ForumGarden

One court case has already collapsed due to a 'civilian' booking in a detainee at a police station.

Other's look likely to follow.

Do you think this is right? Or are the smart arss lawyers trying it on??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eants.html

oscar;1035302 wrote: One court case has already collapsed due to a 'civilian' booking in a detainee at a police station.

Other's look likely to follow.

Do you think this is right? Or are the smart arss lawyers trying it on??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eants.html


the lawyer who work for celebs and mega rich client in drink drive and speeding cases

el guapo;1035304 wrote: the lawyer who work for celebs and mega rich client in drink drive and speeding cases


So, what is your opinion of this Lawyer and do you agree with civilians doing the work of police???

The so-called Designated Detention Officers (DDOs) - introduced by the Home Office to save money - have taken over many of the duties previously carried out by police officers, such as booking in detainees, taking fingerprints and DNA samples, conducting strip-searches and checking cells.


Has any court cases arisen from this practice, because of evidence not properly processed?

chonsigirl;1035339 wrote: Has any court cases arisen from this practice, because of evidence not properly processed?


It's not so much a case of evidence not being properly processed, It's the Lawyer's saying that the civilian's appointed have no legal rights to book in a detainee and charge them. This in effect makes the arrest invalid.

The lawyer pictured has already got one drink-driver off using this and is saying he wants all cases of civilian's charging detainee's, reviewed.

If he is correct, and the civilians do have absolutely no right to carry out searches, book detainee's in and charge them, any case like this is bound to collapse in the courts just on the legality of it, not because the lawyer happens to be the best.

I think he has merely set a precedent in cases like this.

oscar;1035348 wrote: It's not so much a case of evidence not being properly processed, It's the Lawyer's saying that the civilian's appointed have no legal rights to book in a detainee and charge them. This in effect makes the arrest invalid.

The lawyer pictured has already got one drink-driver off using this and is saying he wants all cases of civilian's charging detainee's, reviewed.

If he is correct, and the civilians do have absolutely no right to carry out searches, book detainee's in and charge them, any case like this is bound to collapse in the courts just on the legality of it, not because the lawyer happens to be the best.

I think he has merely set a precedent in cases like this.


I would think it might have to be codified to do this in the first place, otherwise cases will arise from the precedent. If one case was won citing the processing procedure as faulty within the law, it can be used with other cases.

oscar;1035302 wrote: One court case has already collapsed due to a 'civilian' booking in a detainee at a police station.

Other's look likely to follow.

Do you think this is right? Or are the smart arss lawyers trying it on??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eants.html


It's a bloody stupid idea and thank goodness the courts have seen fit to throw it out. Our police are citizens that have been given additional powers by the courts, like being able to charge people and bring a prosecution. . You actually have the power to place someone under arrest until the police turn up and take over. If civilians want the same authority as the police let them go through the same training. It's another stupid money saving idea from a labour administration that is desperate to be seen to be doing something constructive. Next step would be private security companies being given police powers of arrest and prosecution and the like.

As usual the daily mail fails to make the point they are talking solely about england and not scotland.

gmc;1035452 wrote: It's a bloody stupid idea and thank goodness the courts have seen fit to throw it out. Our police are citizens that have been given additional powers by the courts, like being able to charge people and bring a prosecution. . You actually have the power to place someone under arrest until the police turn up and take over. If civilians want the same authority as the police let them go through the same training. It's another stupid money saving idea from a labour administration that is desperate to be seen to be doing something constructive. Next step would be private security companies being given police powers of arrest and prosecution and the like.

As usual the daily mail fails to make the point they are talking solely about england and not scotland.


Good heavens above gmc, in the name of all things British, who would ever have thought that this Labour loving, Daily mail fan would agree with you???

It sounds to me that once again, not enough research was done in the run-up to appointing these idiot civilians before they took the idea on board and actually appointed some.

There has been many cases in the press of late of civilians trying to perform a citizens arrest and ending up being prosecuted simply as you say, they don't have the training.

I think this hair-brained scheme is open to abuse right from the start. For example, would you want your son or daughter being strip-searchedby a civilian??

No, we bloody wouldn't.

If the government and the police have failed to investigate the legalitie's thoroughly enough before employing these civilians, good luck to the Lawyers. If the civilians have 'no legal' right to carry out detaining and formally charging any-one, the case should be invalid before the courts.

If the civilians have not had the training that a p.c. would have, the whole system is open to blunders. For Christ's sake, the bloody trained police can't get police proceedure correct. That's why you have lawyers such as this dubbed 'Mr Loophole'. He is not performing trickery in courts, he raises sloppy police work.

Many a case collapses before the courts due to sloppy police work at the hands of lawyers like him anyway, they will have a field day when civilians start ballsing it up as well.

I've just had a thought........ If a civilian were booking in a detainee in place of the desk sergeant, followed by putting the detainee in a cell and the detainee resisted. If the civilian so much as touches the detainee, as a civilian, they have commited common assault? Surely? If they have no legal rights to even be booking them in, in the first place??

fuzzy butt;1035573 wrote: If the matter was thrown out of caught ? On what grounds was it thrown out and why hasn't the person been charged with false imprisonment?


It was thrown out of court due to the 'civilian's' having no legal right to detain or formally charge the defendant. Here, omly police officers have the legal right to charge a suspect.

This is why the whole thing is so dumb, they simply haven't checked the legalitie's before introducing it.

As i said in an earlier post, what happens if the defendent won't go into a cell quietly and the 'civilian' puts their hands on them? It's nothing short of common assault and false imprisonment.

The scheme is open to blunder and the 'civilian's' could actually find that instead of having a job, they will be before the courts themselve's for common assault, false imprisonment and god forbid if they carry out strip searches as they are suggesting.

I think this lawyer just set the precedent by having his case thrown out due to no legal right for the defendant to be charged by a 'civilian'.

It's the government and police hard luck as far as i'm concerned. They should have done their home-work. Too right the lawyers are going to use it. The police and gaovernment have broken the law themselves by appointing 'civilians' with no training to do a job that requires a heck of a lot of training.

fuzzy butt;1035638 wrote: why did i spell Court "caught?

Anyway it does seem a bit out of order. I agree with you here . They want to introduce DDO's here but it's going to take ages before they iron out the legalities. And it will be mostly paper work and front desk stuff................But people are already uncomfortable with the prospect of seeing a cilivian at a front desk.


Absolutely right. To be honest, if i was finger-printed etc by a civilian, put in the cell by them and charged by them, i'd laugh at them and not turn up at court. Or insist they fetch a bono-fide officer to do it, and god forbid, if they touched me, I'd be screaming assault. If they rried strip searching me, i'd scream sexual assault.

Problem is, while they are sorting out the legalitie's of it all, genuine offenders, i.e drink drivers will be back on the road because they're charge was illegal. It's created a loophole where many offenders will get off because the case will collapse in court before it's heard, just on the fact that no civilian has the right to charge a defendant in place of a police officer.



Isn't 'caught' Australian for 'Court'?