If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News1 min ago
Spitting on a car, is this criminal damage?
My nephew is accused of spitting on a vehicle that was parked, he has no recollection of this at all, but the police insist they have his DNA.
He is expected to attend the Police Station and it has been "hinted" that if he ADMITS this offence he will receive a caution, if he fails to ADMIT then the courts will decide.
I am advised by the policeman that it is "criminal damage" because although (no actual damage occured to the vehicle) it had to be cleaned with a bucket of water and a brush or cloth.
I am wholley against spitting, but do NOT want my nephew to take a caution or go to Court if this is NOT criminal damage,
Many thanks for your URGENT help in ths matter
He is expected to attend the Police Station and it has been "hinted" that if he ADMITS this offence he will receive a caution, if he fails to ADMIT then the courts will decide.
I am advised by the policeman that it is "criminal damage" because although (no actual damage occured to the vehicle) it had to be cleaned with a bucket of water and a brush or cloth.
I am wholley against spitting, but do NOT want my nephew to take a caution or go to Court if this is NOT criminal damage,
Many thanks for your URGENT help in ths matter
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diane2210. 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.
Isn't it up to the CPS to decide whether the crown prosecutor can prove intent? Was he spitting at the car in an act or retaliation or aggression? Or did he ust spit and the car got in the way? The CPS would not persue this IMO unless there is some sort of aggravation involved. only my opinion, but it does seem to be a rather strange thing to waste court or even police time on, Do you have the full story?
Hi diane:
This is puzzling to say the least: "the police insist they have his DNA." Could you please explain that? The reason I ask is that 1) He would have to have had his DNA taken by Police for them to "have it", OR 2) He already has a criminal record.
How did his name come to Police attention? Did they witness him allegedly spitting on the vehicle?
Daft though it sounds, it does technically amount to criminal damage. I suspect there's more to this.
Are there any more details you haven't disclosed about this?
This is puzzling to say the least: "the police insist they have his DNA." Could you please explain that? The reason I ask is that 1) He would have to have had his DNA taken by Police for them to "have it", OR 2) He already has a criminal record.
How did his name come to Police attention? Did they witness him allegedly spitting on the vehicle?
Daft though it sounds, it does technically amount to criminal damage. I suspect there's more to this.
Are there any more details you haven't disclosed about this?
Many thanks for all your help, it is indeed urgent, as attendance at the Police Station is in the morning.
My Nephew has his DNA on record with the police because he was arrested some time ago for being drunk and having a punch up, he was released from custody within hours of that offence and given a caution.
The car was apparently stationary, and he was NOT seen doing this according to the Police man, But his(ex)
girlfriend lives in this area, and he genuinly has NO recollection of this spitting.
This all happened some 3 months ago we are advised, when he was still having contact with the girlfriend.
My problem is, should he just own up to something as serious as criminal damage if he cannot remember?
Would this officer who lives near to the allegded offence and being a good neighbour, actually get the Scenes of Crime involved as he has stated, and if DNA is taken would this actually get through the CPS, and even if it did, this "damage" was washed off with a bucket of water.
surely this is taking things a little far, just for a caution isnt it?, but why should my nephew have a "caution" which I am assured is the same as admitting the offence, if he cannot remember any such incident?
My Nephew has his DNA on record with the police because he was arrested some time ago for being drunk and having a punch up, he was released from custody within hours of that offence and given a caution.
The car was apparently stationary, and he was NOT seen doing this according to the Police man, But his(ex)
girlfriend lives in this area, and he genuinly has NO recollection of this spitting.
This all happened some 3 months ago we are advised, when he was still having contact with the girlfriend.
My problem is, should he just own up to something as serious as criminal damage if he cannot remember?
Would this officer who lives near to the allegded offence and being a good neighbour, actually get the Scenes of Crime involved as he has stated, and if DNA is taken would this actually get through the CPS, and even if it did, this "damage" was washed off with a bucket of water.
surely this is taking things a little far, just for a caution isnt it?, but why should my nephew have a "caution" which I am assured is the same as admitting the offence, if he cannot remember any such incident?
This is interesting - I would advise him NOT to comment in interview without the benefit of legal advice - that is crucial.
There are cases where criminal damage has been done to a police offier's uniform by spitting. But a care is quite different - uniforms which are worn close to the body have to be cleaned because of the presence of bodily fluids - thus making out a charge of CD. However, a car is quite different - cars drive through sh!t and have bird crap on them all the time. Spittal is no more offensive (particularly if it reckless) than animal effluent or the other crap we get on our roads. This would be a fantastic legal argument in court. I would therefore advise that your nephew seeks immediate legal advice and is not interviewed without the presence of a solicitor who I think will advise him to go no comment.
There are cases where criminal damage has been done to a police offier's uniform by spitting. But a care is quite different - uniforms which are worn close to the body have to be cleaned because of the presence of bodily fluids - thus making out a charge of CD. However, a car is quite different - cars drive through sh!t and have bird crap on them all the time. Spittal is no more offensive (particularly if it reckless) than animal effluent or the other crap we get on our roads. This would be a fantastic legal argument in court. I would therefore advise that your nephew seeks immediate legal advice and is not interviewed without the presence of a solicitor who I think will advise him to go no comment.
Hi again, diane:
It sounds as if your nephew will be going to the Police Station to be interviewed under caution. If so, it means that he is not under arrest and that the full details of the allegation must be explained to him. I would strongly advise no comment.
It also has to be explained that he would be free to leave at any time. However, if he did then indicate he wanted to leave, there is a good chance that he would be arrested at that point and detained in custody. I'm assuming he's an adult?
Now, don't panic because he would be entitled to free legal representation, in which case any solicitor worth his salt would surely be able to secure his release without caution or charge unless there's some overwhelming evidence against him. The only drawback would be that his DNA would be taken after arrest even if not cautioned or charged.
