Crosswords1 min ago
criminal damage
37 Answers
my husband and i voluntarily attended the Police station following allegations from our landlord that we had entered one of his empty properties and damaged an internal door while looking for our cat which had gone missing. We were arrested and questioned under caution and fingerprints taken. We were released on bail and when we returned were re-interviewed as my fingerprint had been found on an external door of the property (which i admitted in the first interview may be found as I did try the garage door to see if it was open) and husbands had been found inside the garage. We were both told by our solicitor to make a 'no comment' second interview, answering either no comment or 'I have already answered this question in the previous interview' . We were NOT CHARGED and released on bail pending CPS advice. There are no witnesses, though the landlord claims I told him I would break in to get the cat if he did not come to the house with the keys - this is totally untrue and in fact the night of the incident I called the Police to see what the best course of action would be - they then called the landlord to try and persuade him to come out and he refused . My question is: is it likely the CPS will prosecute this case - neither of us has ever been in trouble with the police before not even a traffic offence. If they do decide to prosecute on the grounds of the finger print found in the garage -would i be prosecuted along with my husband even though they have no forensic proof i was there? it has been hinted by our solicitor that if my husband pleads guilty he will at most get a conditional discharge -but why should I plead guilty to something i did'nt do?
Answers
Hi crystal yeah I know exactly what you mean regarding the police, especially if you've done nothing it''s terrifying- bad news for you is it took months and months and months for the cps to finally decide there was no case to answer and the poor girl in question ended up suicidal about the whole thing as all sorts of ridiculous scenarios ended up floating around...
18:29 Mon 29th Nov 2010
@redcrx workmen had been inside the property the previous day -the cat went missing the previous day - we heard cat noises coming from the vicinity of the garage of the house but the garage was locked. the cat returned home of its own accord later that evening - possibly was never in there in the first place - this is not the issue though as the damage was not caused by the cat. The accusation is that someone (us) took off the interanl door from the hall to the garage to gain access into the home then for some reason replaced the 'fire door" with another door which did not fit properly - really you could not make this one up is so stupid....
Hi crystal yeah I know exactly what you mean regarding the police, especially if you've done nothing it''s terrifying- bad news for you is it took months and months and months for the cps to finally decide there was no case to answer and the poor girl in question ended up suicidal about the whole thing as all sorts of ridiculous scenarios ended up floating around her head. Good news is that I really can't see the cps being that naieve as to prosecute you with no evidence- and frankly from what you've told me they don't have any- I just think that like the scenario I mentioned it's the local 'I am' throwing his weight about impotently- I really do hope so.
This fills me with despair. I've just given an answer to another thread - common assault - where the police don't seem to want to know, & here we are with what seems to me a grossly over the top reaction taken to extreme lengths.
The garage is attached to the house & the door that you/your husband are alleged to have damaged is an internal one leading from the garage to the hall of the house. You do not have access to the house or the garage. You tried the outside garage door & it was locked. Is all this that right?
Is there any evidence of anyone breaking in to the house or garage from outside? From what you have posted it would seem not, as you appear not to have been interviewed about any damage (which would be inevitable if there was a break in) other than to the internal door.
If there is not any evidence of damage to the outside doors, how do the police & your landlord suggest you got in & damaged the internal door?
It seems to me that - unless my reading of your posts is wrong, or there is something you haven't covered - the "case" simply falls apart - you won't have been able to get in without damaging an outside door so that's it.
The garage is attached to the house & the door that you/your husband are alleged to have damaged is an internal one leading from the garage to the hall of the house. You do not have access to the house or the garage. You tried the outside garage door & it was locked. Is all this that right?
Is there any evidence of anyone breaking in to the house or garage from outside? From what you have posted it would seem not, as you appear not to have been interviewed about any damage (which would be inevitable if there was a break in) other than to the internal door.
If there is not any evidence of damage to the outside doors, how do the police & your landlord suggest you got in & damaged the internal door?
It seems to me that - unless my reading of your posts is wrong, or there is something you haven't covered - the "case" simply falls apart - you won't have been able to get in without damaging an outside door so that's it.
