How it Works1 min ago
Pre-Charge Bail: Cps Need More Information
17 Answers
Good morning all,
Please give me your interpretations regarding this situation: A suspect on pre-charge bail has had their bail extended by a week due to the fact that the CPS have requested more information from the police. They have now been on pre-charge bail for nearly four months.
The suspect was informed three weeks ago by the police that the CPS had not, at that point, looked at the case in question and subsequently requested an extension of three weeks which has since been extended to another week.
The custody sergeant stated that it is very unlikely that the suspect will need to have a further interview under caution.
What could this information be, and could the fact that the CPS need more information be that there is insufficient evidence to charge at present?
Thanks in advance.
Please give me your interpretations regarding this situation: A suspect on pre-charge bail has had their bail extended by a week due to the fact that the CPS have requested more information from the police. They have now been on pre-charge bail for nearly four months.
The suspect was informed three weeks ago by the police that the CPS had not, at that point, looked at the case in question and subsequently requested an extension of three weeks which has since been extended to another week.
The custody sergeant stated that it is very unlikely that the suspect will need to have a further interview under caution.
What could this information be, and could the fact that the CPS need more information be that there is insufficient evidence to charge at present?
Thanks in advance.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nowayaguru. 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.
Without knowing the full details of the case, it's hard to post meaningful comment here.
As you've suggested, it's possible that the CPS might still be trying to work out whether there's sufficient evidence to charge the (alleged) offender with anything at all. However it's equally likely that they're trying to work out which charge to apply.
As an example, in an assault case, if the police were responsible for providing the CPS with photographs of a victim's injuries, together with medical reports collected from a hospital, but have failed to do so yet, the CPS might be unsure as to whether to charge the (alleged) offender with 'ABH' or 'GBH'.
Similarly, if they're already sure that the injuries sustained by the victim fall into the 'GBH' category, they might need further information from the police in order to decide whether to bring a charge under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ('GBH') or under Section 18 of that Act ('GBH with intent'). For example they might need to know whether the police are able to prove that the (alleged) offender deliberately took a billiard cue to the scene of the attack, with the intent of using it as a weapon, or whether he simply grabbed hold of one, initially in order to defend himself, in the bar where the assault took place.
In a fraud case the CPS might need additional evidence in order to decide whether a charge should be brought under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 ('false representation') or under Section 3 of the Act ('failing to disclose information').
If the bail period has reached 4 months though, it indicates that
(a) a senior police office must have authorised the extension of the bail period beyond the normal limit of 28 days ; and that
(b) a Magistrate must have subsequently authorised the extension beyond the 3 month period available to a senior police officer:
https:/
As you've suggested, it's possible that the CPS might still be trying to work out whether there's sufficient evidence to charge the (alleged) offender with anything at all. However it's equally likely that they're trying to work out which charge to apply.
As an example, in an assault case, if the police were responsible for providing the CPS with photographs of a victim's injuries, together with medical reports collected from a hospital, but have failed to do so yet, the CPS might be unsure as to whether to charge the (alleged) offender with 'ABH' or 'GBH'.
Similarly, if they're already sure that the injuries sustained by the victim fall into the 'GBH' category, they might need further information from the police in order to decide whether to bring a charge under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ('GBH') or under Section 18 of that Act ('GBH with intent'). For example they might need to know whether the police are able to prove that the (alleged) offender deliberately took a billiard cue to the scene of the attack, with the intent of using it as a weapon, or whether he simply grabbed hold of one, initially in order to defend himself, in the bar where the assault took place.
In a fraud case the CPS might need additional evidence in order to decide whether a charge should be brought under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 ('false representation') or under Section 3 of the Act ('failing to disclose information').
If the bail period has reached 4 months though, it indicates that
(a) a senior police office must have authorised the extension of the bail period beyond the normal limit of 28 days ; and that
(b) a Magistrate must have subsequently authorised the extension beyond the 3 month period available to a senior police officer:
https:/
Thanks Buenchico,
The allegation is of 'indecent exposure' by a male.
