How does this work?

[MORELLO]

One person attacks another, using a knife and rendering the victim (a local scumbag drug dealer) seriously injured. Whilst the victim recovers in hospital, the attacker flees, and goes into hiding out of town. Police and locals are aware of attackers identity and some even back him. Should the victim decide not to press charges, (which could prove dangerous for the attacker), is this person able to return to his family without being formally charged? Bearing in mind the charge could be as serious as attempted murder, I would assume he would have to be. I see it as you can't go putting a knife in someone, regardless of their scum status, though others are arguing due to the identity of said 'victim' police would be unlikely to persue it?

[Calvesy]

The Police are able to prosecute if they feel that there is enough evidence to submit to the Crown Prosecution Service, who will then decide if a trial is in the public interest and likely to result in conviction.

[MORELLO]

But surely you can simply be charged with the unlawful act of knifing another person?

[NetSquirrel]

In my opinion the severity of the "punishment" for the attacker should be entirely dependent on two things:

1. The amount of harm the drug dealer was doing to the community.  Was he selling extremely harmful drugs?  To children?  Was he responsible for other crimes, and how serious were these?  In the police's opinion, would he have ever stopped if someone hadn't stopped him?

2. The behaviour and mindset of the attacker.  Did he contact the police before taking matters into his own hands?  Did he stab the man because he wanted to put an end to his wicked ways, or because of an unrelated personal dispute?  Was the stabbing intended to be fatal, or merely enough to scare the drug dealer off / teach him a lesson?  Was the decision to attack a reluctant one, arrived at because the man felt he had no other options...or does he have more of a "and I'd do it again, too" kind of attitude?

If the same man had killed Hitler no one would complain; the problem is in judging whether the attacker is a dangerous man who is likely to strike again, or an ordinary person who was just trying to do the right thing.  Either way, I think the minimum sentence should be a few months of psychiatric counselling - to determine whether the man is "safe" to return to his family, or if not, perhaps to set him on the track to recovery.

[Lillabet]

Criminal offences are taken as crimes against the state. Which is why in law reports they are R v Name (with R standing for Regina or Rex - Queen or King - Head of State) As such whether or not the victim wants to press charges is technically not that relevant.

When an offence such as this is committed the police would work to gather evidence - including taking witness statements. It is then up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic possibility of conviction. If there is not then no one will be charged and the person who committed the offence will have effectively got away with it. They could then just go home.

Of course, should further evidence arise later then they could be charged at a later date - particularly in a scenario as serious as the attempted murder that you described in your question.

Normally the evidence would include a statement from the victim as well as any witnesses. If people refuse to make statements or deny having seen anything then this would of course make proving what happened harder.

It is however perfectly possible to charge someone entirely on the basis of forensic (non human) evidence. In a case such as this there might be CCTV footage to put the person who did the stabbing on the scene. There might be the victim's blood found on the person or on his clothing. Traces from his clothing may have transferred to the victim. The weapon might be found with traces of the victim's blood on it. It might also have the offender's fingerprints on it. There have been many cases entirely reliant on forensic evidence.

[Lillabet]

As for your other point about the victim in this case 'being scum.' As someone said earlier the CPS do take into account whether a prosecution would be in the public interest as part of deciding whether or not to prosecute. Unless the case is one of overwhelmingly obvious self defence - meaning that the victim was facing immediate violence to an as great or greater extent to that which he inflicted - then it would be almost always in the public interest to prosecute those willing to use violence. Vigilante action of any kind is seen as against the public interest. As an example note that there have been a significant number of cases where people who have turned on hugely abusive partners who have committed any number of offences against them including serious crimes have been prosecuted, and sometimes convicted. Also in a fair number of cases those who get murdered/attacked are not angels - and often enough are involved in crime etc themselves. They are still entitled to have their attackers prosecuted.

Sorry it's a bit long. Hope this helps.