Time To Change The Law On Drugs?

[asitis]

8 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

I can think of one that was dropped by the AG’s (at the highest level)  that left us all scratching our heads at Dukes Avenue...

I suspect I know what this was Derek ! perhaps the one flaw in an otherwise supportable record.

[Rog]

7 hours ago, Chutney said:

But it’s not for the police to decide which are the ‘low hanging fruit’. I would have more understanding if the offences  they were turning a blind eye too were summary offenses but it definitely should not be stuff that is dealt with at crown court or are ‘either way’ offences .

I disagree. With limited resources prioritisation must take place.  That prioritisation should not be based on simplistic determination such as what might be escalated to Crown Court or what you describe as "either way" offenses but on what are most significant in terms of social impact.

Importation, possession, or use of cannabis does not fall anywhere near that.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

The Police have investigated prominent politicians, wealthy individuals and all manner of people with connections, there has been a number of well publicised court cases . There are a plethora of reasons why people do not even get further than the Police in respect of prosecution, the offence is not made out i.e. all the elements needed to fit the act and section of the offence are not present, there are no witnesses who can be relied upon to prove or disprove the offence, there is no forensic evidence, the complaint is malicious etc etc all this before it even gets to the next stage the AG !

The AG will then look at is there a realistic chance of a conviction, is there a manner in which this should have been disposed of etc etc.

I suspect that the percentage of people who you would describe as the man in the street who go forward to prosecution is the same pro rata as the percentage of people who you wouldn't place in that category ! The authorities cannot prosecute or not by inference, only evidence !

I might be wrong but I think the Public Interest can trump the evidential process .    

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I can think of one that was dropped by the AG’s (at the highest level)  that left us all scratching our heads at Dukes Avenue...

But I’ve seen dozens of cases where the decision to prosecute, both by police and AG’s has been perverse, there was insufficient evidence and no public interest, and in spite of representations by defence advocates, or orders for full disclosure by courts,  prosecutions have not provided essential evidence, often because the police didn’t provide it.

That is more worrying, lives put on hold, money spent on defence, jobs lost.

Ive even experienced cases where, on being called out as duty advocate, it became apparent, on reviewing the custody record, that there were insufficient grounds for arrest or detention. Representations meant their immediate release.

Its a system, it involves humans, some of its subjective, errors can, and do, happen. It’s why equality of arms is an essential part of a fair system in encounters between citizen and state.

Edited July 16, 2018 by John Wright

[WTF]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

But I’ve seen dozens of cases where the decision to prosecute, both by police and AG’s has been perverse, there was insufficient evidence and no public interest, and in spite of representations by defence advocates, or orders for full disclosure by courts,  prosecutions have not provided essential evidence, often because the police didn’t provide it.

That is more worrying, lives put on hold, money spent on defence, jobs lost.

Ive even experienced cases where, on being called out as duty advocate, it became apparent, on reviewing the custody record, that there were insufficient grounds for arrest or detention. Representations meant their immediate release.

Its a system, it involves humans, some of its subjective, errors can, and do, happen. It’s why equality of arms is an essential part of a fair system in encounters between citizen and state.

so in the cases ( not just one ) where there were insufficient grounds for arrest or detention  what were the reasons given for the arrests and detentions?

[John Wright]

8 minutes ago, WTF said:

so in the cases ( not just one ) where there were insufficient grounds for arrest or detention  what were the reasons given for the arrests and detentions?

That’s client confidential. However examples would be things like the grounds of arrest, accepted by the Custody sergeant, and recorded in the custody record , either not showing an offence or a connection to the arrested person.

[Barrie Stevens]

The police can be slow and grudging if they think they have lost what they thought was an open and shut case. 

A few years back there was a robbery of a lot of money held in a Strand Street Douglas business. I worked there so I knew about it. 

One long term employee was arrested on the basis that his PIN number had been used on the alarm system at night. This was considered conclusive evidence that it was him as the PINs were meant to be secret. He insisted that he had not done it. 

I knew that the place leaked and that each member of staff knew each other's PINs including that of the management. They had been left out in the open on a desk and for a laugh the staff made copies. 

I was the only one not issued either a PIN or a set of keys.

I told the owners their own PINs as I knew them all too! The police were told as well that the PINs were not secure evidence against one man yet they raided his flat and took away property including a collection of foreign coins in a jar. They said it was "evidence"..

The suspect continued to be interviewed again and each time denied any involvement but the police were still using the PIN number as conclusive evidence despite being told by myself and the management that all PINs were widely known to staff.

After five days I went to see the suspect's Advocate Terry McDonald and told him about the PINs. 

The police reaction was to ask me to attend HQ to be interviewed. McDonald said I was not obliged to go. He explained about the lack of security of PINs. etc but the police said they still wanted to prosecute over the jar of foreign coins which in any case the management had said he could have. 

