ChatterBank2 mins ago
Arrested on Suspicion of Assault
I have been arrested on suspicion of assault after my neighbour told the police that I punched him during a confrontation when I did not do such a thing. I have been bailed for a week pending further inquries. I have never gotten in trouble with the police before and this was the first ever time. The person who has made the alligation of assault is a 14 year old youth who has been causing problems in the neigbourhood for some time with anti-social behaviour. The problem is that there was no witnesses and also he has admitted that he pushed me (which I now have found out can be classed as assault) and did make a compaint about it on the day it occured but it seems the police ignored my complaint and have dealt with his leading to my arrest. What kind of out come can occure in this situation.. will this lead to me going to court on his words that I punched him when I have said that it is not true?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ShaoKahn. 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.
If you were not interviewed on tape then its possible next time you attend the police station you will be. So i would recommend you get legal advise from a solictor.
Yes, if he pushed you then this would amount to common assault. Did you reacted at all i.e pushed him back? You are allowed to defend yourself in law.
The police may try to get you to accept a caution. Personally i would go to court and fight the allegation. Thats what the court is there for. Just because you have been arrested does not mean you are guilty.
Yes, if he pushed you then this would amount to common assault. Did you reacted at all i.e pushed him back? You are allowed to defend yourself in law.
The police may try to get you to accept a caution. Personally i would go to court and fight the allegation. Thats what the court is there for. Just because you have been arrested does not mean you are guilty.
Worse case scenario it goes to court.
It will have to "be proved beyond all reasonable doubt".
So............if there are no witnesses (on both sides) and as you didn't hit him there will be no forensic or medical evidence, how can this be proved?
The fact you have a clean record and this kid is known to the local fuzz, and the fact you reported a common assault first there is as much chance of a conviction than me joining the labour party.
Further, if you have made a complaint then it should have been crimed as a common assault and not just an incident. If it is has been crimed then the police have a duty of care to investigate. They are under a victim contract to do so.
As said, when or if you are interviewed you must seek legal representation.
I advise you strongly to prepare a statement with the legal rep and go NO COMMENT throughout interview. Even if you have something to say in the face of a cocky young copper, stay SILENT. All the facts will be in a statement.
It will be down to the Crown to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence. Your statement will thus stress your non-participation in any assault.
Further, in conjunction with the complaint against you, complain to the Inspector of the station concerned that your CRIME has not been dealt with. Make a formal complaint against the officer taking YOUR report.
We pay the Police a decent salary, and on the whole they are very deserved of it, but at times they do mess up.
It will have to "be proved beyond all reasonable doubt".
So............if there are no witnesses (on both sides) and as you didn't hit him there will be no forensic or medical evidence, how can this be proved?
The fact you have a clean record and this kid is known to the local fuzz, and the fact you reported a common assault first there is as much chance of a conviction than me joining the labour party.
Further, if you have made a complaint then it should have been crimed as a common assault and not just an incident. If it is has been crimed then the police have a duty of care to investigate. They are under a victim contract to do so.
As said, when or if you are interviewed you must seek legal representation.
I advise you strongly to prepare a statement with the legal rep and go NO COMMENT throughout interview. Even if you have something to say in the face of a cocky young copper, stay SILENT. All the facts will be in a statement.
It will be down to the Crown to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence. Your statement will thus stress your non-participation in any assault.
Further, in conjunction with the complaint against you, complain to the Inspector of the station concerned that your CRIME has not been dealt with. Make a formal complaint against the officer taking YOUR report.
We pay the Police a decent salary, and on the whole they are very deserved of it, but at times they do mess up.
Ignore the above it would be a disaster to make a no comment interview in circumstances such as these
The CPS will decide whether to charge not the Police. It is your word against his. You say you have no previous convictions whereas he has caused trouble and may be known to the Police. There are no witnesses. What is the age difference between you - this could have a bearing ie the older you are without getting into trouble then the less likely you are to become involved in behaviour like this
Also how proximate were the incident when he pushed you and the allegation that you have punched him
As it stands you may not even be charged but saying nothing is the worst thing you could do.
