What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature3 mins ago
Suing the police...
Theoretically, you get arrested and charged with a crime, you lose your job, your case makes the local newspapers, you plead not guilty to the charge, it goes to court, and eventually overwhelming evidence suggests that you did not commit the crime. the case gets thrown out of court. Can the police be sued?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Craftypig. 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.
-- answer removed --
There are two issues here:
Firstly it is the CPS not the police who authorise the charges which bring people to court. The police present evidence to the CPS and it is they (the CPS) who decide whether there are grounds for a prosecution and what the appropriate charge is.
Secondly, before authorising any charge the CPS undertake a two stage test. The first stage is to establish that there is sufficient evidence to support a realistic chance of a court conviction. Stage two is to satisfy themselves that it is in the public interest to bring the prosecution.
Bearing that in mind it is not, strictly speaking, the police who are responsible for bringing charges but the CPS. If action were to be taken against the CPS for malicious or wrongful prosecution it would have to be shown that the prosecution had no foundation and was either malicious or blatantly wrong. The fact that the defendant had been acquitted by the due process would not necessarily support either of those contentions.
Firstly it is the CPS not the police who authorise the charges which bring people to court. The police present evidence to the CPS and it is they (the CPS) who decide whether there are grounds for a prosecution and what the appropriate charge is.
Secondly, before authorising any charge the CPS undertake a two stage test. The first stage is to establish that there is sufficient evidence to support a realistic chance of a court conviction. Stage two is to satisfy themselves that it is in the public interest to bring the prosecution.
Bearing that in mind it is not, strictly speaking, the police who are responsible for bringing charges but the CPS. If action were to be taken against the CPS for malicious or wrongful prosecution it would have to be shown that the prosecution had no foundation and was either malicious or blatantly wrong. The fact that the defendant had been acquitted by the due process would not necessarily support either of those contentions.
-- answer removed --
I was not personally arrested, its a pub conversation between drinking friends. so, as I say its only a theoretical question (theory being based on a few cheeky sherbets). I think New Judge makes a valid point with his reference to whether or not there is a realistic chance of a court conviction based on sufficient evidence. If evidence was presented that would ultimately show beyond reasonable doubt an individual was in fact not responsible for the alleged offences surely this should be taken into consideration before court proceedings begin?
In a criminal trial it is for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed. This is a hefty burden. It is not for the defence to prove anything to any standard at all, and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.
All the defence has to do is to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury or magistrates to ensure they are not sure and certain and they must acquit. So it is unlikely that evidence would be produced to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence was not committed. It is simply not the job of the defence to do so. Further, if such evidence did exist it would almost certainly be in the possession of the CPS and they would not continue the prosecution.
I accept the question is hypothetical, so hypothetically the basis to sue the police or the CPS is unlikely to exist.
All the defence has to do is to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of the jury or magistrates to ensure they are not sure and certain and they must acquit. So it is unlikely that evidence would be produced to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence was not committed. It is simply not the job of the defence to do so. Further, if such evidence did exist it would almost certainly be in the possession of the CPS and they would not continue the prosecution.
I accept the question is hypothetical, so hypothetically the basis to sue the police or the CPS is unlikely to exist.
If you were to be taken to court it would be the case that there was sufficient evidence likely to yield a conviction. If this was not the case, the CPS would have taken you to court, the police don't actually give the 'yes' to a court appearance.
But it is likely if you were found not guilty, you could request for the record of the charge to be deleted.
But it is likely if you were found not guilty, you could request for the record of the charge to be deleted.
What if you are charged and found guilty of conspiracy to supply class A drugs (Cocaine), and you are later able to explain the actions that caused the misunderstanding, and able to show that Police made false statements to keep a covert drugs operation covert for a further 2 months, but you are in prison for 10 years (first offence) can't speak proper English (and told the Police this is interview and were not offered or provided with a translator) and your appeal (against sentence is rejected by the 1st judge in the appeal process and your new solicitor can't get legal aid for you. What do you do or who do you write to? Remember you have no money because you are not a drug-dealer and your wife is now working all the hours to keep the children.
1 to 7 of 7
