Fatal Hit & Run

[Andy Onchan]

35 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

I wonder what made the police suspect the three girls they lifted apart from the fact they lived in Pully ? ☹️

Quote

Three people who were arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving - and failing to stop at, or report, a collision - have been bailed.

How many people were driving the car? I can understand that two from three perhaps being accessories (or what it's called) based on the failing to stop or report but surely there can only be one driver doing so dangerously??

JW??

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

How many people were driving the car? I can understand that two from three perhaps being accessories (or what it's called) based on the failing to stop or report but surely there can only be one driver doing so dangerously??

JW??

First, it was arrested in the course of investigation. It’s investigation that’s relevant. They weren’t charged.

Lets say, for the sake of speculation, someone tipped off the police it was the three youngsters in the car. The police at that stage don’t know which of the three was driving. They can’t question all of them as witnesses if one might be guilty and the others merely witnesses. Evidence gathered wouldn’t be admissible as not under caution. So they aren’t interviewed as witnesses. They have to be arrested, and cautioned, for the relevant offence.

Unless you’re going to charge with a conspiracy offence you wouldn’t charge all three with driving, you have to be able to prove who was driving. Of course more than one might have been driving. Dual controls, or messing about, one steering and foot on accelerator, one grabs the wheel, one grabs the handbrake.

[Barlow]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Not in my experience. Good SIO.

Good

There's also:

Very good

Excellent

Decent and honest, would never tell a lie to a member of the public.

[Andy Onchan]

46 minutes ago, John Wright said:

First, it was arrested in the course of investigation. It’s investigation that’s relevant. They weren’t charged.

Lets say, for the sake of speculation, someone tipped off the police it was the three youngsters in the car. The police at that stage don’t know which of the three was driving. They can’t question all of them as witnesses if one might be guilty and the others merely witnesses. Evidence gathered wouldn’t be admissible as not under caution. So they aren’t interviewed as witnesses. They have to be arrested, and cautioned, for the relevant offence.

Unless you’re going to charge with a conspiracy offence you wouldn’t charge all three with driving, you have to be able to prove who was driving. Of course more than one might have been driving. Dual controls, or messing about, one steering and foot on accelerator, one grabs the wheel, one grabs the handbrake.

And their records will show what and for how long? Or not at all?

[hissingsid]

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

Reactionary IOM policing for you.

Bust people and bail them without evidence they actually committed a crime.

[John Wright]

51 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

And their records will show what and for how long? Or not at all?

They’ve not been charged or convicted. 

[Andy Onchan]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

They’ve not been charged or convicted. 

So no record of the event in their names will be recorded?

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

So no record of the event in their names will be recorded?

There will clearly be a record of their arrest, the interviews, and the bail and NFA. But it’s not public. It doesn’t form part of their previous convictions/criminal record. It was an arrestable offence so speculative dna samples will have been taken. Can’t remember how long that is kept for off top of my head.

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

Just speculating but perhaps something else was going on at the same time and they possibly thought there may be a link between the two?

[0bserver]

What was really scary was the mob mentality of 3FM followers (and others) wanting some kind of vigilante justice against those who were wrongly arrested. Typical IOM mentality. 

[Max Power]

17 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

What was really scary was the mob mentality of 3FM followers (and others) wanting some kind of vigilante justice against those who were wrongly arrested. Typical IOM mentality. 

Unfortunately it's not just the IoM mentality, we have thick tw@s everywhere.

[Boris Johnson]

20 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Unfortunately it's not just the IoM mentality, we have thick tw@s everywhere.

We seem to be going for the Gold Standard of thick tw@ts on the island

Like the world tin bath races, we have the only competition so we must be the best at it.

[Derek Flint]

17 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Why was it reported that people had been arrested and questioned when there was obviously not a crumb of evidence to suspect them except as was suggested a dubious tip off ?   It sounds like showing how clever they are when really they did not have a factual case.    If these people would have been people of importance I guess this would have been handled very differently.  It was all too public probably because it was an emotive case but I feel for these people who have been treated badly I really do.

You need to understand the difference between reasonable cause to SUSPECT and reasonable cause to BELIEVE. 

the former, on a scalar has been described as ‘an informed hunch’, or 2/10 on the scale. The latter is ‘pretty darn sure’ and is more an 8 or 9 out of 10.

Reasonable cause to suspect is where the power to arrest sits. The officer has to satisfy a necessity test, and then the custody sergeant has to be convinced there is a need to detain in order to secure and preserve evidence (forensics, prevent interference with potential witnesses etc) and to obtain evidence by questioning, which is giving the suspect their opportunity to give their aid of the story.

So in answer to your question, there does indeed only have to be a ‘crumb’ of evidence for an arrest to be an option. That then opens up a raft of other investigative tools around search and seizure of evidence, whilst also fiercely protecting the suspects legal rights, with the likes of JW at their side.

If there appears to be sufficient evidence to charge, the matter is laid before the AG’s who will apply the evidential test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors (see 4.7 to 6.5). If there is a decision to charge, one will also be taken on whether to bail or not prior to appearance at court.

 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Derek Flint said:

You need to understand the difference between reasonable cause to SUSPECT and reasonable cause to BELIEVE. 

the former, on a scalar has been described as ‘an informed hunch’, or 2/10 on the scale. The latter is ‘pretty darn sure’ and is more an 8 or 9 out of 10.

Reasonable cause to suspect is where the power to arrest sits. The officer has to satisfy a necessity test, and then the custody sergeant has to be convinced there is a need to detain in order to secure and preserve evidence (forensics, prevent interference with potential witnesses etc) and to obtain evidence by questioning, which is giving the suspect their opportunity to give their aid of the story.

So in answer to your question, there does indeed only have to be a ‘crumb’ of evidence for an arrest to be an option. That then opens up a raft of other investigative tools around search and seizure of evidence, whilst also fiercely protecting the suspects legal rights, with the likes of JW at their side.

If there appears to be sufficient evidence to charge, the matter is laid before the AG’s who will apply the evidential test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors (see 4.7 to 6.5). If there is a decision to charge, one will also be taken on whether to bail or not prior to appearance at court.

 

"fiercely protect"?  Sorry, Derek, that is neither demonstrated in the culture or attitudes of the police, and that is a general observation not confined to the IOM.  The police are tuned to be critical and dubious of information provided to them and the default is to be suspicious.  That does not sit well with "fiercely protecting" the legal rights of those under investigation.  Sure, they will, in the main, observe the procedural requirements, but to dress that up as "fiercely protecting" is over- egging that particular pudding.