ipp

[loopylou8]

My son has been told to expect an IPP. He is accused with another of robbery of a motor bike in a street. The victim gave a different description of him and even told people that his co-de had a knife The victim changed his story and has said that my son had a knife. My son made every effort to return the stolen property and eventually did. The police arrested him and within minutes the victim turned up, showing that he was in the vicinity and probably witnessed my son being put in the police car.
The next day he formally identified him, is this a legal?
Ten yrs ago he had a fight with a drug dealer and pleaded guiltyand recieved 31/2 yrs.

[bednobs]

i don't really understand your question - is what legal? If the victim has been asked to identify the perpertrator then clearly they were in the area (witnessing) when the event took place, so what is the relevance of the victim seeing the perpertrator arrested?
Also i dont understand if your son had the stolen property to return, how there is any doubt it was him? is he contesting it?

[obNOXious]

I was of the understanding that to be found guilty of theft, you had to intend to permanantly deprive the person of their property. If your son returned to property then that's unlikely to hold water. I may well be wrong on this point as I have no legal training, so wait for some of the trained big guns to turn up and I'm sure they'll advise you, but that's what I thought.

[loopylou8]

What I mean is that he couldn't identify my son because the description he gave didn't fit. My son tried to return the property when he found out who it belonged to. He arranged to give it back and the police turned up and arrested him. He then picked him out from the I.D.photos because he had a good look at him being arrested. Is this part legal?
He's def telling lies about the knife because there wasn't one and I suspect the police are egging him on because they tried to fit my son up just before xmas and he contested it and it took the jury 43 mins to find him not guilty after a 3 day trial turned into three weeks 'cos the police withheld evidence.

[paraffin]

Both of your versions are confusing. Let me ask you some straight questions, perhaps it will become clearer?

1. Where was your son when he was arrested?

2. Was the bike owner actually present at the arrest? Yes or No?

3. Had your son been taken away by the Police before the bike owner turned up?

4. Where has your information come from? Were you present either at the scene of the crime or when your son was arrested?

5. How do you know that the victim has changed his story?

6. What do you mean by IPP? You shouldn't use such abbreviations because most people won't know what they mean.

If you can answer the questions, numerically please, I may be able to give an opinion. Thanks.

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

I've stayed out of this thread up until now because I can't understand exactly why your son has been told he's facing an IPP.

(For the benefit of Paraffin, and anyone else who doesn't recognise the abbreviation, I'll state that an 'IPP' is a sentence of 'Imprisonment for Public Protection'. It's effectively the same as a life sentence, in that the judge sets a 'tariff' determining the time that an offender must spend in prison, before his release can even be considered. However the offender won't actually be released until he's satisfied the relevant authorities that he no longer presents a risk to society. Prison reformers have expressed strong concerns that offenders given an 'IPP' can't be released until they've satisfactorily completed all relevant courses, yet many such offenders have no access to those courses within the prisons where they're accommodated).

[Buenchico]

As I read it, your son was convicted of a serious assault (GBH? GBH with intent?) 10 years ago. You've now stated that he's been accused of little more than 'mugging' 10 years later. There's absolutely nothing there which indicates a 'pattern of behaviour', likely to lead to an IPP.

Before anyone can really try to make sense of your question, and then provide a useful answer, we need all of the facts. Did your son have any convictions prior to the incident 10 years ago? (If so, what were they for). Exactly what offence did your son plead guilty to 10 years ago? Has he 'been in trouble' in the intervening period? (If so, what for?). Exactly what has he now been charged with?

I'm sorry that this post doesn't directly help with your question but I can see no reason why a court would consider imposing an IPP on an offender unless there's evidence of a repeated pattern of offending. 'Mugging' someone for their motorbike, ten years after 'getting into a fight' doesn't display a pattern of offending which requires an offender to be locked up indefinitely 'for public protection'.

Please fill in the gaps and then, hopefully, someone here might be able to advise you.

Chris

[paraffin]

Chris:

Thanks for the explanation - we live and learn !

[stevewwfc]

pray to god your son does not get an ipp.because if he maintains his innocence,he aint getting out! when i was on the island a young lad 23 had done all the courses etc and is still there 4 and half years after getting a 2 year ipp. I got an ipp tariff of 5 years ,my conviction was quashed, and my ipp was unlawful[because my alleged crime was before 4.4.05,when ipp,s came into effect] my previous specified crime was gbh in 1980. if he does any offender behaviour courses he can forget about appealing against conviction.sorry if this is no help,but its the way it is,barbaric, i hope he avoids ipp best wishes.stevewwfc