To think this is unfair .guilty until proven innocent ?

[indyindie]

Long story but will summarise dh was charged with Assualt and is due in court in a few months time.
He allegedly punched a man.
The man was our neighbour .
The neighbour had lived here for just under a year , he is an alcoholic and regularly beat his partner ( we called the police on multiple occasions ).
Neighbour didn't appreciate us doing so . He would stand at his door (bottom floor in block flats) and watch your every move , aswell as play music stupidly loud with door wide open. All this was annoying but we and other neighbours just kept complaining until a day dh was cutting the grass with dd , dd came upstairs to get a drink then went back down to go to garden the "neighbour" came out his flat and locked the back door and wouldn't open it . This will sound terrible but we have no idea how long for I was feeding and dh was cutting grass no more than 5 minutes but still long enough to scare the life out of us. He suddenly opened door and let her out when I started walking down the stairs to see what had kept her. She was terrified she has asd . He then locked door again with dh and dd outside.
dh wasn't happy at all and wanted to call police I wish to god I had let him. Dd said he just stood there staring at her nothing else thankfully but it creeped us out.
I put it down to being annoyed at lawn mower and wanting to annoy dh.
A few days later we are chatting with another neighbour and he comes out to watch as always. dh says he better not pull any stunt like that again or he will call police. Neighbour tries to attack dh , dh is holding our then 6 week old :(.
A week later dh is out after his friends birthday drinks on way home he bumps into neighbour ,his friend , and his partner few words are exchanged and once again neighbour tries to punch dh . dh grabs him and they both fall . Dh admits he kicked him in the bum which of course he shouldn't have . Neighbour and his partner are claiming dh attacked him.
police came an hour later took dh away with no money phone etc charged him and kept him overnight. next morning he had over an hours walk home. They at no point asked what had happened or let dh tell them.

We are both worried sick he has been treated as if he is guilty so much for innocent until proven guilty .
Its affected his job and every aspect of our lives.
I never thought I'd be worrying about something like this is he likely to go to jail ? even a conviction makes me feel sick .

He can be charged without questioning. And he also doesn't need to be officially charged but can be informed that he is "being reported to the procurator fiscal for consideration of prosecution" or wording similar to this.

You're right, nicknacky. :-)

Try again, my mummy! ;-)

And in case you're in doubt, the police ARE not your friends and are NOT actually interested in the truth! Luckily, it doesn't matter what they think, only what the Sheriff thinks!! :-)

sorry my opening post has confused people it was just over a month ago it happened and he has been given a court date for 5 months time. There was a plea hearing last week.
No unfortunately I wasn't there just neighbour , his partner and neighbours friend. Neighbour's friend isn't willing to give a statement for either of them .
No order has been issued in fact dhs solicitor has got one sent to neighbour telling him to stay away from us .

Neighbour is currently emptying his "pee pot " out in communal garden I'm at wits end surely this isn't normal.

kirsten I don't think that's fair. They have witness statements to say that an assault has occurred and they are duty bound to report the circumstances to the pf for consideration for prosecution. "Friends" doesn't come into it.

I reported a case where I was certain the complainer was lying and I said that in my report. 18 months later and we were all at court where she admitted it while giving evidence. It was out my hands and I had to report it when I apparently had a "sufficiency" of evidence.

The police that came a few days after, Where actually very nice they know neighbour as they have been called out repeatedly for domestic issues. They advised dh to write down things he does and keep complaining about him .

Nicknacky I'm guessing from your post your work in legal sector ? , neighbour has a close relative who is a pf. Is this something that should concern us or would the person not allowed to be involved with the case ?

Good to see someone with knowledge of Scots Law posting and I hope it has helped Indy.

I've been procrastinating doing some reading out of interest today and I am finding the differences in the system remarkable with strengths and weakness on both sides. Definitely in England we forget that the law is not UK wide, I've been bitten twice by this now and should think to clarify.

