If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life1 min ago
After Someone Is Arrested And Suspected Of A Crime, Should The Police Release Details Of What Happened?
9 Answers
More specifically,
I have read many reports in the initial stage online on various police news posts. Most of them say things like "X person suffered this injury. 1 person is arrested on suspicion of GBH. It happened here at this time and would like witnesses to come forward."
In a case that I have seen, the police report was "X person was assaulted. A man approached the victims car and was banging on the window and shouting. As the younger male began to walk back to his car, the pensioner got out to take a photo of the man’s registration number – prompting the man to punch the pensioner at least once in the face." Then the usual appeal for witnesses.
This was prior to getting the suspects account and the suspect claims it didn't happen like that at all.
This seems fishy to me, as i've looked through countless other pre charge and pre conviction police reports/posts and none have that amount of detail in. Presumably this is some bias here? The police are putting the account of what happened in peoples heads already, rather than asking them what happened. Is this legal? Does this negate witness statements?
I'm no law student or qualified solicitor or anything of that matter, but it feels like common sense to not do that to get an unbias view on the situation by the police.
I have read many reports in the initial stage online on various police news posts. Most of them say things like "X person suffered this injury. 1 person is arrested on suspicion of GBH. It happened here at this time and would like witnesses to come forward."
In a case that I have seen, the police report was "X person was assaulted. A man approached the victims car and was banging on the window and shouting. As the younger male began to walk back to his car, the pensioner got out to take a photo of the man’s registration number – prompting the man to punch the pensioner at least once in the face." Then the usual appeal for witnesses.
This was prior to getting the suspects account and the suspect claims it didn't happen like that at all.
This seems fishy to me, as i've looked through countless other pre charge and pre conviction police reports/posts and none have that amount of detail in. Presumably this is some bias here? The police are putting the account of what happened in peoples heads already, rather than asking them what happened. Is this legal? Does this negate witness statements?
I'm no law student or qualified solicitor or anything of that matter, but it feels like common sense to not do that to get an unbias view on the situation by the police.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dampbunny1. 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.
The police can only report what they have been told by witnesses and victims when they appeal for other witnesses/people who may have information to come forward to help them catch the culprit.
Of course the event may not have happened, the victim telling lies but the police still have to investigate.
I don't know how else they can appeal for information to catch the culprit if they have to wait for his or her version of events.
No, it isn't illegal and it doesn't negate witness statements.
Of course the event may not have happened, the victim telling lies but the police still have to investigate.
I don't know how else they can appeal for information to catch the culprit if they have to wait for his or her version of events.
No, it isn't illegal and it doesn't negate witness statements.
There are a few who know what the law is on AB but are a bit coy about letting on.
My view is: UNTIL someone is charged, you can say just about anything. (but it had better be right)
After charging, there are strict restrictions which are always followed.
witnesses are prtected from being sued by 'witness immunity'
Bias is a bit early - if you have someone who has had the crap beaten out of them, there is no need to say 'and the unknown assailant said "oi didernt"
The Ben Stokes case was projected as stokes gay bashing, then the victims stated he wasnt, he was protecting them. Stokes acquitted. I still wonder why the case was brought. The injuries in the case were life changing ( exploded eye socket).
The Beeb are VERY coy over the Presenter, whoever he be, and in all their broadcasts are saying what the law is, when it is not. The Beeb dont want another Cliff Richard case even tho the Cliff House had been searched, he recovered damages. The Beeb is keeping mum ( haw haw haw) to minimise their financial liability and dressing it up as accepted Law
what was the question?
My view is: UNTIL someone is charged, you can say just about anything. (but it had better be right)
After charging, there are strict restrictions which are always followed.
witnesses are prtected from being sued by 'witness immunity'
Bias is a bit early - if you have someone who has had the crap beaten out of them, there is no need to say 'and the unknown assailant said "oi didernt"
The Ben Stokes case was projected as stokes gay bashing, then the victims stated he wasnt, he was protecting them. Stokes acquitted. I still wonder why the case was brought. The injuries in the case were life changing ( exploded eye socket).
