ChatterBank2 mins ago
Needing Clarity From A Legal Prospective
I previously posted a long winded explaination of events I am involved in, however, I needed to be more specific with my questions.
When a witness/victim makes a statement what are the reasons for them to make more than one recounting their version of events?
When making a statement is there a declaration stating that the information is the truth to the best of their knowledge?
Why would police not photograph alleged injuries?
Are police allowed to withhold statements which conflict previous statements made?
Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
Is it necessary for an alleged victim to provide medical evidence/records? If not then can the defence insist on this being provided?
Can a defendant produce evidence at a trial or does the prosecution have to introduce it first for it to be used?
Why would police refuse to investigate counter allegations?
What can you do if police have investigated an allegation but have misunderstood a vital piece of information which had made them deem the allegation to be impossible?
How is somebody deemed fit for questioning by police? Surely there is criteria, for example if somebody is intoxicated they wait for them to sober up. Does this same rule apply to prescription medication which was administered by a doctor?
If police and CPS have stated that somebody is a non credible witness, how is this relevant when they come to give evidence? Can the defense use this?
Many thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated
When a witness/victim makes a statement what are the reasons for them to make more than one recounting their version of events?
When making a statement is there a declaration stating that the information is the truth to the best of their knowledge?
Why would police not photograph alleged injuries?
Are police allowed to withhold statements which conflict previous statements made?
Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
Is it necessary for an alleged victim to provide medical evidence/records? If not then can the defence insist on this being provided?
Can a defendant produce evidence at a trial or does the prosecution have to introduce it first for it to be used?
Why would police refuse to investigate counter allegations?
What can you do if police have investigated an allegation but have misunderstood a vital piece of information which had made them deem the allegation to be impossible?
How is somebody deemed fit for questioning by police? Surely there is criteria, for example if somebody is intoxicated they wait for them to sober up. Does this same rule apply to prescription medication which was administered by a doctor?
If police and CPS have stated that somebody is a non credible witness, how is this relevant when they come to give evidence? Can the defense use this?
Many thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Argot123. 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.
>>>When a witness/victim makes a statement what are the reasons for them to make more than one recounting their version of events?
You'd have to ask each witness/victim for their own reasons (which could be different to those of other witnesses/victims) in order to answer that!
However it's not unusual for people to want to add to, or amend, statements which were given 'in the heat of the moment'. For example "I said that it was the guy in the red jacket that kicked me when I was on the floor but, now that I think about it, I only know that it was him that pushed me to the floor. It could have been one of the others who actually kicked me".
>>>When making a statement is there a declaration stating that the information is the truth to the best of their knowledge?
That's implied anyway. Anone making a false statement to the police risks being charged with an offence of wasting police time or (far more serious) of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
>>>Why would police not photograph alleged injuries?
Simple practical considerations might come into play here. e.g. they'd not got an officer with a camera immediately available to take such photographs and/or they'd got no way of knowing whether the injuries exhibited by the (alleged) victim were sustained as he/she suggested or possibly before or after the alleged assault.
>>>Are police allowed to withhold statements which conflict previous statements made?
The police (per se) aren't specifically obliged to provide information to anyone. However the Crown Prosecution Service must ensure that all available evidence is handed to a defendant (or to his lawyers).
>>>Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
Unlike, say, France (where the law requires that an 'investigational' approach is adopted) the English judicial system is 'adverserial' (whereby the two sides are required to put forward different arguments, for and against conviction). Both the police and the CPS are meant to examine ALL of the evidence available but the nature of the system means that they both tend to concentrate only on the evidence which might support a conviction.
>>>Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
See above!
>>>Is it necessary for an alleged victim to provide medical evidence/records? If not then can the defence insist on this being provided?
There is no 'rule' that medical evidence must be provided but, where there is doubt, a defendant's legal team would be right to insist upon it. (e.g. "M'lud, we have heard that the alleged victim suffered really serious injuries but where is the evidence to support such a claim? I submit that my client cannot be convicted of causing grievous bodily harm unless there is PROOF of such injuries").