I think a lot of the language and procedural problems comes about as a a result of law and crime programmes and that is all most have been exposed to. For large numbers of people in the UK if you ask them what the caution is they start quoting American Miranda rights

I hope you get some answers and some peace soon Indy.

Indy seeing as a supermarket frowns upon you serving someone you know I'd be stunned if a PF is allow to adjudicate on a case where they know the participants. It would be fundamentally against the right to a fair trial which we are all bound by.

I'm a police officer Indie. I wouldn't be too worried about the relative, I've found that most pf's don't see the papers until fairly soon before it reaches court and generally they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and would state that they knew parties concerned.

I certainly have done that at work as I don't want involved or risk my career!

Thanks Charlie I never realised how much it differed , the bill has a lot to answer for .
I never realised you could end up in court without ever having been interviewed , it seem's flawed but I am no doubt biased just now .

I have to agree with Kirsten I am afraid NickNacky I've worked closely with the police and have many serving and ex officer friends. But you never know who the dicks are and (in England) I would always demand a solicitor before I spoke a word beyond what I had to. All my serving and ex officer friends agree.

It's not really flawed. Many, if not most people answer "no comment" during interview since the change brought by the Cadder ruling. Most times no information is gained from an interview and there is no obligation for a suspect to provide a defence at that point.

And even if he had been interviewed, you would probably still be in the same situation now. It would be up to a court to listen to all the evidence and make a decision.

Thank's again Charlie and Nick. That is good to know we assumed so. The realative is his exw .

Charlie, no police officer has an issue with a suspect taking legal advice, we would rather it as it saves any dubiety at court. But it doesn't change the police procedure that will follow.

And it's a bit of a moot point as the op's H wasn't interviewed.

Indy, she would be nuts to even contemplate dealing with the case, even if she kept her mouth shut about who he was.

And really, being an ex would she even want to help lol?!

That is true Nick , it just seems like not so much this case , but other's could be cleared up easily.

She wouldn't we know an old friend of hers and she hates him , he used to beat her up

So don't worry about that. I know it's not a popular opinion but when most of us see people we know who are involved in an incident we go out our way to not be involved! It's not worth our jobs for a (obviously not for you, it's massive! but in the scheme of things) a minor assault.

Indy, even if someone does provide a credible defence it would still be reported to the pf. The police at that stage can't decide that it was self defence. If there is evidence an offence has committed and a sufficiency of evidence then that and any possible defence would be forwarded.

That makes sense Nick , I needed to think of it from a different perspective.

Thanks again for all you advice it's certainly calmed me down .

Good I'm glad! These things are always a nightmare but honestly nothing has been done that I wouldn't expect. It's just a waiting game to see what happens. Good luck.

Apologies Nicky I was not clear. I don't assume any officer would prevent me getting legal advice. The occasional one may have a silent issue with it though.

For me in England I would not trust the police when I was a suspect as you can get bad apples in every barrel. The police reflect as as a society, the vast majority are decent and trustworthy some are not. But we cannot predict who the untrustworthy are. I am not talking about full scale corruption but the more Incompetent officers who go for the easy targets. I've been consistently advised by police officers, solicitors and my own experience to trust no one and get the legal advice I am entitled to as it will protect me and have no detriment to the outcome.

I can definitely see this as a big positive to the Scots system if it is not a police decision and time is allowed between the process for things to calm down and advice to be gained.

Apologies for the massive derail Indy. BTW I started out in scenes of crimes and CSI has a shedload to answer for!

That may be your experience Charlie but there is nothing to suggest incompetence or untrustworthiness in this case. This is a bread and butter case for police officers who have no axe to grind and are doing their job. Untrustworthy officers are few and far between, and to be honest, I don't care enough to set people up or whatever! I'm busy enough.

The op's husband will have had the opportunity to have a solicitor notified of his detention/arrest but no requirement to speak with one as he is not being interviewed.

To be honest, "no comment" during interview can be more detrimental than people think. Once a suspect mentions names/places we have to investigate it and include that in our report and that can go in a suspects benefit. But it does depend on the case at heart!