The Beeb are VERY coy over the Presenter, whoever he be, and in all their broadcasts are saying what the law is, when it is not. The Beeb dont want another Cliff Richard case even tho the Cliff House had been searched, he recovered damages. The Beeb is keeping mum ( haw haw haw) to minimise their financial liability and dressing it up as accepted Law
what was the question?
witness statements are nt negated.
They just pile up and are still evidence
One side rubs its hands and says, "Oh I am going to have fun with that one!"
This did NOT happen in the Guildford bombs case ( for around 20y) and the defence Barrister Lord Wigoder told the innocent defendants the evidence was overwhelming.
They just pile up and are still evidence
One side rubs its hands and says, "Oh I am going to have fun with that one!"
This did NOT happen in the Guildford bombs case ( for around 20y) and the defence Barrister Lord Wigoder told the innocent defendants the evidence was overwhelming.
Modern discussion in the cliff richard case
which is here:
https:/
Very long preamble - the Judge goes thro EVERY broadcast
Discussion on privacy begins para 235 - phew
based on art 8 and ( you have a right to privacy) and art 10 ( journos are allowed to investigate and scribble)
and there is a balancing exercise
BUT Cliffs case was police ( who dont come out very well) and the beeb ( where the journos must get their scoop)
and here it is the journos only ( sun) and it is pretty obvious that the right to privacy wins
which is here:
https:/
Very long preamble - the Judge goes thro EVERY broadcast
Discussion on privacy begins para 235 - phew
based on art 8 and ( you have a right to privacy) and art 10 ( journos are allowed to investigate and scribble)
and there is a balancing exercise
BUT Cliffs case was police ( who dont come out very well) and the beeb ( where the journos must get their scoop)
and here it is the journos only ( sun) and it is pretty obvious that the right to privacy wins
"Are you suggesting this is wrong?"
No. Because they are describing the crimes committed. Not why they were committed.
I am saying that if i witness something. Lets say, a fight. I see someone hit somebody. The defendant said he was shouting when he was approached by the man in a threatening way.
The victim states he only got out and approached the man to take a picture.
If the police come to me, ask me what has happened and i give an account. This is all fair.
If the police say to you "A man got out of his car to take a picture and was punched in the face" rather than "A man was punched in the face". This is taking the victims side, creating a bias. Now the witness probably has no idea why the man stepped out of the car, but in the witness statement, its reflected that they took the same viewpoint of the police questioning them.
The victim claims to have also said something to the defendant while approaching him, but the witnesses AND the defendant both say he didn't say anything and just walked at him. So, it begs the question, did he really get out of his car to take a picture? And should they be putting these events to the witnesses before getting a statement? Its like they're prepositioning the witnesses.
No. Because they are describing the crimes committed. Not why they were committed.
I am saying that if i witness something. Lets say, a fight. I see someone hit somebody. The defendant said he was shouting when he was approached by the man in a threatening way.
The victim states he only got out and approached the man to take a picture.
If the police come to me, ask me what has happened and i give an account. This is all fair.
If the police say to you "A man got out of his car to take a picture and was punched in the face" rather than "A man was punched in the face". This is taking the victims side, creating a bias. Now the witness probably has no idea why the man stepped out of the car, but in the witness statement, its reflected that they took the same viewpoint of the police questioning them.
The victim claims to have also said something to the defendant while approaching him, but the witnesses AND the defendant both say he didn't say anything and just walked at him. So, it begs the question, did he really get out of his car to take a picture? And should they be putting these events to the witnesses before getting a statement? Its like they're prepositioning the witnesses.
it is quite clear the police can lie when they question you and the report will NOT be chucked out
we have a witness who says you were there.... and they havent - - - is par for the course.
In one book fraud case - the guy ( book seller) said "they always tell you not to talk to the police, I know: I did two years"
we have a witness who says you were there.... and they havent - - - is par for the course.
In one book fraud case - the guy ( book seller) said "they always tell you not to talk to the police, I know: I did two years"
1 to 9 of 9
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.