The CPS will decide whether to charge not the Police. It is your word against his. You say you have no previous convictions whereas he has caused trouble and may be known to the Police. There are no witnesses. What is the age difference between you - this could have a bearing ie the older you are without getting into trouble then the less likely you are to become involved in behaviour like this
Also how proximate were the incident when he pushed you and the allegation that you have punched him
As it stands you may not even be charged but saying nothing is the worst thing you could do.
Seatrout has clearly missed my part about making a statement.
Your statement will be read out in interview either by yourself or your brief.
And I strongly advise a NO COMMENT when an interview starts.
The reasons being:
1) It can not be held against you as your points will be covered in the statement.
2) As you have never been interviewed, they can be daunting and scarey. By going NO COMMENT you can nbot tie yourself up in knots.
3) You may say something wrong or out of context. You may then have to replicate this at court. Any discepency WILL GO AGAINST YOU.
4) There is a chance you will incriminate yourself. Maybe not for the assault but a public order offence.
A statement will suffice. The "points to prove" for assault are fairly short. They are "Did you (unlawfully) cause somebody to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence" and that is it.
Why go through a half hour+ interview when all CPS want is the above question asked???
Trust me, I am amongst the greatest criminal minds in the UK and seatrout is making the matter harder for you. If you didn't punch him, you didn't punch him.
All this talk about proximity or "impact factors" as CPS refer to them as are irrelevant and will only tie you up in knots.
Keep it simple and the best way is to statementize the FACTS and the facts only. The rest is hog wash.
Yes I know you have a lot to say, but why bother? It is also hard for people to stay silent in interview, and I can bet my house your legal rep will advise the same if he or she is any good.
Your statement will be read out in interview either by yourself or your brief.
And I strongly advise a NO COMMENT when an interview starts.
The reasons being:
1) It can not be held against you as your points will be covered in the statement.
2) As you have never been interviewed, they can be daunting and scarey. By going NO COMMENT you can nbot tie yourself up in knots.
3) You may say something wrong or out of context. You may then have to replicate this at court. Any discepency WILL GO AGAINST YOU.
4) There is a chance you will incriminate yourself. Maybe not for the assault but a public order offence.
A statement will suffice. The "points to prove" for assault are fairly short. They are "Did you (unlawfully) cause somebody to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence" and that is it.
Why go through a half hour+ interview when all CPS want is the above question asked???
Trust me, I am amongst the greatest criminal minds in the UK and seatrout is making the matter harder for you. If you didn't punch him, you didn't punch him.
All this talk about proximity or "impact factors" as CPS refer to them as are irrelevant and will only tie you up in knots.
Keep it simple and the best way is to statementize the FACTS and the facts only. The rest is hog wash.
Yes I know you have a lot to say, but why bother? It is also hard for people to stay silent in interview, and I can bet my house your legal rep will advise the same if he or she is any good.
Get a GOOD solicitor. Donot go no comment in the interview room - and donot answer any questions without a solicitor present. My son is serving 30months in prison becuase of a similiar incident (the other person was 25 years old though). There were no witnesses - the police did not send any forensics off (excuse - its too expensive). He plead not guilty at magistrates and it went to crown were the jury found him guilty. It was the other lads word against is and even the judge didn't believe the other lad.
Do you have previous.
Do you have previous.
my son was convicted because he went NO COMMENT - they said that if he had been innocent he would have stated his innocence. They said only a guilty person says NO COMMENT because they are trying to hide something.
My sons solicitor said to my son - "Do you think this will go to court" - my son said "No - because nothing happened". His solicitor said "then go - no comment".
Explain this to your solicitor when you get one and see waht he/she thinks.
