News4 mins ago
Can I Be Prosecuted For Abh From 9 Years Ago On Statements Alone?
I have recently been contacted by police informing me that I am being accused of ABH from 9 years ago. The accuser claims they were punched by myself in the face and subsequently fell over and landed on a piece of glass which left a one inch scar on their face. When I was interviewed under caution I was shown current pictures and they don't even have pictures of the time it happened. I am totally denying the charge and have one witness to say that I was struggling with someone else in the pub and the other guy got caught up and fell over drunk but was not punched. I was not arrested or made aware that there was an investigation against me at the time so have lost touch with a further 4 witnesses that could have backed up my side of the story. They have 3 witnesses against me and it has just been referred to prosecutors to decide wether it goes to court or not. Has anyone heard o this happening before or has any idea of the chance of it going to court after such a prolonged period and the fact that I was unaware and lost my witnesses??
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Xavier80. 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.
It would not be statute barred as some civil cases may be. The Police/CPS will only charge you if they believe they have a case which will win, after 9 years the prosecution (and defence) will have certain difficulties, if you are charged give the detail of what they have decided to charge you with and there will be a good deal of advice available, having not been charged you are premature if the police are investigating only at this stage, you may not be charged.
Thanks tony, but what's the difference between the police charging you and the CPS charging you? Also, at the time it was mentioned that it may not be in the public interest to charge me as I have a successful career, a wife and children with no previous convictions at all. Does this matter when they're deciding to charge me??
.
well the lawyers can hear the cash registers going ka-ching X,
because obviously you need to be lawyered up,
rather than rely on yourself with us in the background
Dammit - read the post - accused and not charged....
Right you have to wait until charging or not
There is no difference between Police/CPS - olds like myself still use the old terminology (police) and moderns use the new (CPS).
You do need a lawyer - sooner or later.
People worry about telling the Police the truth - hem hem
that is, if only you had come clean and told them everything, and cleared up an obvious misunderstanding then no charges would have been laid hem hem
I am not a great fan of that -having seen people charged as a result of statements they gave...
and nine years ago - yippee - obvious reasonable doubt - start ringing the bells !
The Gt Tony W will recollect a disgraceful episode when the B'ham non bombers were eventually let out with compensation and obviously it was then the Police turn to face the mzak. That is that they had disgracefully perjured themselves in securing the prosecutions in the first place when undisclosed evidence showed the fellas cdnt have done it anyway.
A london magistrate Bartells threw out the indictment against the Police 'because 16 y was such a long time ago' and the Police Fed said; ' we are pleased with this: which we thought was gonna happen anyway - and it has.' Jaw dripping stuff. for us 'did any of the convicted terrorists do any of the things they were convicted of' watchers [ A: yes the Balcombe st. gang were a true bill ]
Will that happen to you ? I doubt it - but that is what you will be employing the lawyers to achieve
Good Luck
well the lawyers can hear the cash registers going ka-ching X,
because obviously you need to be lawyered up,
rather than rely on yourself with us in the background
Dammit - read the post - accused and not charged....
Right you have to wait until charging or not
There is no difference between Police/CPS - olds like myself still use the old terminology (police) and moderns use the new (CPS).
You do need a lawyer - sooner or later.
People worry about telling the Police the truth - hem hem
that is, if only you had come clean and told them everything, and cleared up an obvious misunderstanding then no charges would have been laid hem hem
I am not a great fan of that -having seen people charged as a result of statements they gave...
and nine years ago - yippee - obvious reasonable doubt - start ringing the bells !
The Gt Tony W will recollect a disgraceful episode when the B'ham non bombers were eventually let out with compensation and obviously it was then the Police turn to face the mzak. That is that they had disgracefully perjured themselves in securing the prosecutions in the first place when undisclosed evidence showed the fellas cdnt have done it anyway.
A london magistrate Bartells threw out the indictment against the Police 'because 16 y was such a long time ago' and the Police Fed said; ' we are pleased with this: which we thought was gonna happen anyway - and it has.' Jaw dripping stuff. for us 'did any of the convicted terrorists do any of the things they were convicted of' watchers [ A: yes the Balcombe st. gang were a true bill ]
Will that happen to you ? I doubt it - but that is what you will be employing the lawyers to achieve
Good Luck
The police always ask the CPS whether to proceed and on what charges. The CPS have two criteria. First, is it probable that the prosecution will succeed? Second, is it the public interest to prosecute?
Why has this case suddenly become active? It seems odd. The CPS are very likely to take the view that the second criterion has certainly not been met and the first is very arguable. Wait and see whether the CPS direct a charge. As I say, I don't think they will. If they ever did, you'd have a strong argument in court that this is an abuse of process because , in the very nature of things, you are hampered in your defence by not now having any contact with defence witnesses.
Why has this case suddenly become active? It seems odd. The CPS are very likely to take the view that the second criterion has certainly not been met and the first is very arguable. Wait and see whether the CPS direct a charge. As I say, I don't think they will. If they ever did, you'd have a strong argument in court that this is an abuse of process because , in the very nature of things, you are hampered in your defence by not now having any contact with defence witnesses.
It is not an abuse of process because you can't find your witness, thats just tough luck. The CPS may take you to court regardless if they think they can win, its more to do with you facing justice. I wouldn't be worried, 9 years ago I would be doubting if I was even there, how much alcohol was consumed, time of assult, lighting, etc etc! Easy case for you to win, even if you lose it'll be a small fine due to the time that has passed!
Mike, are you mindful of Environment Agency v Stanford [1998] C.O.D. 373 D.C in saying that where the court thinks that a case shouldn't have been brought it can reflect that in the penalty? That was a magistrates court case, on appeal to the High Court. In this case, it is still within the court's power to intervene (Connelly vDPP [1964] A.C. 1254 HL a House of Lords case). To lose one witness before trial immediately upon the event is clearly not ground for arguing abuse of process but where such loss is key and the result of the passage of nine years, it patently is.
X80, there is no difference between the police or CPS as has been stated, the police will take no action without the agreement of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is a regionally based organisation and was formed, I believe, in 1985 and advises police forces on matters related to criminal offences, it is answerable to Parliament and the head of the CPS is the Director of public Prosecutions, the CPS they may well decide to take no action.
You are assured of the right to a fair trial by article 6 of the HRA within a reasonable time, though delay per se will not necessarily lead to the procedure being stayed if the delay affects your ability to adequately defend yourself this should be taken into account.
You are assured of the right to a fair trial by article 6 of the HRA within a reasonable time, though delay per se will not necessarily lead to the procedure being stayed if the delay affects your ability to adequately defend yourself this should be taken into account.
And of course you are firstly assured of the right to a fair trial under the legal processes operated in the UK which, in the main, seem to work quite well without the intervention of a foreign court, but let's not go down that road.
It is true you may have difficulty conducting this case becasue of the time delay since the alleged incident. But it is equally true that the prosecution will face similar problems. The big difference is that you do not have to prove anything. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the matter to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. You may well find that the CPS - who will make the decision whether you are charged or not - consider this is too great a burden.
It is true you may have difficulty conducting this case becasue of the time delay since the alleged incident. But it is equally true that the prosecution will face similar problems. The big difference is that you do not have to prove anything. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the matter to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. You may well find that the CPS - who will make the decision whether you are charged or not - consider this is too great a burden.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Editor's Blog10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank23 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.