I've tried reading all the posts on here but am still baffled. All I will do therefore is to, basically, give you the definition of burglary, which can be the only plausible offence being considered from all I've read:
Without this being word perfect, a burglary is committed if:
1) Someone enters a property as a trespasser and commits one of the following:
Damage / Theft / Injury / Assault.
Those are the essential ingredients of the offence of burglary, and the most important word of all is "trespasser".
You really shouldn't blame the Police who are simply doing what is their job, and given the circumstances as described, I have the utmost sympathy for them being caught between what you and your husband are saying and your landlord's version of events. Just think about that, the Police do not have magic wands, hence the reason why they are having to refer this to the CPS because of the obvious complications involved. They, too, will be just as frustrated as you are, believe me.
Without this being word perfect, a burglary is committed if:
1) Someone enters a property as a trespasser and commits one of the following:
Damage / Theft / Injury / Assault.
Those are the essential ingredients of the offence of burglary, and the most important word of all is "trespasser".
You really shouldn't blame the Police who are simply doing what is their job, and given the circumstances as described, I have the utmost sympathy for them being caught between what you and your husband are saying and your landlord's version of events. Just think about that, the Police do not have magic wands, hence the reason why they are having to refer this to the CPS because of the obvious complications involved. They, too, will be just as frustrated as you are, believe me.
No Ety, the police will be nowhere near as frustrated as the OP. The police do this as a job. The police knock off their shift and don't give it another thought. The OP on the other hand has been accused of something they didn't do. THe Police are concerned with targets and clear up rates. The OP is concerned because they have been arrested and potentially charged with something they did not do on the basis of circumstancial evidence. For anyone who has had no contact with the police, it is frightening and intimidating.
Having recently been the subject of a malicious complaint (which the police saw exactly for what it was) I can tell you that the feeling you get is indescribable, despite the fact that you know you have done nothing wrong.
My view remains though that, on the basis of what the OP has said, she and her husband should plead not guilty if charged.
Having recently been the subject of a malicious complaint (which the police saw exactly for what it was) I can tell you that the feeling you get is indescribable, despite the fact that you know you have done nothing wrong.
My view remains though that, on the basis of what the OP has said, she and her husband should plead not guilty if charged.
thankyou for all taking the time to reply and it has been very helpfull -it has also brought forward a few points i had not thought of . The External door was not damaged and we have not been asked if we 'broke in' through the garage door. someone removed the original internal door from the garage into the house to gain access into the home ( oh and replaced it with another one that did not fit) -nothing was stolen (poloice told solicitor this fact)- i know the garage door was locked cos i gave it a good shake -this is why they found my fingerprints on it - so this is a mystery. To answer another point -when we were arrested they have to tell you what you are being arrested for - our solicitor thought it was going to be burglary but in fact we were arrested under suspicion of criminal damage and this was told to us at the time of arrest. my concerns are not what to plea as we are innocent - my concerns were that this could stretch out for months and months waiting for a decision from the CPS - someone told me its a good sign that the police did'nt charge us at the station as they must not be sure if they could ,with the 'evidence' they have. When we were bailed the custody sargent gave me a date to come back and said the constable would phone me if I did'nt need to come back -I am presuming by this he meant that if they were'nt going to proceed with charges. This is hanging over us like a black cloud
every minute of the day -they initially phoned the beginning or Sept and told us on the phone we would be arrested when we came for interview - 3 weeks of worrying to death -an interview, then another 3 weeks on bail - then another interview and put in a cell -then another 3 weeks to wait on bail again -and my chances of ever working within the NHS again are totally shot as this will go on a criminal record - we even had our DNA taken and we are now on the police database -and we have done nothing -all because some big I am wants some money out of us.....
every minute of the day -they initially phoned the beginning or Sept and told us on the phone we would be arrested when we came for interview - 3 weeks of worrying to death -an interview, then another 3 weeks on bail - then another interview and put in a cell -then another 3 weeks to wait on bail again -and my chances of ever working within the NHS again are totally shot as this will go on a criminal record - we even had our DNA taken and we are now on the police database -and we have done nothing -all because some big I am wants some money out of us.....
