AIBU to believe that this is a crime? The police say no

[powertoyourelbow]

Name change for this as outing. Person A drives into person B’s driveway. Person B drives into drive some time later. Person B sees person A and tries to reverse out to leave as they are frightened of person A. Person A jumps out of their car and opens person B’s driver door. Turns off their engine and takes keys and returns to their own car. Person B is too scared to runaway . Person B Calls 999. Police treat this as an emergency and come as blue light. They negotiate with person A and get car keys back and give them to person b person B leaves . No charges brought against person A. Police say this is not a crime.

AIBU to believe that this must be a crime?

If they've been released in bail then they have been charged with an offence. They will attend court at a later date.

Yes if it happens again do the same thing. I suspect the hope is that the arrest etc is enough to stop him doing it again and he escaped with a warning that if he does it again it will go further

collect evidence now

I was thinking just this on another thread this morning about a mother whose controlling ex is still behaving appallingly towards her and their DC. Back in the day a simple warning to "behave or we'll send the boys around" would have mostly done the job - and saved police time! These days, of course, "the boys" would get into trouble and the original perpetrator would suffer few, if any, consequences. 😏

Yes, but OP has now been told they're not going to prosecute.

You aren’t getting the correct advice on here because we don’t know all the background facts and therefore we are having to extrapolate the facts, and depending how we do that leads to different results.

does person A have a genuine grievance with person B? Ie, person B has something belonging to person A and is not returning it? If so person B needs to take legal steps to get it returned, not contact person A directly.

Or is person A trying to intimidate person B by wanting them to change their evidence or as part of a custody agreement? That is harassment and as a PP said all you need is evidence of two forms of contact following a request for any contact to stop to be considered harassment.

What person A did in this circumstance is wrong and frightening but without further information we don’t know whether they were acting out of desperation. The police didn’t take it too seriously.

As another PP advised, ask for the case to be reviewed and ask if it can be held on record as constituting the first offence of harassment and that any further contact from person A would indeed constitute a criminal harassment charge been brought. Also ask if it qualifies for a non-molestation order to be issued.

good luck

Not necessarily. They could have been released pending further enquiries that could not have been completed during his time in custody

So they’re not actually saying it’s not a crime then? Just that it doesn’t meet the threshold for a prosecution?

Okay. That will be the CPS rather than the police that's made that decision.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a crime it will be based on strength of evidence (is there any evidence other than one word against the other), seriousness of any injuries/damage & whether it's in public interest to prosecute eg is there a risk to wider public or is it between 2 individuals

There is a victims right to review which could be appropriate in this situation. The victim could contact police if they want to request this.

Exactly, which is why I posted 20 minutes ago: "I don't think you are wrong OP. As you wrote "it is more that they can’t take it further and actually prosecute" and this is the real problem. The police did all they could - including charging him with harassment - but the CPS make the decision to prosecute on the likelihood of success (must be at least 50:50) and they have obviously decided the odds aren't good enough. However, it's great that the police were involved and it got as far as it did because every incidence of harassment by Person B on Person A and their family members adds to the body of evidence for a future charge of harassment if Person A keeps up their appalling behaviour. Person A and their family need to make a police report every single time Person B oversteps the mark and harasses them."

I think you’ve skewed the answers with calling them person A and person B. If you’d said (for example), my 80 year old DM came home and XH was parked on her driveway. He opened her car and took her keys, and she was so scared she called the police who arrested him etc etc. I think people would have said of course he should be charged.

It’s not about whether it’s a crime it’s whether prosecution is in the public interest. The situation was minor and resolved and there is clearly more context that has not been shared.

You’re saying Person B left? Her own house? And Person A was arrested, then released on bail, and then came - where - back to Person B’s house? Where does Person B reside now?

So if you have big male family members you're OK and if you don't, you're stuffed? Survival of the fittest, eh?

I would have thought this was intimidation and harassment but whether that's a crime or not I don't know.

Whatever the reason there are channels to go down. What ever person A did was wrong and there should have been enough to throw the book at him.