I am not a professional in these matters but i am just informing you of what happened to me and my son. Hope it helps you.
My sons solicitor said to my son - "Do you think this will go to court" - my son said "No - because nothing happened". His solicitor said "then go - no comment".
Explain this to your solicitor when you get one and see waht he/she thinks.
I am not a professional in these matters but i am just informing you of what happened to me and my son. Hope it helps you.
Thank you for your various comments. I was arrested and interviewed on tape but I didnt have a solicitor present as I was intending the tell the truth of the matter. I'm 30 and the lad was 14. As mentioned previously, I've never been in trouble with the police in the past and this was the first ever time. As to whether I touched the lad, when he pushed me first, I didnt touch him but when he attemped to push me the second time, I held my hand out to stop him from doing so at which point he started saying that he was going to tell the police that I had hit him when I did no such thing. I also mentioned that when I reported the incident to the police on the same day but at the time I did not know that a push could be classed as assault so I did not use the term when reporting it. But since the police have confirmed this to me, I plan to make a complaint as to why they investigated the lads complaint immediately and have yet to look into my complaint. Also why did it take them 4 weeks to come and arrest me and not do so on the day of the incident/or following day. If they had done so then the incident would have been fresh in my mind hence I would have remember more of the details as to what was said and happened. Also in the lads statement, he has admitted to pushing me first so on that count, without reasonable doubt, I should be able to take my complaint to court? As to where the incident took place... there is a side alley between the two houses and there is a small brick wall (about waist high). I was standing within my property boundary (on my side of the wall) and he was standing in the alley way and basically came upto me and pushed me where as in his statement, he said I went upto him and confronted him but didnt mention the wall. (continued)
(continued) The officer told me that they had to speak to another officer (possibly the one that took the statement from the lad) and hence they bailed me for a week. When someone makes an allegation of assult.. done the officers who take the statement check for physical evidence (injury, bruising etc)? and write it down on their report? because I suspect that is what they are going to ask the other officer before deciding what to do.
Overall, I'm not happy at all as to how the police are dealing with this issue and I will complain once I find out the outcome of my arrest. I will also turn the table on the lad since he has admitted pushing me and hoepfully his admission will be enough to prosecute him regardless of what happens to me.
Overall, I'm not happy at all as to how the police are dealing with this issue and I will complain once I find out the outcome of my arrest. I will also turn the table on the lad since he has admitted pushing me and hoepfully his admission will be enough to prosecute him regardless of what happens to me.
It does not sound as if the police have handled this matter very well. The most serious shortcoming, I would suggest, is the lengthy delay between the incident and their action. As you say, the matters would have been fresher in your mind had their enquiries been launched a little earlier.
Having said that, I would be very wary of the advice from �one of the greatest criminal minds in the UK� (aka Bewlay Bros). You have probably heard on countless occasions on the telly �It may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court.� And indeed it may. Whilst you have a right to silence the law says (as Bewlay Bros�s great criminal mind should be aware) that the police, the CPS and, most importantly the Courts, can draw such conclusions as they think fit from your refusal to answer questions.
The police have a duty to investigate allegations. How they choose to do this may not always meet with everybody�s agreement, but one of the things they will almost certainly do if they intend that the matter proceeds to the CPS is to interview all parties. The results of those interviews will go to the CPS and form part of the evidence considered when deciding whether to prosecute.
You will have no idea what they will have discovered from other parties, or what they want you to clarify. The �prepared statement� routine will not help you one jot in convincing them of your innocence. Your statement is unlikely to be presented to court by the prosecution. The alternative is for you to read it in court in your defence and you will face cross examination on it.
As suggested by others, get a good solicitor (who will almost certainly not advise you to remain silent) and, under his guidance, co-operate fully with the police enquiries.
