extended to deal with serious crime and/or repeat offenders and victims are not receiving the justice they deserve. Yesterday came reports that a woman was given a caution for making false accusations of rape (which, not surprisingly, had a profound long term impact on her alleged attacker whom she falsely accused). She should properly have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
The assault on the young girl is another excellent example of that mission creep. At the very least the matter should have been put to the CPS for a charging decision to be made. It is easy work for the police to issue a caution instead of preparing the matter for the CPS and possibly for court action. For the Lincolnshire constabulary to suggest the decision was that of the YOT does them no credit at all and brings them into disrepute.
Quite so, em. Victims of violent crime are entitled to see their attackers dealt with robustly and issuing a caution does not meet that definition in my view.
This matter is complicated slightly by the fact that the alleged offenders are under 18. However, here’s an extract from the Code for Crown Prosecutors that deals with young offenders:
"Prosecutors should not avoid a decision to prosecute simply because of the suspect's age. The seriousness of the offence or the youth's past behaviour is very important."
"Cases involving youths are usually only referred to the prosecution service for prosecution if the youth has already received a reprimand and final warning, unless the offence is so serious that neither is appropriate or the child or young person does not admit committing the offence."
It is my view that this offence was “so serious” that a reprimand or warning was not appropriate. It is also my suspicion (though of course I do not know) that this matter was not properly put before the CPS.
By the way, there was a slight error in my earlier answer. “Conditional Cautions” cannot be issued by the police but must be dealt with by the CPS.
This matter is complicated slightly by the fact that the alleged offenders are under 18. However, here’s an extract from the Code for Crown Prosecutors that deals with young offenders:
"Prosecutors should not avoid a decision to prosecute simply because of the suspect's age. The seriousness of the offence or the youth's past behaviour is very important."
"Cases involving youths are usually only referred to the prosecution service for prosecution if the youth has already received a reprimand and final warning, unless the offence is so serious that neither is appropriate or the child or young person does not admit committing the offence."
It is my view that this offence was “so serious” that a reprimand or warning was not appropriate. It is also my suspicion (though of course I do not know) that this matter was not properly put before the CPS.
By the way, there was a slight error in my earlier answer. “Conditional Cautions” cannot be issued by the police but must be dealt with by the CPS.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.