Unfortunately police won’t do anything unless someone dies or is physically assaulted.

The person in their 80s needs cameras, and to borrow a big big dog 🐕.

Years ago a ex sat on the bonnet of my car and refused to let me drive off from a public place (I dumped him in a public place for a reason) I called some rugby friends and he left when they turned up and I didn’t see him again.

This is why people need to keep their car doors locked when they are in their cars.

It's good that you called out the police and that they came and resolved the situation. They will have A's details on file and be aware of the situation between you which is good. The police must know whether it's a crime or not.

I hate the confusing way you described this. Plus the context of their relationship is obviously relevant. You should have led with the facts.

If the man has targeted her and committed crimes against her daughter (?) before then she may have reasonable suspicion that she would be harmed by him. However I do agree with the police assessment of the incident.

They arrived before any discernible crime occurred. Yes, he took her keys, but he could have said he did that to prevent her from hurting him or others with the car. He didn’t attack her, so he can demonstrate he didn’t intend to harm her but merely diffuse the situation. The police can’t really challenge that given that:

• nothing further happened,
• no violence or threats were used,
• he complied when they asked for the keys back
• they took him off the property without further issues.
• There isn’t evidence to the contrary
• the woman agrees with those events.
• we can’t clearly prove he intended to commit a crime

Ultimately this could have been a crime in progress but the direct intervention of the police stopped it from escalating into crime territory. This is good, you want the police to make timely interventions to step in and protect people. They recognised the importance of attending as the situation was odd. They’re not saying his actions did not warrant police involvement.

I think at this point the woman needs to speak to the police about a restraining order or how to successfully get one in the future as she may not be able to now. She might need to formally tell him not to contact her or go to her property. This means that his mere presence in the future or any further innocuous contact could be considered a crime such as stalking or harassment.

Mugging? He took the keys using unspoken threat. Then only gave them back when he was caught. Not sure if mugging is called that in legal terms.

I think most of us would completely agree what happened was horrible, wrong and it's understandable you want person A to be punished/prevented from doing it again, but as an OP has said there's morally wrong & criminally wrong and sometimes they're 2 different things.
Person B (Mum or Gran of person A's ex?) needs to ensure she has good security at her home - ring door bell etc I hope she's ok, it must have been frightening.

OP, I think you are confused between wrong and illegal. And thinking the police are there to stop anyone doing anything wrong or that they shouldn’t do.

There are tons of wrong things that are not illegal or a police matter (eg lying/ having an affair, being generally mean).

it has to reach a certain bar for severity, within a certain category to break a law.

I don’t know the law well, but I don’t see that bar is met in this case…. It’s not theft, as there is no evidence he ever intended to retain the keys. He didn’t after all, run off with the keys, he simply removed them from the car, so the person couldn’t drive away.

Neither does it sound like he was threatening or attacking in any direct way.

Neither did he break into the car, as the door was unlocked.

Nor did he cause any criminal damage.

So while it seems totally understandable that the old woman would be scared, when there is a negative history, he is a big guy etc…. And his behaviour sounds unpleasant, it doesn’t sound illegal to me.

That leaves police with just one option- question/ take it seriously, let him know they are watching etc… but ultimately release him.

sorry!

Thanks again everyone for taking the time to reply.

we will just have to hope that being arrested etc will act as a deterrent. He is a bully.

Don't be silly - what an over-reaction. 🙄 I was replying to @Rachelsthorns harking back to when Noah was a boy and how different things were back then. Neither of us is advocating for a return to "the good old days".

Well a legal paper trail has been created now so he would be stupid to do anything further. But if he does, it’s important to both protect yourself and gather evidence to continue the paper trail should you need it.

You should look up the law around harassment and restraining orders, as I believe it’s not straightforward and there might be actions you can take now that can help later.

Even though the police aren’t progressing this matter, they can still be of use. For example they can issue an informal warning to him to leave her alone, or put a marker on her name/address to prioritise calls to her. Plus what he did here, might be relevant in the criminal case involving the other family member so ask the police to join it up. The police aren’t always on the ball when it comes to passing information like that around internally.