Having said that, I would be very wary of the advice from �one of the greatest criminal minds in the UK� (aka Bewlay Bros). You have probably heard on countless occasions on the telly �It may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court.� And indeed it may. Whilst you have a right to silence the law says (as Bewlay Bros�s great criminal mind should be aware) that the police, the CPS and, most importantly the Courts, can draw such conclusions as they think fit from your refusal to answer questions.
The police have a duty to investigate allegations. How they choose to do this may not always meet with everybody�s agreement, but one of the things they will almost certainly do if they intend that the matter proceeds to the CPS is to interview all parties. The results of those interviews will go to the CPS and form part of the evidence considered when deciding whether to prosecute.
You will have no idea what they will have discovered from other parties, or what they want you to clarify. The �prepared statement� routine will not help you one jot in convincing them of your innocence. Your statement is unlikely to be presented to court by the prosecution. The alternative is for you to read it in court in your defence and you will face cross examination on it.
As suggested by others, get a good solicitor (who will almost certainly not advise you to remain silent) and, under his guidance, co-operate fully with the police enquiries.
Exactly, reverend. And I imagine that the outcome will be "no further action". But meantime ShaoKahn would be well advised to co-operate as fully as possible.
This saga is indicative of the state the police forces in this country are now in. They are unable to make the simplest of decisions for themselves, having been divested of almost all the discretion you would expect them to be able to exercise.
Instead they have to go through a ridiculous routine for even the most straightforward of matters so that the CPS can make a simple decision on their behalf.
Meantime, whilst officers are in their various nicks filling out forms, real villains go about their daily business unfettered.
This saga is indicative of the state the police forces in this country are now in. They are unable to make the simplest of decisions for themselves, having been divested of almost all the discretion you would expect them to be able to exercise.
Instead they have to go through a ridiculous routine for even the most straightforward of matters so that the CPS can make a simple decision on their behalf.
Meantime, whilst officers are in their various nicks filling out forms, real villains go about their daily business unfettered.
Just to clarify... unless you fully admit the assault, the decision as to whether you are taken to court or not MUST be taken by the CPS now, so that may be another reason why you were bailed - so that the CPS can review all the evidence and either make a decsion or ask for further evidence to be obtained.
When you say that you complained to the police earlier in the day but they didn't do anything, what exactly did you complain about? I'm not in anyway making excuses for the boy, but dependant on how the operator recorded the call...
"there's a group of youths continually causing problems in the area, and I'd like to talk to someone about it" - unlikely to be treated as an immediate priority deployment, but probably referred onto a local community team to make contact
or
"I'm a 14 year old and I've just been beaten up by an adult neighbour, I'm scared" - likely to be a priority delpoyment
... I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but the way things are said over the phone will impact on how they are recorded and prioritised. Unfortunately there are finite numbers of officers on duty and things have to be prioritised - no comfort if you want to speak to someone immediately, but a fact of life.
If an allegation of assault is made it must be investigated and one of the ways of doing so is by arrest. Being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty (although it can seem that way by the time you've been fingerprinted), but it does mean you get access to free legal advice etc
When you say that you complained to the police earlier in the day but they didn't do anything, what exactly did you complain about? I'm not in anyway making excuses for the boy, but dependant on how the operator recorded the call...
"there's a group of youths continually causing problems in the area, and I'd like to talk to someone about it" - unlikely to be treated as an immediate priority deployment, but probably referred onto a local community team to make contact
or
"I'm a 14 year old and I've just been beaten up by an adult neighbour, I'm scared" - likely to be a priority delpoyment
... I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but the way things are said over the phone will impact on how they are recorded and prioritised. Unfortunately there are finite numbers of officers on duty and things have to be prioritised - no comfort if you want to speak to someone immediately, but a fact of life.
If an allegation of assault is made it must be investigated and one of the ways of doing so is by arrest. Being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty (although it can seem that way by the time you've been fingerprinted), but it does mean you get access to free legal advice etc
POlice work on easy targets because its better for them to prove to the government how good they are. looks like I have to agree with the comment
Boy : he hit me
you: no I did,nt
any witness --- none
no injuries no doctors certifictate no ambulance no cuts:
what a waste of time topersue this matter on our council tax money.