Besides, I cannot see how something as trivial as spitting on a vehicle can be deemed as being sufficiently of public interest as to invoke the expense of a Court case.
Reading between the lines, would his ex be involved? Perhaps is the one who made a statement? Owns the car?
A bit of a "domestic"? "A woman scorned"?
Anyway, as you rightly assume, he cannot admit to an offence if he cannot remember allegedly commiting it, can he?
Good luck. Hope this is of help.
It sounds as if your nephew will be going to the Police Station to be interviewed under caution. If so, it means that he is not under arrest and that the full details of the allegation must be explained to him. I would strongly advise no comment.
It also has to be explained that he would be free to leave at any time. However, if he did then indicate he wanted to leave, there is a good chance that he would be arrested at that point and detained in custody. I'm assuming he's an adult?
Now, don't panic because he would be entitled to free legal representation, in which case any solicitor worth his salt would surely be able to secure his release without caution or charge unless there's some overwhelming evidence against him. The only drawback would be that his DNA would be taken after arrest even if not cautioned or charged.
Besides, I cannot see how something as trivial as spitting on a vehicle can be deemed as being sufficiently of public interest as to invoke the expense of a Court case.
Reading between the lines, would his ex be involved? Perhaps is the one who made a statement? Owns the car?
A bit of a "domestic"? "A woman scorned"?
Anyway, as you rightly assume, he cannot admit to an offence if he cannot remember allegedly commiting it, can he?
Good luck. Hope this is of help.
Hi again:
I've just seen Barmaid's comments. I'd agree but I think I'm right in saying that he'd be better off actually being arrested, as opposed to just being interviewed under caution, the difference being that your legal advice would be provided free if arrested but not otherwise.
And as a result I WOULD advise "no comment" during the voluntary under caution interview which would leave the Police with limited choices:
1. Report for summons if they have enough evidence.(Doubtful)
2. Release without charge, i.e. NFA (No Further Action)
3. Arrest on suspicion of criminal damage, take DNA, free legal advice.
2.
I've just seen Barmaid's comments. I'd agree but I think I'm right in saying that he'd be better off actually being arrested, as opposed to just being interviewed under caution, the difference being that your legal advice would be provided free if arrested but not otherwise.
And as a result I WOULD advise "no comment" during the voluntary under caution interview which would leave the Police with limited choices:
1. Report for summons if they have enough evidence.(Doubtful)
2. Release without charge, i.e. NFA (No Further Action)
3. Arrest on suspicion of criminal damage, take DNA, free legal advice.
2.
Hi ALL
Many thanks for your help, it was very useful, I did indeed get a Solicitor for my Nephew, and the situation was exactley as you all described.
He was arrested, and read his rights
The police did in fact have his DNA, as it was felt the car owner was being targeted, the policeman realised this was not the case, and approched his duty sergeant to dismiss, but this was agrumpy man ( according to the Solicitor) and she thinks, because the DNA was ordered and tested, someone has to pay.
This of course was my Nephew, She did argue his case very well for him, stating that the chances were the prosecution service would wonder what on earth all this was about, and not proceed, but she also took into account that my Nephew, is not too good on explaining and expressing himself, so IF it went to Court, she would worry for his chances of a dissmissal. So it did end up with him accepting a caution, better than Court I suppose, as he did in fact spit, from a balcony onto a stationary vehicle.
It just goes to show, how one person can cause sooooo many problems in other peoples lives, over a very silly mistake.
Again so many thanks to you all, I was at my wits end with worry, knowing my nephew as I do, and knowing he is NOT a YOB and deserving of this Caution, but we are forced to accept as the alternative is further worry and a possible criminal record for something so trivial.
I must say. I do hope all the birds in our City fly over this vehicle and do their business.
Many thanks for your help, it was very useful, I did indeed get a Solicitor for my Nephew, and the situation was exactley as you all described.
He was arrested, and read his rights
The police did in fact have his DNA, as it was felt the car owner was being targeted, the policeman realised this was not the case, and approched his duty sergeant to dismiss, but this was agrumpy man ( according to the Solicitor) and she thinks, because the DNA was ordered and tested, someone has to pay.
This of course was my Nephew, She did argue his case very well for him, stating that the chances were the prosecution service would wonder what on earth all this was about, and not proceed, but she also took into account that my Nephew, is not too good on explaining and expressing himself, so IF it went to Court, she would worry for his chances of a dissmissal. So it did end up with him accepting a caution, better than Court I suppose, as he did in fact spit, from a balcony onto a stationary vehicle.
It just goes to show, how one person can cause sooooo many problems in other peoples lives, over a very silly mistake.
Again so many thanks to you all, I was at my wits end with worry, knowing my nephew as I do, and knowing he is NOT a YOB and deserving of this Caution, but we are forced to accept as the alternative is further worry and a possible criminal record for something so trivial.
I must say. I do hope all the birds in our City fly over this vehicle and do their business.
i hope i'm not too late but the cops are B.S. ing you. DNA is very costly and i know for a fact that they would never run DNA for spitting on a car and also it takes about 2 weeks to get DNA results back unless it is a murder case. the cops always lie and say stuff to get you to admit it. My mothers ex boyfriend's dad was a cop and they said they do it all the time and it's totally legal. don't fall for it and it will get dropped plead not guilty because even if he did do it he didn't hurt anything. just made someone mad
i'm sorry this is a pathetic situation. this is not urgent. and u seriously paid a lawyer to come for this??? omg. i can't believe you. it's nothing. no one got hurt and they can't prove it. you got played. pathetic how serious could it be. people are saying in there answers to not admit such a serious offense. come on jeaz///
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Home & Garden2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News16 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.