Farmer accidentally shot burglars

spen666

EKIMIKE wrote:

dilemna wrote:

If you were at a cinema in Bristol Spen666 maybe the reason for you not mentioning it at first would be on account of the company you had enjoyed on that evening ...............? Shall we say, to be less than discreet, would compromise the identity and very possibly reputation of your lady (or gentleman).

Errrr so, Murder or exposed affair(which is a voluntary undertaking) ? Urrrrmmmm i'm struggling here as to which i'd choose. Jesus man! Are you joking?
....

Plenty do choose to remain silent!

Frank the tank

I am a law abiding citizen but given the turn of events in my nephews case I would say I may well have reacted in the same way. I appreciate that may well be unlawful but the law is an ass to allow an assailant to walk away scott free purely because they deney their own offence.

Spenn666, understand what you're saying but I'm an ordinary bloke who knows right from wrong and there is no way I would ever admonish my nephew for his actions on the night in question. Indeed I admire his control in not kicking the living sh1t out of him when he was on the floor as you said, many others may have done.

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

I am a law abiding citizen but given the turn of events in my nephews case I would say I may well have reacted in the same way. I appreciate that may well be unlawful but the law is an ass to allow an assailant to walk away scott free purely because they deney their own offence.

Spenn666, understand what you're saying but I'm an ordinary bloke who knows right from wrong and there is no way I would ever admonish my nephew for his actions on the night in question. Indeed I admire his control in not kicking the living sh1t out of him when he was on the floor as you said, many others may have done.

Just out of interest, what did the police say? I presume they tried to find evidence of what happened - I'd just be interested to know how these things work out from the victim's point of view.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

I am a law abiding citizen but given the turn of events in my nephews case I would say I may well have reacted in the same way. I appreciate that may well be unlawful but the law is an ass to allow an assailant to walk away scott free purely because they deney their own offence.

So you want to convict people without any evidence save for the allegation of a self confessed assailant (your nephew). You are too closely involved to take an objective view. Would you like to live in a world where people are punished for things there is no evidence they carried out?

Spenn666, understand what you're saying but I'm an ordinary bloke who knows right from wrong and there is no way I would ever admonish my nephew for his actions on the night in question. Indeed I admire his control in not kicking the living sh1t out of him when he was on the floor as you said, many others may have done.

Self control? Your nephew by his own admission attacked someone. He admits it was not self defence. He may have been provoked, but he lost his self control

Buckled_Rims

spen666 wrote:

Would you like to live in a world where people are punished for things there is no evidence they carried out?

Er, isn't that the Government policy?

I can name countless times when people have been arrested without proper evidence. How many times has there been a big public scandal about this?

It's even gone silent on "guantanamo bay" UK detainees.

BarryBonds

Spenn,

Intersting perspectives on the way the CPS and the police operate. All true in theory, but do they reflect reality? What targets are the CPS solicitors set in relation to conviction rates? What are the rewards and penalties related to performance against these targets?

Regards
Barrybonds

Frank the tank

johnfinch wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I am a law abiding citizen but given the turn of events in my nephews case I would say I may well have reacted in the same way. I appreciate that may well be unlawful but the law is an ass to allow an assailant to walk away scott free purely because they deney their own offence.

Spenn666, understand what you're saying but I'm an ordinary bloke who knows right from wrong and there is no way I would ever admonish my nephew for his actions on the night in question. Indeed I admire his control in not kicking the living sh1t out of him when he was on the floor as you said, many others may have done.

Just out of interest, what did the police say? I presume they tried to find evidence of what happened - I'd just be interested to know how these things work out from the victim's point of view.

The police were suprised with the cps decision to only charge my nephew. My nephews retaliation was caught on cctv his assailants wasn't, but there were numerous witness statements supporting the fact my nephew was the one initially attacked. I'm not saying my nephew was blameless but neither was his assailant and the judge said as much in his summing up of the incident.

spen666

BarryBonds wrote:

Spenn,

Intersting perspectives on the way the CPS and the police operate. All true in theory, but do they reflect reality? What targets are the CPS solicitors set in relation to conviction rates? What are the rewards and penalties related to performance against these targets?

Regards
Barrybonds

CPS lawyers (not just solicitors) have no induividual or collective targets re conviction rates.
CPS staff are not paid performance pay in relation to case outcomes



Conviction rates are capable of being manipulated as follows:
1. Only charge cases that are 100% certain to be winners - then you get 100% conviction rate
2. Refuse to drop any cases, therefore the discontinuance rates is 0

In reality, the CPS Areas as a whole are measured on a whole range of measures which counter out the above practices.

For example as well as conviction rate, the CPS are measured against, volume of cases, charging rate ( this would show if CPS only charging certain winners), discontinuance rate, judge ordered acquittals. No case to answer cases, cracked trials, ineffective trials rtc

Can I direct you to http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk which is the website of the independent Inspectorate of CPS. They are a legally separate body. Go to the reports section and pick a recent report on a CPS area for an indication of how that body monitor the CPS performance.

Not it is performance of CPS not individual lawyers they report on.

spen666

Frank the tank wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I am a law abiding citizen but given the turn of events in my nephews case I would say I may well have reacted in the same way. I appreciate that may well be unlawful but the law is an ass to allow an assailant to walk away scott free purely because they deney their own offence.

Spenn666, understand what you're saying but I'm an ordinary bloke who knows right from wrong and there is no way I would ever admonish my nephew for his actions on the night in question. Indeed I admire his control in not kicking the living sh1t out of him when he was on the floor as you said, many others may have done.

Just out of interest, what did the police say? I presume they tried to find evidence of what happened - I'd just be interested to know how these things work out from the victim's point of view.

The police were suprised with the cps decision to only charge my nephew. My nephews retaliation was caught on cctv his assailants wasn't, but there were numerous witness statements supporting the fact my nephew was the one initially attacked. I'm not saying my nephew was blameless but neither was his assailant and the judge said as much in his summing up of the incident.

1. You nephew could / should have brought a private prosecution if he had sufficient evidence to support his version of events. He probably SHOULD have brought a private prosecution given what else you say.

2. Why was the judge summing up?I am a little confused here. I thought you said your nephew pleaded guilty. Assuming he did plead guilty, there would be no trial and therefore no summing up. I am assuming if he pleaded guilty, you mean the Judge's sentencing rather than summing up. The two are very different things


3. BTW What offence was your nephew sentenced for and what sentence did he get

Frank the tank

Sentencing, as there was no trial.

I TBH can't remember the actual charge or the sentence. It certainly wasn't a custodial one.

I wonder though how much self control you would show after having a glass stuck in your face, It's easy to come to cool/calm/collected responses a year after the event in the atmosphere of a court.

Anyway, I've gone on too much about this particular case and people on this forum can draw their own conclusions on the pro's and con's and whether the law is an ass or not.