>>>Can a defendant produce evidence at a trial or does the prosecution have to introduce it first for it to be used?
A defendant can use any relevant evidence to support his/her case. However the 'alibi rule' means that certain evidence must be presented to the CPS at least 14 days before the trial, so that the prosecution has a chance to examine it; otherwise the court can refuse to accept such evidence. (e.g. a defendant can't simply say, with no prior warning, "I was at my mate's house when the offence took place, so I can't have done it. Here's my mate to prove it". The police and CPS need time to check out such an alibi).
>>>Why would police refuse to investigate counter allegations?
Probably because they don't believe them! (See also my reference to to the nature of the English adverserial system, above).
You'd have to ask each witness/victim for their own reasons (which could be different to those of other witnesses/victims) in order to answer that!
However it's not unusual for people to want to add to, or amend, statements which were given 'in the heat of the moment'. For example "I said that it was the guy in the red jacket that kicked me when I was on the floor but, now that I think about it, I only know that it was him that pushed me to the floor. It could have been one of the others who actually kicked me".
>>>When making a statement is there a declaration stating that the information is the truth to the best of their knowledge?
That's implied anyway. Anone making a false statement to the police risks being charged with an offence of wasting police time or (far more serious) of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
>>>Why would police not photograph alleged injuries?
Simple practical considerations might come into play here. e.g. they'd not got an officer with a camera immediately available to take such photographs and/or they'd got no way of knowing whether the injuries exhibited by the (alleged) victim were sustained as he/she suggested or possibly before or after the alleged assault.
>>>Are police allowed to withhold statements which conflict previous statements made?
The police (per se) aren't specifically obliged to provide information to anyone. However the Crown Prosecution Service must ensure that all available evidence is handed to a defendant (or to his lawyers).
>>>Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
Unlike, say, France (where the law requires that an 'investigational' approach is adopted) the English judicial system is 'adverserial' (whereby the two sides are required to put forward different arguments, for and against conviction). Both the police and the CPS are meant to examine ALL of the evidence available but the nature of the system means that they both tend to concentrate only on the evidence which might support a conviction.
>>>Can police pick and choose what witnesses they are taking statements from or do they investigate one side and disregard anything which potentially throw doubt on witness statements?
See above!
>>>Is it necessary for an alleged victim to provide medical evidence/records? If not then can the defence insist on this being provided?
There is no 'rule' that medical evidence must be provided but, where there is doubt, a defendant's legal team would be right to insist upon it. (e.g. "M'lud, we have heard that the alleged victim suffered really serious injuries but where is the evidence to support such a claim? I submit that my client cannot be convicted of causing grievous bodily harm unless there is PROOF of such injuries").
>>>Can a defendant produce evidence at a trial or does the prosecution have to introduce it first for it to be used?
A defendant can use any relevant evidence to support his/her case. However the 'alibi rule' means that certain evidence must be presented to the CPS at least 14 days before the trial, so that the prosecution has a chance to examine it; otherwise the court can refuse to accept such evidence. (e.g. a defendant can't simply say, with no prior warning, "I was at my mate's house when the offence took place, so I can't have done it. Here's my mate to prove it". The police and CPS need time to check out such an alibi).
>>>Why would police refuse to investigate counter allegations?
Probably because they don't believe them! (See also my reference to to the nature of the English adverserial system, above).
>>>What can you do if police have investigated an allegation but have misunderstood a vital piece of information which had made them deem the allegation to be impossible?
Very little except constantly telling everyone involved (i.e. the police, CPS, etc) what really happened (preferably using a solicitor as an intermediary) and then, if necessary, repeating it in court. (Also, of course, seek out any third parties who can back up any statements made).
>>>How is somebody deemed fit for questioning by police? Surely there is criteria, for example if somebody is intoxicated they wait for them to sober up. Does this same rule apply to prescription medication which was administered by a doctor?
