Oh dear, more strife for The Cycling Silk

mybreakfastconsisted

I have this evening received a telephone call from Thames Valley police informing me that a motorist who assaulted me and a friend last week is to be dealt with by way of a police caution.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010 ... sault.html

[Admin] Quote sorted so we don't think that the OP is saying it You really should know how a forum works by now.[/Admin]

tailwindhome

Could one of the legal types on here explain how the English system works.

Who decides what offences are prosecuted, the Police or CPS?

tailwindhome

Please try to use either quotation marks or

[/ quote]

Even italics would do.

mybreakfastconsisted

Oh, sorry! I thought the thread title and link would make it clear I was posting a quote from the website.

I think from his story he's got a strange decision this time. He had the square root of bugger all to do with the original altercation, the driver "checking for bumps" . Drivers sometimes go mental if you touch their car.

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

Could one of the legal types on here explain how the English system works.

Who decides what offences are prosecuted, the Police or CPS?

A very simplified explanation - the rules are far more complicated than this appears

2 systems

System A - police have powers to charge - usually simpler offences
System B - police have to get authority from CPS to charge

1. System A or B - police investigate offence.
2.System A or B - Police decide if they feel there is sufficient evidence to make out offence
3. System A or B - if insufficient evidence police tell suspect no prosecution will follow
4. System A or B - if sufficient evidence police can offer suspect a simple caution if the police think it is appropriate
5. IF CAUTION NOT APPROPRIATE OR SUSPECT REFUSES
System A - police will charge defendant and bail him to court. CPS will subsequently review the case
System B - the police will seek charging advice from the CPS who will decide; -
a) is there sufficient evidence to prove case
b) is it in public interest to charge suspect
c) if yes to A & B, then a charge will be authorised - or in rare cases, CPS can suggest to police a caution is appropriate

I have missed out conditional cautions in this. At present at stage 4 if police ythink a conditional caution is appropriate they will have to consult the CPS in all cases

mybreakfastconsisted

If I was shopping in Tescos, barged my trolley into a man I knew to be a police officer, then made an anti-copper remark and shoved the copper over CAUSING GRAZING, reckon I'd get a caution?

spen666

As regards the story.

firstly, I am wary of making judgements based only on the account of one party. No matter how fair one tries to be in relating a tale, it is inevitably biased.

That said, in this case, there must be sufficient evidence that an assault has taken place and that the suspect has admitted the offence, otherwise he could not be cautioned. Thus, for the purposes of this post, I will assume that the account posted is totally true. This is important for explaining what has happened.

The actus reus (physical act) of the assault was a push. The injuries are consistent with a common assault. For someone who has no previous convictions, then a caution would generally be offered for a common assault. EXCEPT in the case of assaults in domestic situations, eg husband on wife or vice versa (Domestic Violence), or assaults on children by adults. In the case of DV the police would be less likely to caution and more likely to prosecute.
IIRC correctly the police have to get advice from the CPS before proceeding ( need ot check on this- I am not 100% sure )

The difference in these 2 types of cases is that the victims are vulnerable.

We need to come together as cyclists, BC, the CTC and all other bodies to cam[paign for assaults on cyclists to be treated as a similar thing to DV cases or racist crimes - ie far more serious than an assault between two equals. This is not just for assaults but for bad driving, threats, throwing of objects etc.



Now before our ever so precious silk gets upset, I am going to comment on some of his postings. If he doesn't like what I have to say, then perhaps he should think twice about posting the tales of his life. Although I hope he will reflect that what I say is actually statements of fact and procedure on criminal law

The quotes below are direct lifts from his blog

In law there is no real doubt that the assault amounted to one occasioning actual bodily harm, though I am told that under CPS guidelines it would be likely to be regarded as a ‘common’ assault. I was told it was not a serious enough matter to be referred to the CPS.

There is a wide overlap as to what is ABH and what is common assault. The injuries described are realistically unlikely to be prosecuted as an ABH. This is a reflection of practice.

I am sure that the silk in his early days, and other older lawyers ( me included) remember when these injuries were prosecuted as ABH. However, reading the CPS charging standards, it is appropriate that these injuries are considered as common assault

The silk was possibly wrongly advised that his case was not serious enough to be reported to the CPS. The police would make a decision on cautioning the suspect if it was common assault or ABH. The police would only approach the CPS if they thought the case sghould be charged or conditionally cautioned.

It is not clear exactly to me what is meant by the case not being serious enough to be referred to the CPS- there could be several reasons why

I must be out of touch with the practicalities of the criminal law as, I have to confess, it had never occurred to me that a caution would be thought a suitable disposal for an offence of unprovoked violence even assuming (as I must) that the offender has an unblemished record. I was also surprised that I was not informed of the possibility of a caution before it happened, so that I could make a representation about it.

I hate to say, but the silk as he admits is out of touch with criminal practice. That is understandable as he is not a criminal practitioner and this is not something most people would have thought of.

The victim has no part to play in making representations. The decision is a decision made by the Crown. It is the Crown who would proceed against the suspect. Here, I think the silk is possibly confusing the civil law with the criminal, or is understandable confused by the mixed messages successive governments have given regarding "rights" of victims of crime

Roadrage is dangerous and far too prevalent. Roadrage directed at vulnerable road users is especially dangerous. I regard it as a severely aggravating feature. Sadly ‘it’s just roadrage’ seems to be regarded too often as an exculpatory explanation. I do not think it very reassuring that someone is violent only in the vicinity of his car.

I am, not for the first time, disappointed in the level of protection that our criminal justice system provides to cyclists.

I could not agree more. I have been saying this for years

Before anyone mentions it, the CPS has a clear policy of taking over any private prosecution and discontinuing it if it relates to an offence where a caution has been given and accepted.

This again is correct. Once a caution has been given, the case is effectively concluded. It is not appropriate to issue a private prosecution in these circumstances, and the CPS would take over the prosecution and discontinue the case.



There is one issue about this case that puzzles me slightly. It appears from the case that a simple caution was given rather than a conditional caution. If this had been an assault say outside a pub, then a conditional caution with a condition that suspect pays to Victim £x in compensation would often be imposed (after consultation with CPS).

I wonder why this was not considered here. In road traffic cases, eg carelessdriving, compensation is not ordered as that is a matter for the insurers. Here though, compensation is not a matter for insurers as this was an assault rather than a motoring accident.

I do know Thames Valley CPS and police do impose conditional cautions. This may be a point that the silk would think to take up with the police. If he wishes to contact me via a PM or via my blog, I can assist him with the information I know about Thames Valley & conditional cautions.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

If I was shopping in Tescos, barged my trolley into a man I knew to be a police officer, then made an anti-copper remark and shoved the copper over CAUSING GRAZING, reckon I'd get a caution?

There are seperate offences relating to assaulting police officers, so its not a straight comparison