Whoa.. back track a little bit, you DO NOT have a criminal record as you have not been convicted. What this does for future work remains to be seen but as of now you have not been charged let alone convicted. DNA fingerprints etc have taken as part of the formal process of arrest, they can be destroyed if there is no further action.
@Angler - referring to fingerprints and DNA records - really? I have researched this and from what I've read, your record of arrest remains on the database with your finger prints and DNA for 7 years even if you are not charged with anything -i sincerley hope you are right. I am self employed and prefer not to say what i do, but some contracts require full CRB checks and arrest without charge shows up on this check.
@angler - found this on a government web-site -
<Previously, fingerprints and DNA samples taken would have to be destroyed in the event of the person being acquitted, or if the charges were dropped or not pursued. Following amendments to PACE by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police now have powers to retain fingerprints and DNA samples lawfully taken from any person - regardless of whether or not they are subsequently convicted of an offence. These records can then be held on databases, indefinitely. The police’s current policy is to keep the fingerprints, photographs and samples for the rest of the life of the individual, and only destroy them in exceptional circumstances. This is the same policy as they apply for the records of the arrest or charge (see Retention of your criminal records and other information). The fingerprints, photographs and samples should only be used for crime detection purposes.
The United Kingdom is the only member of the Council of Europe who expressly permits the systematic and indefinite retention of DNA profiles and cellular samples of persons who have been acquitted or in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been discontinued. Liberty considers that this power is incompatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8, and assisted two individuals to challenge the refusal by the police to destroy their fingerprints and samples after they were acquitted by the court, in one case, and after no charges were brought in another case. The case went all the way to the House of Lords, who held that there had been no violation of Article 8. The individuals applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the ECtHR found in their favour.>
<Previously, fingerprints and DNA samples taken would have to be destroyed in the event of the person being acquitted, or if the charges were dropped or not pursued. Following amendments to PACE by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police now have powers to retain fingerprints and DNA samples lawfully taken from any person - regardless of whether or not they are subsequently convicted of an offence. These records can then be held on databases, indefinitely. The police’s current policy is to keep the fingerprints, photographs and samples for the rest of the life of the individual, and only destroy them in exceptional circumstances. This is the same policy as they apply for the records of the arrest or charge (see Retention of your criminal records and other information). The fingerprints, photographs and samples should only be used for crime detection purposes.
The United Kingdom is the only member of the Council of Europe who expressly permits the systematic and indefinite retention of DNA profiles and cellular samples of persons who have been acquitted or in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been discontinued. Liberty considers that this power is incompatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8, and assisted two individuals to challenge the refusal by the police to destroy their fingerprints and samples after they were acquitted by the court, in one case, and after no charges were brought in another case. The case went all the way to the House of Lords, who held that there had been no violation of Article 8. The individuals applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the ECtHR found in their favour.>
crystalbee
Your quote about keeping DNA/fingerprints is correct. There has been a lot of concern about this in the media in the past.
But are you sure that arrest without charge shows up on CRB checks? I have always understood these are checks to reveal criminal convictions (which include cautions). If they do indeed include cases such as yours (assuming you are not charged or are found not guilty) then I would have thought you would have good cause to have a go about breach of your human rights. Something to take up with your MP as well?
Your quote about keeping DNA/fingerprints is correct. There has been a lot of concern about this in the media in the past.
But are you sure that arrest without charge shows up on CRB checks? I have always understood these are checks to reveal criminal convictions (which include cautions). If they do indeed include cases such as yours (assuming you are not charged or are found not guilty) then I would have thought you would have good cause to have a go about breach of your human rights. Something to take up with your MP as well?
"The Police do this as a job.......and don't give it another thought" I seriously would question that scurrilous claim - that is to suggest that the Police are mere auomatons who have no feelings one way or another. Simply untrue and I speak from wide experience. Believe me, although the Police are essentially neutral, an Officer is just as interested to nail the "bad guys" as anyone else. They don't get paid any more for it, but professional pride and the quest for justice dictates that the Police certainly like to see the guilty get their come uppance.
They, however, also have sympathy when people are caught up in situations such as this where it would appear that crystalbee and here OH have been caught up in a dispute whereby their landlord is seemingly hell bent on having them found guilty of some criminal matter or another. But ultimately the Police are bound by the laws of the land and are committed to enforcing them without fear or favour.