The police should always ensure that anyone that they question is fit to be interviewed. Where someone is CLEARLY suffering from the effects of any type of drugs (including alcohol or prescribed medications) they should wait until the effects of those drugs have worn off. However they're not medical experts and they might not always recognise when someone isn't 'fully functioning'. (In practice though, many police officers might actually prefer to interview someone who 'isn't fully with it', in the hope that they'll more easily admit to an offence. Not all coppers 'play by the book'!)
>>>If police and CPS have stated that somebody is a non credible witness, how is this relevant when they come to give evidence? Can the defense use this?
I'd be amazed if the CPS actually called a 'non-credible witness' to give evidence! However, if they did (and the defendant's legal team were aware of the 'non-credible' status) then of course thet could bring it to the attention of the court.
Very little except constantly telling everyone involved (i.e. the police, CPS, etc) what really happened (preferably using a solicitor as an intermediary) and then, if necessary, repeating it in court. (Also, of course, seek out any third parties who can back up any statements made).
>>>How is somebody deemed fit for questioning by police? Surely there is criteria, for example if somebody is intoxicated they wait for them to sober up. Does this same rule apply to prescription medication which was administered by a doctor?
The police should always ensure that anyone that they question is fit to be interviewed. Where someone is CLEARLY suffering from the effects of any type of drugs (including alcohol or prescribed medications) they should wait until the effects of those drugs have worn off. However they're not medical experts and they might not always recognise when someone isn't 'fully functioning'. (In practice though, many police officers might actually prefer to interview someone who 'isn't fully with it', in the hope that they'll more easily admit to an offence. Not all coppers 'play by the book'!)
>>>If police and CPS have stated that somebody is a non credible witness, how is this relevant when they come to give evidence? Can the defense use this?
I'd be amazed if the CPS actually called a 'non-credible witness' to give evidence! However, if they did (and the defendant's legal team were aware of the 'non-credible' status) then of course thet could bring it to the attention of the court.
Both the prosecution and the defence are entitled to call anyone as a witness. However if there's reason to doubt their credibility the opposing side will obviously seek to bring that to the attention of the court.
If there was just some doubt about about their credibility the judge might leave it up to the jury to decide whether their evidence should be taken into account.
If they were blatantly lying, e.g. by saying that they witnessed an incident in London when there was overwhelming evidence that they were in Beijing at the time, the judge could order the jury to ignore their evidence.
If there was just some doubt about about their credibility the judge might leave it up to the jury to decide whether their evidence should be taken into account.
If they were blatantly lying, e.g. by saying that they witnessed an incident in London when there was overwhelming evidence that they were in Beijing at the time, the judge could order the jury to ignore their evidence.
Ah - Hi Argot, if your name is French for slang then you would be familiar with the Napoleonic code and er - the English Criminal Law system ( not code ) will be like er being in a foreign country. We dont have anything like juges d'instruction ( altho I enjoyed a lot ) and the initial investigation is nothing like inquisitorial ( as in France ) and is adversarial
NJ does a bit on criminal procedure
however this does not prevent my chipping in my two penny worth
>
They have changed their minds. They have even decided to contra-dict themselves. Music to a defence lawyer's ears as it means that both statement are disclosed and the witness can be cross-examined on the inconsistencies
>
It may be implied but in the civil courts a statement is not a statement unless it has words saying it is true and it is signed and dated - I am sure it is the same for the criminal system
Yes and making a false statement is bad news ( so long as it is not you ). Ther are a limited number of crimes linked to lying on oath
can police pick and choose
yes and they do
is it necessary to provide .... no but it helps the case
any reports are disclosable - so if they exist the defence can insist on them
can a defendant.... yes can introduce evidence - I am pretty sure that has to be disclosed to the prosecution. Suddenly introducting it on the fifth day of the trial is frowned upon ( hidden technical defence is a no-no )
>
well the system is not inquisitorial and so they dont have to do anything to do honest. They thought it wasnt worth it probably.
