Update from CF

[DerekFaker]

This sounds horrendous. How can the police do this.

And yes, it was exactly as we predicted in the previous thread.

Should a certain police officer pop up in this thread, please try not to get drawn into protracted, repetitive arguments with him. Please!

https://twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1666337645427847169?t=LWaRDewlk7r_8pVTdkE_tw&s=19

GCalltheway
This is BS.
Orders are not usually handed out without a charge, they are usually used as we await trial. It’s unusual to use one without as much as charge!!

So you're saying that DVPN's are only applied for at the point of charge?
They are not applied for early on in the investigation, before the reporting person has decided to provide a statement or not?

You will find that they are submitted whilst the suspect is in custody and placed before the earliest court. They have to sign to say that they are aware of its application. The DVPN/DVPO will be in place whilst the investigation progresses.

Secondly the court gave the police a chance to amend the order

It was adjourned for the defence submissions from CF to be submitted. The police part of the order (the conditions) were already submitted to the court.

Confirmedwitch
IT DID NOT GO BEFORE THE COURT.
Clerk agreed to adjourn/relist.

Is that the Clerk of the Court you're referring to?

So it was heard at court. CF traveled to the court. The fact its wasn't heard in the court room and was adjourned following legal argument still means it was heard at court.

What usually happens if there is something like this, the clerk will have told the bench in the retiring room that there is a very odd looking punitive order that appears to be an over reach and potentially contentious, and that it needs reallocating.

The bench would not troop in and turn a police order down publicly (I would have paid good money to see that!) It is a discreet way of telling the police to check their homework, and come back with something more palatable.

In this case clearly the order has been dropped because it would never have been approved. It speaks volumes.

This is a ridiculous stretch.

Dv cases by default usually involve injuries and police presence at the time of the offence. It is usual for the suspect to be charged and interviewed, the order is presented in court along with a few facts of the case.

I have seen only a handful of orders requested without a single charge. Usually terrorism related, sex or people trafficking cases with very vulnerable witnesses, notably for investigation purposes to allow time.

There is a world of difference between those cases and this one.

Had this order had even the slightest shred of credibility it would have been approved in court, as you well know, but it hasn’t, so it’s pointless discussing it further.

That accords with what I saw @GCalltheway thank you for the explanation.

Team CF expressed frustration that her defence had been submitted some weeks previously and nobody appeared to have read it. The order appeared to have been applied for on the previous Friday and her team landed with it on the Monday, weeks after her second arrest.

Coincidentally, on that Friday, a certain TRA has posted a tweet about having cause to celebrate with a fish and clown emoji they like to use to describe CF and the tweet had been liked by a notorious GP.

Had this order had even the slightest shred of credibility it would have been approved in court, as you well know, but it hasn’t, so it’s pointless discussing it further.

Are there any statistics on what % of orders like this get approved (as opposed to withdrawn like this one was)?

JFCOAFB give it a break.

If I chant 521xeliF 3 times in a mirror will you FTFOTTFSOFATFOSM?

There might be stats somewhere I am sure. The Legal Advisor usually makes a note of outcomes, from experience I have seen less than 1% turned down by the court. Similar to warrants.

The court will usually pay heed to the police’s judgment and concerns, and it is rare for an order to be declined/reallocated/adjourned.

Yes, we apparently don’t know what we don’t know about this case but apparently we do know that police officers who work alone, so don’t see other police officer’s misogynist behaviour, means that the misogynistic behaviour doesn’t exist.

🥂🥂🥂

For Caroline and Louise ❤🍾🍰🍷

Just catching up on the days news! Wonderful news for Caroline.

🍻

Awww it's a good day today. CF should drink plenty of gin or whatever tipple.

<<<Wanders off thinking about bobble hats>>>

In the absence of a block or ignore poster option, may I suggest this as an appropriate response?

GCalltheway

Not all DV cases involve injuries - how about harassment, mal comms, theft etc etc

DV cases have to go to CPS for a charging decision. Unless you are looking to remand the suspect, in which you can go to CPS direct - they have to be bailed whilst a charging decision is made.

DVPN's & DVPO's are not imposed at the point of charge - if you are going to charge someone, they will have bail conditions imposed on them. If they are charged and bailed with conditions to court - why would you apply for a DVPN? Hence DVPN's & DVPO's would not be needed.

The whole point of these orders are that they are imposed pre-charge. They are imposed so the investigation can be carried out and the reporting person can be protected during this time. If the suspect is then charged, the bail conditions take over that protection.

1.2 Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) and Domestic Violence Protection Notices (DVPNs) were rolled out across all 43 police forces in England Wales from 8 March 2014. DVPOs are a civil order that fills a “gap” in providing protection to victims by enabling the police and magistrates’ courts to put in place protective measures in the immediate aftermath of a domestic violence incident where there is insufficient evidence to charge a perpetrator and provide protection to a victim via bail conditions. It is important to note that bail with conditions and protective measures can be used simultaneously to build up greater protection for the victim.

Taken from the home office website

I would like to point out that the case in question, and also the withdrawn request for an order, has nothing towith domestic violence. So all this whataboutery is smoke and mirrors.
We can see that too.

Felix have a day off will you and give it a bloody rest.

Dumbo12
It does have something to do with orders being imposed on people. And the method they are used & applied for is similar to that of a DVPN.
GCalltheway was suggesting that these orders are only imposed at the point of a charge, which is not true.

Boiledbeetle
Felix have a day off will you and give it a bloody rest.

Its a discussion forum and I am free to discuss - or are you trying to silence me?

This is not, nor was ever going to be a domestic violence protection order. Keeping posting about those will still not make them the order that the police withdrew. If you have knowledge of the actual type of order that the police withdrew the application for then I doubt you would have obfuscated with the ongoing verbiage about a different order.

We don’t know that’s she trying to silence you. None of us on here, except @Boiledbeetle know whether that’s the case. @Boiledbeetle will have her reasons and none of us can make assumptions about them, because it’s unknown at this point. I’m sure she must have good reasons though as I’ve never seen my FWR colleagues not have good reasons.

Dumbo12
I never said it was a domestic violence protection order. It is a stalking protection order

The two orders are very similar and they way they are applied for is very similar.
That is why i have always said "...its like a DVPN..."

In essence, both orders are pre-charge orders

MissMissive

That's why I directed my response to Boiledbeetle

All this information about DV - you’d almost think these orders are generally to protect women, not be used against them by…. oh, wait.