Amy: the gift that keeps on giving

[wrighty]

4 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

It was something along those lines, but let’s just refine it. 

First of all, remember that the first bar for a a copper is ‘reasonable suspicion’. That’s been described as an ‘informed hunch’. It is a very low point at which the investigation starts to build.

So a police officer investigates. That might be as a result of something they directly witnessed, or evidence they were presented with via a third party. The quality of that investigation varies, but at some point, sergeant, or a prosecutor at the CPS or AG’s in the Manx context has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with an offence. The bar is set at ‘is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction at court?’. There are other tests which are outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which can be found online.

When it gets to court, the matter has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is quite rightly, a very high bar. Not reaching that bar can be down to a myriad of reasons, one of which is a poor investigation. It doesn’t mean that the earlier bars weren’t reached. Sometimes, a prosecutor will realise it is going down the Pan early, and withdraw the matter. Other times, they will for some reason blindly continue with the prosecution and everyone looks daft at court. 

So it depends. Knowing that someone has done something is one thing. Proving it to the standards of the law of the land is another. In a few cases, the prosecution is just technically wrong, but more often than not, there was something there, just not enough. The knack is knowing at which point to call it a day, accept you tried your best and hoping it was a sufficient shot across the bows to deter any future shenanigans.

 

So it’s always the case that “he’s a wrong ‘un, we just couldn’t quite prove it”, and the police never make mistakes or maliciously fit someone up?

[Ramseyboi]

35 minutes ago, wrighty said:

So it’s always the case that “he’s a wrong ‘un, we just couldn’t quite prove it”, and the police never make mistakes or maliciously fit someone up?

Apparently so! Also, obviously nobody with an axe to grind ever makes false allegations about someone either?

[Gladys]

48 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

 

So it depends. Knowing that someone has done something is one thing. Proving it to the standards of the law of the land is another. In a few cases, the prosecution is just technically wrong, but more often than not, there was something there, just not enough. The knack is knowing at which point to call it a day, accept you tried your best and hoping it was a sufficient shot across the bows to deter any future shenanigans.

 

As we have an innocent until proven guilty basis of criminal law, you cannot 'know' someone has done something until it is proven in court,  you can only have a deep suspicion. 

[Peter Layman]

1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

It was something along those lines, but let’s just refine it. 

First of all, remember that the first bar for a a copper is ‘reasonable suspicion’. That’s been described as an ‘informed hunch’. It is a very low point at which the investigation starts to build.

So a police officer investigates. That might be as a result of something they directly witnessed, or evidence they were presented with via a third party. The quality of that investigation varies, but at some point, sergeant, or a prosecutor at the CPS or AG’s in the Manx context has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with an offence. The bar is set at ‘is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction at court?’. There are other tests which are outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which can be found online.

When it gets to court, the matter has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is quite rightly, a very high bar. Not reaching that bar can be down to a myriad of reasons, one of which is a poor investigation. It doesn’t mean that the earlier bars weren’t reached. Sometimes, a prosecutor will realise it is going down the Pan early, and withdraw the matter. Other times, they will for some reason blindly continue with the prosecution and everyone looks daft at court. 

So it depends. Knowing that someone has done something is one thing. Proving it to the standards of the law of the land is another. In a few cases, the prosecution is just technically wrong, but more often than not, there was something there, just not enough. The knack is knowing at which point to call it a day, accept you tried your best and hoping it was a sufficient shot across the bows to deter any future shenanigans.

 

Actually getting the police to do something in a timely manner would be a good start.

[The Voice of Reason]

24 minutes ago, Gladys said:

As we have an innocent until proven guilty basis of criminal law, you cannot 'know' someone has done something until it is proven in court,  you can only have a deep suspicion. 

I can know if someone has thumped me.

[De nada]

4 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I can know if someone has thumped me.

You must get that quite a lot!

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I can know if someone has thumped me.

You are talking as a victim not an investigator.  In terms of being guilty of a criminal offence, do you know that they thumped you without provocation, in order to push you out of the way of an oncoming bus, to use reasonable force to protect themselves or another person, or as the result of an epileptic fit? 

[The Voice of Reason]

12 minutes ago, De nada said:

You must get that quite a lot!

 

10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

You are talking as a victim not an investigator.  In terms of being guilty of a criminal offence, do you know that they thumped you without provocation, in order to push you out of the way of an oncoming bus, to use reasonable force to protect themselves or another person, or as the result of an epileptic fit? 

Yes

[On The Level]

1 hour ago, Ramseyboi said:

Apparently so! Also, obviously nobody with an axe to grind ever makes false allegations about someone either?

...and therein lays the problem; the allegation is made and if the 'victim' has any brains at all they'll have got associates to support the allegation. What are the Police meant to do? Not investigate? Investigate any victim first? I can imagine what the #metoo brigade would make of that!

[Peter Layman]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

You are talking as a victim not an investigator.  In terms of being guilty of a criminal offence, do you know that they thumped you without provocation, in order to push you out of the way of an oncoming bus, to use reasonable force to protect themselves or another person, or as the result of an epileptic fit? 

Unlikely

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Peter Layman said:

Unlikely

Well, it was the first thing that came to mind. 

[Kopek]

He's had many many virtual thumps here on MF! He's a victim and should be getting therapy?

[Declan]

2 hours ago, Ramseyboi said:

Apparently so! Also, obviously nobody with an axe to grind ever makes false allegations about someone either?

Far fewer than the number of rapes and sexual assaults that don't result in a conviction though. 

[Derek Flint]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

Far fewer than the number of rapes and sexual assaults that don't result in a conviction though. 

An exemplar of how thorough stuff has to be to secure a conviction. One of the most difficult matters to investigate, prosecute and defend. And it frames well the fact that I alluded to earlier; something has ‘gone on’. But even if this is confirmed by ‘forensic evidence’, in many cases where there may have been no ‘attack’, but equally there has been no ‘consent’, determining the case beyon reasonable doubt is not easy.

There is no easy solution to dealing with the issue of what are on the face of it shockingly low conviction rates. This is why you have to approach things as a search for the truth. Whether there’s enough evidence to convict (or whether that evidence is well enough presented to convince a jury) is something else.

[The Voice of Reason]

6 hours ago, Peter Layman said:

Unlikely

Well not really. I was in a pub in Ramsey minding my own business when a bloke came and just thumped me.

Claimed I was disrespecting his missus.