Police misunderstanding evidence
commonplace. They have their view and you have yours and I have to say your defence lawyer will have his ( view ) and I would follow his to be honest. Defence lawyers know what is relevant for a defence better than you do if you are used to the Napoleonic code and anyway you are paying him to do that
fit for questioning - they do
if the arrested man is in a hospital, then a doctor will be asked to certify fitness to answer questions
non credible witness - very technical question - ask a lawyer that one.
As the non credible witness provided a statement and it was in the evidence pack can they now not call this person and can the defence still call that witness? - yikes a bit technical - yes I am pretty sure they dont have to call every witness on a list ( the judge can also say I am not listening to X,Y and Z testimony as I think it is a waste of everyone's time ) - and I think the defence can.
But honestly this is criminal procedure which you are paying a lawyer to do
for you
as for police questioning - the police were very keen to get damaging statements out of me whilst I was intoxicated, I can tell you.
Amy Winehouse was so off her head on drugs when she went in for an invited questioning that the turn around time was 25mins
Argot - you must allow your lawyers to do their job....after you are paying them an absolute bomb... ( £200 /h is common )
NJ does a bit on criminal procedure
however this does not prevent my chipping in my two penny worth
>
They have changed their minds. They have even decided to contra-dict themselves. Music to a defence lawyer's ears as it means that both statement are disclosed and the witness can be cross-examined on the inconsistencies
>
It may be implied but in the civil courts a statement is not a statement unless it has words saying it is true and it is signed and dated - I am sure it is the same for the criminal system
Yes and making a false statement is bad news ( so long as it is not you ). Ther are a limited number of crimes linked to lying on oath
can police pick and choose
yes and they do
is it necessary to provide .... no but it helps the case
any reports are disclosable - so if they exist the defence can insist on them
can a defendant.... yes can introduce evidence - I am pretty sure that has to be disclosed to the prosecution. Suddenly introducting it on the fifth day of the trial is frowned upon ( hidden technical defence is a no-no )
>
well the system is not inquisitorial and so they dont have to do anything to do honest. They thought it wasnt worth it probably.
Police misunderstanding evidence
commonplace. They have their view and you have yours and I have to say your defence lawyer will have his ( view ) and I would follow his to be honest. Defence lawyers know what is relevant for a defence better than you do if you are used to the Napoleonic code and anyway you are paying him to do that
fit for questioning - they do
if the arrested man is in a hospital, then a doctor will be asked to certify fitness to answer questions
non credible witness - very technical question - ask a lawyer that one.
As the non credible witness provided a statement and it was in the evidence pack can they now not call this person and can the defence still call that witness? - yikes a bit technical - yes I am pretty sure they dont have to call every witness on a list ( the judge can also say I am not listening to X,Y and Z testimony as I think it is a waste of everyone's time ) - and I think the defence can.
But honestly this is criminal procedure which you are paying a lawyer to do
for you
as for police questioning - the police were very keen to get damaging statements out of me whilst I was intoxicated, I can tell you.
Amy Winehouse was so off her head on drugs when she went in for an invited questioning that the turn around time was 25mins
Argot - you must allow your lawyers to do their job....after you are paying them an absolute bomb... ( £200 /h is common )
My legal aid contribution is just over £8,000. So far all that has been done is apply for legal aid which in the end the payments were so high I decided to argue with legal aid myself which brought the figure down to £8,000.
This whole version of events is hard enough and wild enough for me who experienced them first hand to not believe them.
Peter i would like to comment on what you said about a hospital doctor discharging me & saying fit for interview. I was arrested at hospital. The doctor said fit to be discharged home with pain management. I have a statement from a Senior Health Care Support Worker & a nurse who had been registered for just under a year. They are the only people who said the medications given in hospital had no side effects. Morphine & tramadol was what i was given (Google either one of those meds & a multitude of effects comes up). These two hospital workers also submitted my medical notes as exhibits...... I was not standing for that so I met with their department manager who said clearly they aren't qualified to say these things and put both on disciplinary action for submitting my medical records. My barrister said he doesnt see the relevance of their statements and therefore won't call them. The police described these two as 'medical experts' in interview.