To crystalbee I'd say this:
Please try to have your solicitor, if you have one, keep on the case, as they say, and within reason have him/her contact the Police and get as much detail as possible as time goes by. However, the Police also have their hands tied to a certain extent if they're waiting for the CPS to come to some sort of decision. After all, you want them to reach the correct one, yes? And you obviously hope that their decision will be NFA (No Further Action).
Re your antecedents being taken at the Police Station, again, consult your solicitor, or failing any interest from him/her, it may be worth contacting your local CAB(Citizens Advice Bureau) who should be able to give you free legal advice - hopefully? It's also worth writing to Liberty - or even canvassing the Home Secretary.
They, however, also have sympathy when people are caught up in situations such as this where it would appear that crystalbee and here OH have been caught up in a dispute whereby their landlord is seemingly hell bent on having them found guilty of some criminal matter or another. But ultimately the Police are bound by the laws of the land and are committed to enforcing them without fear or favour.
To crystalbee I'd say this:
Please try to have your solicitor, if you have one, keep on the case, as they say, and within reason have him/her contact the Police and get as much detail as possible as time goes by. However, the Police also have their hands tied to a certain extent if they're waiting for the CPS to come to some sort of decision. After all, you want them to reach the correct one, yes? And you obviously hope that their decision will be NFA (No Further Action).
Re your antecedents being taken at the Police Station, again, consult your solicitor, or failing any interest from him/her, it may be worth contacting your local CAB(Citizens Advice Bureau) who should be able to give you free legal advice - hopefully? It's also worth writing to Liberty - or even canvassing the Home Secretary.
Ety
1. "The Police do this as a job.......and don't give it another thought" I seriously would question that scurrilous claim -" Remember that Barmaid is a barrister (a criminal law one I believe) & I guess she has quite a bit of experience. I think the trouble is that the police contain a majority of conscientious people such as you describe, but also some (I suspect a fair number) whose behaviour is not always as it should be. Unfortunately, the latter blacken the picture unfairly for the majority. I have certainly known cases where the way things have been dealt with is not in accordance with what a reasonable law abiding citizen should be able to expect.
2. "They, however, also have sympathy when people are caught up in situations such as this". It doesn't appear from crystalbee's description of their second interviews that any sympathy at all was shown - quite the reverse. Why on earth – given the circumstances – was it necessary to take their possessions off them & lock them in cells, when they had come in voluntarily at an agreed appointment time?
1. "The Police do this as a job.......and don't give it another thought" I seriously would question that scurrilous claim -" Remember that Barmaid is a barrister (a criminal law one I believe) & I guess she has quite a bit of experience. I think the trouble is that the police contain a majority of conscientious people such as you describe, but also some (I suspect a fair number) whose behaviour is not always as it should be. Unfortunately, the latter blacken the picture unfairly for the majority. I have certainly known cases where the way things have been dealt with is not in accordance with what a reasonable law abiding citizen should be able to expect.
2. "They, however, also have sympathy when people are caught up in situations such as this". It doesn't appear from crystalbee's description of their second interviews that any sympathy at all was shown - quite the reverse. Why on earth – given the circumstances – was it necessary to take their possessions off them & lock them in cells, when they had come in voluntarily at an agreed appointment time?
they took our possessions and locked us up prior to 2nd interview because at the first interview we were arrested and at the second interview we were answering bail so were not attending voluntarily. they have every right to do this and it is common practice under the PACE rules -however, police descretion is allowed and we were hardly haardened criminals or murder suspects who would have been a danger to anyone at the police station -it was done to frighten us into a false confession so the 'victim' can get compo through a conditional caution
crystalbee
Thanks for the clarification.
"it was done to frighten us into a false confession" It certainly looks like that. I know someone who was repeatedly bailed (for a much more serious offence of which he was not guilty) & he never had to go through the indignity they put you through when he answered bail.
Thanks for the clarification.
"it was done to frighten us into a false confession" It certainly looks like that. I know someone who was repeatedly bailed (for a much more serious offence of which he was not guilty) & he never had to go through the indignity they put you through when he answered bail.