The 'victim', a female, appears to be anti-male and very frequently uses social media to express her disgust towards alleged perpetrators of sexual assault in high profile cases e.g. the #metoo movement.
She has been doing this since before the alleged incident.
Other social media posts by her tend to be very self-absorbed and attention seeking.
It is known that the the 'victim' suffers from severe bouts of ill mental health and is prescribed various medication.
Thanks again!
The allegation is of 'indecent exposure' by a male.
The 'victim', a female, appears to be anti-male and very frequently uses social media to express her disgust towards alleged perpetrators of sexual assault in high profile cases e.g. the #metoo movement.
She has been doing this since before the alleged incident.
Other social media posts by her tend to be very self-absorbed and attention seeking.
It is known that the the 'victim' suffers from severe bouts of ill mental health and is prescribed various medication.
Thanks again!
// Without knowing the full details of the case, it's hard to post meaningful comment here. //
I agree mystic meg needed here
I think you have to wait and see -
custody sergeant doesnt have a crystal barl into the CPS and so his opinion is irrelevant
I think it is much more likely the CPS have sat on it
and just said - hey oo this case is due tomorrow and no one knows nuffink abart it .....
so they applied for an adjournment
[I dont have much good to say about the CPS]
I agree mystic meg needed here
I think you have to wait and see -
custody sergeant doesnt have a crystal barl into the CPS and so his opinion is irrelevant
I think it is much more likely the CPS have sat on it
and just said - hey oo this case is due tomorrow and no one knows nuffink abart it .....
so they applied for an adjournment
[I dont have much good to say about the CPS]
Thanks for your response.
For a prosecution under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ('indecent exposure') to succeed, the prosecution would have to be able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that:
(a) the defendant exposed his genitals ;
(b) he intended someone to see them ; and
(c) his intention was to cause that person alarm or distress.
Unless all three tests are met then a conviction can't be obtained.
For a prosecution under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ('indecent exposure') to succeed, the prosecution would have to be able to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that:
(a) the defendant exposed his genitals ;
(b) he intended someone to see them ; and
(c) his intention was to cause that person alarm or distress.
Unless all three tests are met then a conviction can't be obtained.
Buenchico, In your opinion, if it went to court, how could it be proved?
I do believe that should her social media content be displayed in a court of law, the Magistrates or jury in a Crown Court, or indeed any 'reasonable' person would view her posts as narcissistic.
Would there be a link between the supposed narcissism and the allegation?
I do believe that should her social media content be displayed in a court of law, the Magistrates or jury in a Crown Court, or indeed any 'reasonable' person would view her posts as narcissistic.
Would there be a link between the supposed narcissism and the allegation?
“How would an allegation like this be proved, and how is it investigated?”
The investigation comes first, then the proof. Look at ‘Chico’s three elements:
(a) the defendant exposed his genitals ;
(b) he intended someone to see them ; and
(c) his intention was to cause that person alarm or distress.
There would presumably be a complaint made by the alleged victim. The police would take a statement from her. They would then interview the person accused and get their side of the story.
The proof for (a) would come from the alleged victim’s statement. The proof for (b) would probably come from a combination of the two testimonies though possibly the complainant's alone. The proof for (c) would be a view taken by the court based on what they have heard.
If the matter is denied it will go to trial. Assuming no other witnesses are involved the alleged victim will almost certainly be called to court to give her evidence (it is highly unlikely her statement will be accepted and “read” to the court). After she has given her testimony she will be cross-examined by the defendant’s lawyer. (If he is defending himself the court will appoint a lawyer to undertake the cross examination on his behalf as he is not allowed to cross examine the victim himself in such cases). After that the defendant can (though need not to) give his version of events. He will then face cross-examination by the prosecutor. Finally either the Magistrates or District Judge (if the matter is heard in the Magistrates’ Court) or the jury (if it is heard in the Crown Court) will deliberate and announce their verdict.