The other thing that has been done is a letter to prosecution asking for police log books, freehand notes as there are so many discrepancies.
In was not allowed to give my account because the police told me that the victim and her assistant are 'professionals' where as I am not. As far as I know the police dont know what I do for a living and I am guessing in my nightdress dosed up on opiate analgesia I look like some sort of looser. In addition to this PC carrying outvthe interview is known to me. She attended as a sergent when my ex (one of the witnesses) was kicking off, she was mismanaging the situation and i was scared for mine and my young daughters safety so i called my ex's duty inspector who intervened and told officers to arrest him to prevent a breach of the peace. Clearly she has an axe to grind. I was allowed after being persistant to complete a DV1 about the incident as it involved my ex partner who is described as a 'high risk' perpetrator by the police, however, nobody had the intelligence to see the numerous time he has done this before and in all previous occasions there was NFA.
The evidence pack was only provide to my solicitor late on the Friday when the Plea Management Hearing was first thing on the Monday morning.
I just read this and think jesus this is unbelievable. How is a jury going to make head nor tail of this
All said and done I am on a warn list starting Monday and still no phone call from solicitor.
This whole version of events is hard enough and wild enough for me who experienced them first hand to not believe them.
Peter i would like to comment on what you said about a hospital doctor discharging me & saying fit for interview. I was arrested at hospital. The doctor said fit to be discharged home with pain management. I have a statement from a Senior Health Care Support Worker & a nurse who had been registered for just under a year. They are the only people who said the medications given in hospital had no side effects. Morphine & tramadol was what i was given (Google either one of those meds & a multitude of effects comes up). These two hospital workers also submitted my medical notes as exhibits...... I was not standing for that so I met with their department manager who said clearly they aren't qualified to say these things and put both on disciplinary action for submitting my medical records. My barrister said he doesnt see the relevance of their statements and therefore won't call them. The police described these two as 'medical experts' in interview.
The other thing that has been done is a letter to prosecution asking for police log books, freehand notes as there are so many discrepancies.
In was not allowed to give my account because the police told me that the victim and her assistant are 'professionals' where as I am not. As far as I know the police dont know what I do for a living and I am guessing in my nightdress dosed up on opiate analgesia I look like some sort of looser. In addition to this PC carrying outvthe interview is known to me. She attended as a sergent when my ex (one of the witnesses) was kicking off, she was mismanaging the situation and i was scared for mine and my young daughters safety so i called my ex's duty inspector who intervened and told officers to arrest him to prevent a breach of the peace. Clearly she has an axe to grind. I was allowed after being persistant to complete a DV1 about the incident as it involved my ex partner who is described as a 'high risk' perpetrator by the police, however, nobody had the intelligence to see the numerous time he has done this before and in all previous occasions there was NFA.
The evidence pack was only provide to my solicitor late on the Friday when the Plea Management Hearing was first thing on the Monday morning.
I just read this and think jesus this is unbelievable. How is a jury going to make head nor tail of this
All said and done I am on a warn list starting Monday and still no phone call from solicitor.
hullo just had a little sleep it is so hot
// I have a statement from a Senior HCSW & a nurse .... They are the only people who said the medications given in hospital had no side effects. Morphine & tramadol was what i was given //
Irrelevant to the question in hand, and I can see why the lawyer is showing no interest.
// These two hospital workers also submitted my medical notes as exhibits...... I was not standing for that so I met with their department manager who said clearly they aren't qualified to say these things and put both on disciplinary action for submitting my medical records.//
I can see why you say that English is not your first language - the staff didnt submit anything and they arent exhibits ( the people or the notes) - what they did was - supply copies of the notes when they shouldnt have done. The technical word is 'breach of confidentiality' and that is a phrase you should use in your complaint to the hospital administrator.
BUT - but the police can get hold of your notes by writing to the correct person in the Hospital as of right ( comme un droit ) so no harm was done.
And this CERTAINLY doesnt make the notes inadmissible in England. By complaininng to the Hospital you wont get any advantage in your court case so that is definitely a sideline.
