Crosswords3 mins ago
Perverting The Course Of Justice
Last year I was prosecuted for fraud. The only evidence against me was the word of two other people. The case went to trial at my request in Crown Court. The prosecution presented its case and then called the two prosecution witnesses who contradicted each other, the statements they had made to the police and could not explain away evidence that supported the defence when questioned by the defence barrister. The prosecution dropped the case without any further prosecution witnesses being called which, were the investigating officer and an individual who could only confirm facts that were not disputed and would have supported the defence, or any defence witnesses. The motive for the allegations was to attempt to avoid a debt owed to me. I have since successfully pursued the two prosecution witnesses through the County Court and recovered a sum that was 10 times the value of the alleged fraud. The fact is though that they are guilty of 'perverting the course of justice'. Why they haven't been prosecuted, I don't know. The judge waived aside my the defence barristers suggestion that they should be prosecuted and neither the police of CPS have done anything about it. Which, is the best way to try and get them prosecuted? Can I make a complaint to the Police or should I write to the CPS with my evidence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Misslilly. 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.
your question: Which, is the best way to try and get them prosecuted?
NJ's answer (on the first page) So the summary answers to your questions are approach the police with your additional evidence. If the CPS refuse to take on the case then you must launch a private prosecution.
seems like the answer to me :)
NJ's answer (on the first page) So the summary answers to your questions are approach the police with your additional evidence. If the CPS refuse to take on the case then you must launch a private prosecution.
seems like the answer to me :)
I’m not getting further involved in this as it’s obviously getting out of hand, other than to respond to this:
“I asked if it was possible to bypass the police and go directly to the CPS. No one answered my question.”
In my first answer (at 12:15pm) I said this:
“So the summary answers to your questions are approach the police with your additional evidence. If the CPS refuse to take on the case then you must launch a private prosecution.”
The public does not generally have access to the CPS in an attempt to influence their charging decisions. They may need further investigations carried out and they will liaise with the police as necessary. So I have answered your question but it seems you either do not like or do not believe my answer. If you think I’m wrong it’s no skin off my nose. Go ahead and give it a try and I wish you well.
I imagine you will not be posing any further questions on AB and that’s a mutually agreeable situation as I shall not be answering them if you do.
“I asked if it was possible to bypass the police and go directly to the CPS. No one answered my question.”
In my first answer (at 12:15pm) I said this:
“So the summary answers to your questions are approach the police with your additional evidence. If the CPS refuse to take on the case then you must launch a private prosecution.”
The public does not generally have access to the CPS in an attempt to influence their charging decisions. They may need further investigations carried out and they will liaise with the police as necessary. So I have answered your question but it seems you either do not like or do not believe my answer. If you think I’m wrong it’s no skin off my nose. Go ahead and give it a try and I wish you well.
I imagine you will not be posing any further questions on AB and that’s a mutually agreeable situation as I shall not be answering them if you do.
The only case in a law library I can find on a case such as this is:
Abstract: The appellant mother (M) appealed against an injunction forbidding her from disclosing to third parties that the respondent father (F) had lied in proceedings concerning financial support for their son. F had not disclosed that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received £111,000. M wanted to disclose to the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority that F, who worked in the financial services sector, lied in statements and on oath in the proceedings. However, the district judge in those proceedings decided that it was not in the interest of the parties or their son for documents to be disclosed to the police in circumstances where there was no investigation which was being undertaken to which those documents would be relevant. M submitted that there was a public interest in the prosecution of crime, whether perjury or perverting the course of justice, and in the Financial Conduct Authority being made aware of F's capacity to lie in his own interests, since he was in a position of responsibility holding investors' funds.
Appeal dismissed.
( Y v Z sch 1 publiciity ) 2014
and as you have been repeatedly told, the judge said in this case, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
well - you wanted a technical answer from Joe Public and so here is one.
Abstract: The appellant mother (M) appealed against an injunction forbidding her from disclosing to third parties that the respondent father (F) had lied in proceedings concerning financial support for their son. F had not disclosed that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received £111,000. M wanted to disclose to the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority that F, who worked in the financial services sector, lied in statements and on oath in the proceedings. However, the district judge in those proceedings decided that it was not in the interest of the parties or their son for documents to be disclosed to the police in circumstances where there was no investigation which was being undertaken to which those documents would be relevant. M submitted that there was a public interest in the prosecution of crime, whether perjury or perverting the course of justice, and in the Financial Conduct Authority being made aware of F's capacity to lie in his own interests, since he was in a position of responsibility holding investors' funds.
Appeal dismissed.
( Y v Z sch 1 publiciity ) 2014
and as you have been repeatedly told, the judge said in this case, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
well - you wanted a technical answer from Joe Public and so here is one.
Useful thread boys and girls
thanks for your contributions
I am involved with a tenant who I can show is lying in her face
and I wouldnt dream of pleading directly perjury as a litigant in person
I am going for - "her memory is bad, very bad" and leaving it at that
this thread has reinforced that view
thanks for your contributions
I am involved with a tenant who I can show is lying in her face
and I wouldnt dream of pleading directly perjury as a litigant in person
I am going for - "her memory is bad, very bad" and leaving it at that
this thread has reinforced that view
"NJ please do not give up giving advice to Mr Average Punter as I think it does us all a bit of good."
Would not dream of it Peter. Misslilly's reaction to the answers to her question is thankfully not typical of almost all other posters on AB. She needs to accept that advice is freely given by all of us. There is no obligation to accept other people's views but equally there is certainly no need to react in the way that she has. If and when I see any questions from her again I shall simply ignore them but that will not prevent me engaging with other AB-ers in what I hope is seen as my usual courteous fashion. I'm certainly not prepared to answer questions as best I can only to be challenged and insulted.
Would not dream of it Peter. Misslilly's reaction to the answers to her question is thankfully not typical of almost all other posters on AB. She needs to accept that advice is freely given by all of us. There is no obligation to accept other people's views but equally there is certainly no need to react in the way that she has. If and when I see any questions from her again I shall simply ignore them but that will not prevent me engaging with other AB-ers in what I hope is seen as my usual courteous fashion. I'm certainly not prepared to answer questions as best I can only to be challenged and insulted.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Uk Economy Is Headed For The Worst Of...
News11 mins ago
Body & Soul18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