Note that this is an “Either Way” offence which means it can be heard in either court. For the Magistrates’ Court to decline jurisdiction the offence must fall into “Category 1” of seriousness. This means that both “raised harm” and “raised culpability” must be present. However, even if the Magistrates Court declines jurisdiction the defendant has the right to choose trial by judge and jury in the Crown Court. The sentencing guidelines are here:
https:/
The investigation comes first, then the proof. Look at ‘Chico’s three elements:
(a) the defendant exposed his genitals ;
(b) he intended someone to see them ; and
(c) his intention was to cause that person alarm or distress.
There would presumably be a complaint made by the alleged victim. The police would take a statement from her. They would then interview the person accused and get their side of the story.
The proof for (a) would come from the alleged victim’s statement. The proof for (b) would probably come from a combination of the two testimonies though possibly the complainant's alone. The proof for (c) would be a view taken by the court based on what they have heard.
If the matter is denied it will go to trial. Assuming no other witnesses are involved the alleged victim will almost certainly be called to court to give her evidence (it is highly unlikely her statement will be accepted and “read” to the court). After she has given her testimony she will be cross-examined by the defendant’s lawyer. (If he is defending himself the court will appoint a lawyer to undertake the cross examination on his behalf as he is not allowed to cross examine the victim himself in such cases). After that the defendant can (though need not to) give his version of events. He will then face cross-examination by the prosecutor. Finally either the Magistrates or District Judge (if the matter is heard in the Magistrates’ Court) or the jury (if it is heard in the Crown Court) will deliberate and announce their verdict.
Note that this is an “Either Way” offence which means it can be heard in either court. For the Magistrates’ Court to decline jurisdiction the offence must fall into “Category 1” of seriousness. This means that both “raised harm” and “raised culpability” must be present. However, even if the Magistrates Court declines jurisdiction the defendant has the right to choose trial by judge and jury in the Crown Court. The sentencing guidelines are here:
https:/
Thanks New Judge.
I do have three further questions, though:
1) If there were no witnesses i.e people who physically saw the alleged incident, but say they think the defendant would have done it - is that relevant?
2) How much would the 'victim's' state of mental health come into play i.e. imagining or exaggerating facts.
3) The suspect admitted to having taking in alcohol, but not enough to impair judgement. - How far would that hinder the defence?
I appreciate yours, and others feedback.
I do have three further questions, though:
1) If there were no witnesses i.e people who physically saw the alleged incident, but say they think the defendant would have done it - is that relevant?
2) How much would the 'victim's' state of mental health come into play i.e. imagining or exaggerating facts.
3) The suspect admitted to having taking in alcohol, but not enough to impair judgement. - How far would that hinder the defence?
I appreciate yours, and others feedback.
these are qite technical questions the accused would be better off asking his lawyer rather than walk ins like us
(New Judge has done a lot of cri,minal law and procedure)
basically for us walk ins it boils down to the girl saying he did and the accused saying I didnt
and I would go for jury trial if he is given the choice.
the only case I know the fella said - look I just didnt do this
and the girl said - he did! he diiiiid!
acquitted. cost him lots and you dont get it back
(New Judge has done a lot of cri,minal law and procedure)
basically for us walk ins it boils down to the girl saying he did and the accused saying I didnt
and I would go for jury trial if he is given the choice.
the only case I know the fella said - look I just didnt do this
and the girl said - he did! he diiiiid!
acquitted. cost him lots and you dont get it back
Peter has near enough hit the nail on the head. She says he did it, he says he didn't. A classic case for presentation to a court.
To answer your specific questions:
1. For the charge to succeed there must have been one witness who actually saw what happened. Those who "think he would have done it" are of no evidential value.
2. The defence may use that to cast doubt.
3. The prosecution may use that to reinforce its case.
The weight that (2) and (3) lend to the proceedings is impossible to tell.
To answer your specific questions:
1. For the charge to succeed there must have been one witness who actually saw what happened. Those who "think he would have done it" are of no evidential value.
2. The defence may use that to cast doubt.
3. The prosecution may use that to reinforce its case.
The weight that (2) and (3) lend to the proceedings is impossible to tell.
1 to 17 of 17
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.