My lawyer wont call them as their evidence is irrelevant
I agree with your lawyer -what evidence are they going to give which is to your advantage ?
paragraph: however, nobody had the intelligence to see the numerous time he has done this before and in all previous occasions there was NFA.
I honestly cant give advice on this - your lawyer will take an overall view and you should follow it. They may say something is irrelevant which you dont and they almost always are correct
are you on a warn list from Monday 15th June ?
If you hear nothing I would seriously consider turning up at court at 9 am 15th June
You have done the right thing in hiring a lawyer ( and paying )
and now you have to do the right thing in following his advice
// I have a statement from a Senior HCSW & a nurse .... They are the only people who said the medications given in hospital had no side effects. Morphine & tramadol was what i was given //
Irrelevant to the question in hand, and I can see why the lawyer is showing no interest.
// These two hospital workers also submitted my medical notes as exhibits...... I was not standing for that so I met with their department manager who said clearly they aren't qualified to say these things and put both on disciplinary action for submitting my medical records.//
I can see why you say that English is not your first language - the staff didnt submit anything and they arent exhibits ( the people or the notes) - what they did was - supply copies of the notes when they shouldnt have done. The technical word is 'breach of confidentiality' and that is a phrase you should use in your complaint to the hospital administrator.
BUT - but the police can get hold of your notes by writing to the correct person in the Hospital as of right ( comme un droit ) so no harm was done.
And this CERTAINLY doesnt make the notes inadmissible in England. By complaininng to the Hospital you wont get any advantage in your court case so that is definitely a sideline.
My lawyer wont call them as their evidence is irrelevant
I agree with your lawyer -what evidence are they going to give which is to your advantage ?
paragraph: however, nobody had the intelligence to see the numerous time he has done this before and in all previous occasions there was NFA.
I honestly cant give advice on this - your lawyer will take an overall view and you should follow it. They may say something is irrelevant which you dont and they almost always are correct
are you on a warn list from Monday 15th June ?
If you hear nothing I would seriously consider turning up at court at 9 am 15th June
You have done the right thing in hiring a lawyer ( and paying )
and now you have to do the right thing in following his advice
Thanks for your answers. For the record English is my first language albeit I am originally from Brentwood Essex!!! I think the difficulty I am having is concentrating on this. I have a 7 week old baby that was crying constantly as I try to communicate this.
The medical notes are of no evidential purpose and as such then have been removed from submission. The staff who are all friends with the victim said in their statement that they were 'submitting my medical records as exhibit xxxx. My point behind complaining was these staff should not be involved and have only become involved to back their friend up. There was no need for them to exhibit my medical records, hense why they have faced disciplinary action.
I dont truely understand the legality or even the significants of all these 'hearsay' witness statements there seem to be so many. The solicitor I had in the police station argued with the custody sergeant because he disagreed there was enough for a charge. In fact the solicitor was so appalled that he gave me his mobile number if I wanted to discuss anything.
The solicitor I paid at mags court said she felt that there is an element of overkill which means its difficult for me to understand the relevance of all these witness statements who didnt actually witness anything. Its like a robbery happening outside my house. I dont witness or hear anything but I make a statement to say at the time I was having my dinner, I then washed my hair & went to bed. How does this have any bearing on what's happened?
My barrister did say that this case should not really be in court but I don't understand why he doesn't write to the CPS or something. I guess he is getting paid well or maybe it doesn't work like that.
This all happened over a year ago now and I am getting tired with it. The point is I couldnt have ever imagined that I would be unwell & an ex partner who has a long evidenced history of domestic violence turns up as part of the ambulance crew. When you call an ambulance they do something called an all party contact check which means they have information as to whether your address is known to police, social services etc. I requested the call log and this check was done & the result was that my address is flagged as known for 'high risk domestic incidents' so they think thats good let's send the perpetrator in to shout & swear a bit more!
Ive worked in NHS for many years & everybody ive explained these events to are shocked and can't believe this.