So, they wanted to prosecute over the jar of foreign coins but not the thousands of pounds cash stolen? So they had taken notice that the PINs were not secure and compelling evidence! And yet they persisted with the torment.

I heard Terry McDonald tell them (CID) that it was "evil" and "wicked". 

Anyway, it was a month later that the suspect, still on I think police bail, was asked to attend Police HQ where without any apology or admission he was given back his jar of foreign coins. He had by then lost his job and could not get Benefits as they said it was his fault he got sacked!

I though that the CID were unfair to an unfortunate man of low mental ability who could not really understand why they were doing it to him.

On the other hand he berated me because my ten minutes with the advocate cost him £100!

Such ingratitude!

 

 

[paswt]

46 minutes ago, WTF said:

so in the cases ( not just one ) where there were insufficient grounds for arrest or detention  what were the reasons given for the arrests and detentions?

It's called " making it up as you go along " ,quite common on the island in central and local government circles ? 

[manxst]

14 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said:

The police can be slow and grudging if they think they have lost what they thought was an open and shut case. 

A few years back there was a robbery of a lot of money held in a Strand Street Douglas business. I worked there so I knew about it. 

One long term employee was arrested on the basis that his PIN number had been used on the alarm system at night. This was considered conclusive evidence that it was him as the PINs were meant to be secret. He insisted that he had not done it. 

I knew that the place leaked and that each member of staff knew each other's PINs including that of the management. They had been left out in the open on a desk and for a laugh the staff made copies. 

I was the only one not issued either a PIN or a set of keys.

I told the owners their own PINs as I knew them all too! The police were told as well that the PINs were not secure evidence against one man yet they raided his flat and took away property including a collection of foreign coins in a jar. They said it was "evidence"..

The suspect continued to be interviewed again and each time denied any involvement but the police were still using the PIN number as conclusive evidence despite being told by myself and the management that all PINs were widely known to staff.

After five days I went to see the suspect's Advocate Terry McDonald and told him about the PINs. 

The police reaction was to ask me to attend HQ to be interviewed. McDonald said I was not obliged to go. He explained about the lack of security of PINs. etc but the police said they still wanted to prosecute over the jar of foreign coins which in any case the management had said he could have. 

So, they wanted to prosecute over the jar of foreign coins but not the thousands of pounds cash stolen? So they had taken notice that the PINs were not secure and compelling evidence! And yet they persisted with the torment.

I heard Terry McDonald tell them (CID) that it was "evil" and "wicked". 

Anyway, it was a month later that the suspect, still on I think police bail, was asked to attend Police HQ where without any apology or admission he was given back his jar of foreign coins. He had by then lost his job and could not get Benefits as they said it was his fault he got sacked!

I though that the CID were unfair to an unfortunate man of low mental ability who could not really understand why they were doing it to him.

On the other hand he berated me because my ten minutes with the advocate cost him £100!

Such ingratitude!

 

 

Says a fair bit to me that “an unfortunate man of low mental ability” was given the security code and keys, and yet you were (“the only one”) not afforded the same responsibilities....

[WTF]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

That’s client confidential. However examples would be things like the grounds of arrest, accepted by the Custody sergeant, and recorded in the custody record , either not showing an offence or a connection to the arrested person.

So fishing exercises then?

[Barrie Stevens]

1 hour ago, manxst said:

Says a fair bit to me that “an unfortunate man of low mental ability” was given the security code and keys, and yet you were (“the only one”) not afforded the same responsibilities....

I was not a full time member of staff and was only given codes and keys when standing in for staff on holiday. My job did not require me to open up and lock that building where the robbery took place. I was situated in another building on Castle Street although both businesses were owned and managed by the same company. When I was given code and keys it was for the second building and that when staff were away...and it was not my code it was another's 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

So fishing exercises then?

No. Error, mistake, misapprehension on the part of the arresting officer, the first gate keeper in the process, not picked up by the Custody sergeant, the second gate keeper, and first reviewer, but raised by the duty advocate and reviewed again by the Custody sergeant.

[woody2]

Quote

Ex-RSM’s with purple necks
A nose for trouble and kinky sex
Rejuvenate an old pudenda
With a bunch of sticks
And a young offender

Where are the wierdoes, thugs, and louts
Down in the dungeons dishing it out
Their politics would recommend
A bunch of sticks and a young offender

Authority its use perverts
Submission to it always hurts
The cops and the church and the house of keys
Bring back the birch for bums like these

jcc

[La Colombe]

Eeh, get the farmers on board. Shrewd move. £££... 

[Andy Onchan]

38 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

Eeh, get the farmers on board. Shrewd move. £££... 

I'd rather they were encouraged to consider our food security first.