AlisonDonut
There is an allegation made against her by a reporting person. That reporting person speaks to a call taker who establishes if a crime may have occurred. If so it get passed to a cop to investigate.
In this case it was an offence under the public order act
So evidence is gathered - statements, witnesses statement, CCTV maybe etc etc
Maybe ask what it was she did, and say 'Someone says you did X, and we have the evidence on video so we will be arresting you'?
They have said what the offence is on the phone call - the point is there is no need to arrest if she is willing to attend for a vol interview and bring your solicitor too.
And she might have been wearing a BWV - great, bring that footage too - but we don't know what the specific allegation was do we on the reporting call.
Brefugee
The reason to arrest has nothing to do with the offence or its evidence - its the necessity to arrest which you need to cover to make an arrest lawful. So its got nothing to do with 'getting better evidence' You may have the grounds, but you need the necessity to do it. What if there is no other evidence to get - word on word.
It doesn't matter what the offence is and what evidence you have - burglary, theft, dropping litter, rape, fraud.......
If there is necessity to arrest, then you can't arrest. The only other option is a vol interview.
If they attend the vol interview but exercise their right to leave - then you have no power to arrest them. You can't say "This is a vol interview and you're free to leave at any point" and then arrest them can you.
If they do leave, the case will proceed to CPS with the reporting persons account as unopposed.
The only time you would consider and arrest in a vol interview is when the person mentions a further offence which there may be a necessity to arrest for - 'I've just stabbed someone prior to the interview' for example..
i don't expect the police to blindly, on the word of person B and absent any other evidence, to march in and arrest person A. That would be bizarre.
Precisely - so a vol interview may be more applicable here - but the offence still needs investigation. How many historically reported rapes are going to be one word against anther with no supporting evidence.
I have discussed 'serial complainers' previously on the thread - at what point do we ignore them etc etc And they will (and are) prosecuted for malicious complaints if it can be proven.
2plus2equals5
As discussed earlier - who judges if a person is harassed or is grossly offended by a comment. If its grossly offensive to one it may not be to another. And these will not be priority jobs for police - more of a job that's dropped down the queue to be dealt with as and when.
Also - you are not going disclose all the evidence to the person weeks before the interview. That's what the interview is for.
For example - if your house is a victim of a burglary but nothing was stolen. We're not going to inform the burglary suspect that there is CCTV of them walking down the path and we found their fingerprint on the outside of the door and the inside of a window. The burglary suspect has then got from the phone call to the interview to come up with an alibi as to why there prints are there.
MrsOvertonsWindow
An arrest is not proportionate i would say here - that's why the OIC has arranged a vol interview. But if we don't get her account can we just proceed the case court with just the account of the reporting person - as it appears this will be the only evidence with nothing to counter it.
If she attended for the vol interview and exercised her right to leave, then they can't arrest
If she just fails to attend - they may look at her failure to attend as avoiding the judicial system and a flight risk as possible grounds to arrest - but that still has to be authorised so probably not
And its not 'hurty words' as the crime does not exist
The crime being investigated here is one under the public order act - so its a crime in law
FOJN
A defence is put forward in a court of law, not a police interview room, unless our police force now also thinks they have the authority to conduct trials.
A defence can be put forward at any point. If a defence is raised, its up to police to investigate that defence before it goes to court. What if they that they were at work at the time of the offence. The police would then look to see if there are work records and witnesses at work to confirm of negate his alibi. You can't wait until the court trial to obtain this evidence - it has to be there before.
I never said a vol interview was a 'friendly chat' - its an interview under caution.
And all offences are allegations until they are proven at court.
The offence in this case is a public order offence - but a vol interview can be used for all offences from murder to dropping litter.
Unless you would prefer the reporting person's evidence to just go to the court without any attempt to interview the other party. Other party then just gets a court date to attend court. Fine by me - a lot easier for the police.
And you can't have a system where all the evidence has to gathered first before the potential suspect is interviewed and/or arrested. Would you do this for a murder suspect?
lechiffre55
Whats the bad advice?
How would you want the case to progress then.
Person A commits and offence against Person B - Person B then reports it to the police. No CCTV, witnesses or other supporting evidence available - one word against another.
Police say, well it only one word against another, so we are not going to bother.
Or
Go on what Person A says as true and just send Person B to court without their opportunity to put their side of the story across in an interview and provide evidence to show they are innocent.
DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter
Yes - we gather evidence. Both parties account is classed as evidence.
If there is no necessity to arrest someone - how do you want the police to proceed then.
A suspect burglar for example - we know who they are, there is no outstanding property, no ongoing incident, no person is put at risk - so you don't have any necessity to arrest. And there is only one person's account to identity them as the suspect - no forensics, no cctv etc etc
Should we not bother even trying to get their account in interview and just send it straight to court.
Like I say suits me as a cop - but it will tie the courts up beyond belief
MrsOvertonsWindow
And how is that video differing from what i have said?