I think I will turn up on Monday & say well I've been warned I am here.
The medical notes are of no evidential purpose and as such then have been removed from submission. The staff who are all friends with the victim said in their statement that they were 'submitting my medical records as exhibit xxxx. My point behind complaining was these staff should not be involved and have only become involved to back their friend up. There was no need for them to exhibit my medical records, hense why they have faced disciplinary action.
I dont truely understand the legality or even the significants of all these 'hearsay' witness statements there seem to be so many. The solicitor I had in the police station argued with the custody sergeant because he disagreed there was enough for a charge. In fact the solicitor was so appalled that he gave me his mobile number if I wanted to discuss anything.
The solicitor I paid at mags court said she felt that there is an element of overkill which means its difficult for me to understand the relevance of all these witness statements who didnt actually witness anything. Its like a robbery happening outside my house. I dont witness or hear anything but I make a statement to say at the time I was having my dinner, I then washed my hair & went to bed. How does this have any bearing on what's happened?
My barrister did say that this case should not really be in court but I don't understand why he doesn't write to the CPS or something. I guess he is getting paid well or maybe it doesn't work like that.
This all happened over a year ago now and I am getting tired with it. The point is I couldnt have ever imagined that I would be unwell & an ex partner who has a long evidenced history of domestic violence turns up as part of the ambulance crew. When you call an ambulance they do something called an all party contact check which means they have information as to whether your address is known to police, social services etc. I requested the call log and this check was done & the result was that my address is flagged as known for 'high risk domestic incidents' so they think thats good let's send the perpetrator in to shout & swear a bit more!
Ive worked in NHS for many years & everybody ive explained these events to are shocked and can't believe this.
I think I will turn up on Monday & say well I've been warned I am here.
Good luck tomorrow
It sounds OK apart from the fact you will have to pay
If you are IN the NHS you should have no difficulty about the ins and outs of raising hell over breach of confidentiality which on the facts you state has occurred and been done by people who really are paid to know otherwise - remember also the Nursing and Midwifery Council - you can complain direct to them - and the Office of the information Commissioner
It sounds OK apart from the fact you will have to pay
If you are IN the NHS you should have no difficulty about the ins and outs of raising hell over breach of confidentiality which on the facts you state has occurred and been done by people who really are paid to know otherwise - remember also the Nursing and Midwifery Council - you can complain direct to them - and the Office of the information Commissioner
Thanks and for the record I have raised hell about thr breach of confidentially hence the disciplinary action. Ive also raised hell with the police and ambulance service.
The police in my area are notoriously bad. I had another incident occure a few weeks after all this started. My house backs on to a public playingr field with a foot/cycle path and a children's play area. Last summer about 10 travellers moved in and began to make local residents life difficult. I was playing sticky ball with my 6 year old daughter on the playing field. She threw the ball and it rolled I went to retrieve it and a large Alsatian ran from the travellers caravan and sunk its teeth into my forearm causing bleeding. I had to have a tetanus and antibiotics. I reported to police and I made a statement. I then receive an email from the PC investigating saying that I had entered the dogs territory and considered a normal animal reaction to bite. I was annoyed and a year on I have just got an apology and acknowledgment that the police did not deal with thsituatuin appropriately.
The police in my area are notoriously bad. I had another incident occure a few weeks after all this started. My house backs on to a public playingr field with a foot/cycle path and a children's play area. Last summer about 10 travellers moved in and began to make local residents life difficult. I was playing sticky ball with my 6 year old daughter on the playing field. She threw the ball and it rolled I went to retrieve it and a large Alsatian ran from the travellers caravan and sunk its teeth into my forearm causing bleeding. I had to have a tetanus and antibiotics. I reported to police and I made a statement. I then receive an email from the PC investigating saying that I had entered the dogs territory and considered a normal animal reaction to bite. I was annoyed and a year on I have just got an apology and acknowledgment that the police did not deal with thsituatuin appropriately.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Is Farage Labours Secret Weapon ?.
Politics5 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Society & Culture17 mins ago
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.