No doubt this will go to court and you will be charged with something. and end up with the criminal record for 5 years sorry mate but that is the honest truth. there is no justice
I feel sorry for you.
Boy : he hit me
you: no I did,nt
any witness --- none
no injuries no doctors certifictate no ambulance no cuts:
what a waste of time topersue this matter on our council tax money.
No doubt this will go to court and you will be charged with something. and end up with the criminal record for 5 years sorry mate but that is the honest truth. there is no justice
I feel sorry for you.
thanks for the various comments. I must admit that I am really worried about this and feel quite bitter that I could end up going to court over some false allegation.
Responding to yorkie, I went to the police station an hour or two after the incident occured and told the person at the desk that I had been pushed by the lad from next door but did not use the word 'assault' as at the time, I did not know that a push can be classed as assault. i was given a log number and told that someone would visit me to take a statement which to date has not happened. I did mention this to the arresting officer and he said that he was not aware of my complaint in relation to my arrest. I am planning to complain about this when I attend my bail next week as to why no action has been taken on my complaint and even the boy has admitted pushing me in his statement so there can be no suspicion of assault in this case.
Responding to yorkie, I went to the police station an hour or two after the incident occured and told the person at the desk that I had been pushed by the lad from next door but did not use the word 'assault' as at the time, I did not know that a push can be classed as assault. i was given a log number and told that someone would visit me to take a statement which to date has not happened. I did mention this to the arresting officer and he said that he was not aware of my complaint in relation to my arrest. I am planning to complain about this when I attend my bail next week as to why no action has been taken on my complaint and even the boy has admitted pushing me in his statement so there can be no suspicion of assault in this case.
Regarding my advice on NO COMMENT.
What part of a prepared statement do ABers fail to understand???
If the facts of the matter (points to prove for assault) are set out in a statement without all the waffle that police interviews bring) then no conclusion or "inference" can be drawn from the magistrate or jury (at crown).
Further, yes I am fully aware of the caution and special warnings etc. However, show me one case ONE CASE in the history of English Law where a proper inference has been drawn from a plead of not guilty without any other supporting evidence. ONE CASE is all I ask you, and I will bow my head in AB shame forever and a day.
Busta, I strongly advise you to contact your MP, House of Lords, the Queen, God, whoever. Nobody can be convicyed for going NO COMMENT. It is not law that you have to say anything to the Police. In fact a right to silence is exactly that a right!!!
The only time I can think of when you are legally bound to speal to the police is to give your name and address if DRIVING a car. Even then, this can be probably be written down if your are in an awkward mood.
To remain no comment at court is a completely different scenario, and one can even be contemp if they remain silent.
So to reiterate, as people are having trouble here.
NO COMMENT interviews are the way to go BUT they must include a prepared statement, read out on tape!!!
NOWHERE have I said go NO COMMENT without a statement.
New Judge, I am disappointed in your understanding here. And yes, I do have a brilliant criminal mind (although I am not a criminal!!!!)
What part of a prepared statement do ABers fail to understand???
If the facts of the matter (points to prove for assault) are set out in a statement without all the waffle that police interviews bring) then no conclusion or "inference" can be drawn from the magistrate or jury (at crown).
Further, yes I am fully aware of the caution and special warnings etc. However, show me one case ONE CASE in the history of English Law where a proper inference has been drawn from a plead of not guilty without any other supporting evidence. ONE CASE is all I ask you, and I will bow my head in AB shame forever and a day.
Busta, I strongly advise you to contact your MP, House of Lords, the Queen, God, whoever. Nobody can be convicyed for going NO COMMENT. It is not law that you have to say anything to the Police. In fact a right to silence is exactly that a right!!!
The only time I can think of when you are legally bound to speal to the police is to give your name and address if DRIVING a car. Even then, this can be probably be written down if your are in an awkward mood.
To remain no comment at court is a completely different scenario, and one can even be contemp if they remain silent.
So to reiterate, as people are having trouble here.
NO COMMENT interviews are the way to go BUT they must include a prepared statement, read out on tape!!!
NOWHERE have I said go NO COMMENT without a statement.
New Judge, I am disappointed in your understanding here. And yes, I do have a brilliant criminal mind (although I am not a criminal!!!!)
Yes, bros, and that�s why, when the law was changed, a number of expert legal minds (possibly even yours included) spent some time deliberating over what form of warning the police should give suspects upon arrest which informed them fully of the consequences of failing to answer questions.
The warning explains what happens if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court. It says nothing about failing to mention when questioned something that might or might not be in your prepared statement.
Magistrates and juries (directed by judges) can and do draw inferences from �no comment� interviews. They are allowed to under the law. Rarely is one aspect of a prosecution's evidence taken alone sufficient to secure a conviction. So whether those inferences are sufficient by themselves to lead to a conviction is impossible to say.
If a �no comment� interview was always the correct course of action solicitors would advise their clients to do so on every occasion. But they don�t, and for very good reason.
We�ll just have to agree to differ.
The warning explains what happens if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court. It says nothing about failing to mention when questioned something that might or might not be in your prepared statement.
Magistrates and juries (directed by judges) can and do draw inferences from �no comment� interviews. They are allowed to under the law. Rarely is one aspect of a prosecution's evidence taken alone sufficient to secure a conviction. So whether those inferences are sufficient by themselves to lead to a conviction is impossible to say.
If a �no comment� interview was always the correct course of action solicitors would advise their clients to do so on every occasion. But they don�t, and for very good reason.
We�ll just have to agree to differ.
I'm with New Judge ! It's ,almost always, a nonsense now for a solicitor to have a client say 'no comment' or remain silent throughout an interview conducted in the presence of the lawyer.A statement prepared with the lawyer looks bad enough but even worse is that, having presented that statement, the client then refuses to answer any question in interview about its contents. What do you think the CPS, or, worse, a jury, will make of that? Man makes prepared statement (so does not wish to remain silent altogether ) but daren't risk being asked, or saying, a single thing about it on tape. That looks to a jury as though he couldn't remember what his lawyer wrote for him or what version of 'the truth' he gave then. (Don't know where 'one of the greatest legal minds ' practises but I'm prepared to guess it is a long way from the [Old] Bailey and the mind is not as experienced as that of some on this site)
In the instant case my guess is that the CPS won't prosecute . They need their chances of conviction to be very much higher than 51 per cent before they'll go for a prosecution. Even if there is injury it must still be provenly from the alleged assault and if it is trivial it's unlikely to help the prosecution in the slightest (because it is just as likely to be in self defence as in aggression ).
In the instant case my guess is that the CPS won't prosecute . They need their chances of conviction to be very much higher than 51 per cent before they'll go for a prosecution. Even if there is injury it must still be provenly from the alleged assault and if it is trivial it's unlikely to help the prosecution in the slightest (because it is just as likely to be in self defence as in aggression ).
To BEWLAY BROS. I am not a judge, a lawyer or a professional in the field,. but i know what happened to my son. He was told to go no comment by his solictior (who is trying to wriggle out of it). The prosecution said in her closing statement exactly what NEW JUDGE said (the rights stated by the police at an interview) "you have the right to remain silent etc". Because he remained silent the prosecution made a big thing out of him remaining silent because he had something to hide. He did not remain silent in court - just on tape. They also said that because he had remained silent it was too late to bring his partner in court as a witness. Thank you NEW JUDGE for getting it right. I know were to come for my advice.
By the way BB we are suppossed to be advising this poor man not having petty rows.
By the way BB we are suppossed to be advising this poor man not having petty rows.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
