Stolen Bike Recovered

Lynx_516

I just got a call from the police to say they have recovered my lovely Cannondale CAAD8 from someone's house they raided. I now need to go to the police station to id the bike and give a statement so the culprit can be charged.

Does anyone know how long after I do that I can get my bike back from them? Will ask them tomorrow but wanted to know if anyone had any first hand experience.

Just hope they can find the other 3 bikes that where nicked at the same time! At least my faith in the police has been restored. Hope anyone else who is missing a bike gets good news as well.

al2098

Even though they found it during a raid and the crim is probably locked up, they may need to have the bike forensically examined to establish who may have been in contact with it. This should not take more than a couple of days for them to arrange.
Other than that, they may state that the item is evidence and needs to be retained. They can take a photo of the bike and as long as you retain it you should be able to have it back.
They cannot produce it in interview as its too bulky anyway..
If it was 100% identified then the crim has no claim to it so I would continue to ask for it back regularly if you are being delayed. Get the OIC's number (officer in charge of the case) and go up the ranks to get it back as sometimes officers can be reluctant to give items back while the case is ongoing. Ask why it needs to be retained and most likely they will try stonewalling you. Its not being obnoxious, they just think they will be criticised if they give it back too early. Keep at them, they tend to mean well.

veronese68

I got mine back the same day. Admittedly they didn't charge the scrote with anything though. I saw my bike on ebay and pestered them until they did something. The scrote claimed he's bought it at a market so they said they couldn't (read wouldn't) charge him. The fact that he was selling 4 other bikes from the same mobile number all with different names on the ads didn't mean anything.
Anyway, I went to the nick with a list of identifying features and the frame number on a receipt. They said it was obviously mine, after a bit of chat I signed a bit of paper and took my bike home.
Good luck with the others, hopefully finding this one will lead to the others.

Le Commentateur

I got mine back same day I identified it, too. I think al2098 is being a bit OTT; unless the bike has been used for a serious crime then the duty office will use his/her discretion. I was able to ID the bike with a photo I had, plus initially I gave a verbal description over the phone of a couple of distinguishing features – added bar ends and a small dent in the frame at specific point – so they handed it over that evening, though I couldn't ride it home because the kids who stole it had wrecked the rear brake and buckled a wheel.

Four months later I had to go to the local magistrates court to give evidence against the guy who was charged, which meant a day off work. He got convicted of handling stolen goods as they couldn't prove he cut the lock and took the bike in the first place. 6 months later he was back in court on an attempted murder charge after stealing a police car in Maidstone and attempting to run over its former driver.

napoleond

Handling carries a stiffer sentence than theft...

Good to hear you got your bikes back!

As long as the bobbies take a pic and take a statement from you, the bike shouldn't be needed as evidence. Forensic evidence is pretty useless on a bike, crim can just say they touched it whilst it was parked up etc...

usedtobefast

What happens if you've had an insurance claim pay out on a stolen bike ? I thought that the insurance company effectively own the property and therefore it's not the original owners to have back any more.

Makes me think though that I can't recall any distinguishing features on my machines to identify them through, perhaps I need to go and put a dent in a tube - how do you do that with carbon.

bompington

usedtobefast wrote:

Makes me think though that I can't recall any distinguishing features on my machines to identify them through, perhaps I need to go and put a dent in a tube - how do you do that with carbon.

Just carefully drip some water on it

veronese68

usedtobefast wrote:

What happens if you've had an insurance claim pay out on a stolen bike ? I thought that the insurance company effectively own the property and therefore it's not the original owners to have back any more.

Makes me think though that I can't recall any distinguishing features on my machines to identify them through, perhaps I need to go and put a dent in a tube - how do you do that with carbon.

Mine had paid out. It was 6 weeks after it had gone that I got it back. I called the insurance company, as the bike is their property once they have paid out, and they didn't know what to do at first. they called back and said "Errrm, excellent well done. We don't know what to do." They then asked me to email pictures to the shop that provides replacement bikes. So I took a general picture and pictures of damage to pintwork. Told them that the wheel was rubbing and the gears were making noise. Which was true, but I also knew it was very easy to fix. The shop obviously didn't want the hassle. I pursued it a couple of times to show willing. They never got back to me so I held onto it until spring (about 3 months) and sold the replacement bike as I could do with the cash and didn't need 2 identical bikes.

giant_man

Lynx_516 wrote:

I just got a call from the police to say they have recovered my lovely Cannondale CAAD8 from someone's house they raided. I now need to go to the police station to id the bike and give a statement so the culprit can be charged.

Does anyone know how long after I do that I can get my bike back from them? Will ask them tomorrow but wanted to know if anyone had any first hand experience.

Just hope they can find the other 3 bikes that where nicked at the same time! At least my faith in the police has been restored. Hope anyone else who is missing a bike gets good news as well.

Sounds similar when I got my nicked bike back years ago, sometimes it does happen ....

shouldbeinbed

al2098 wrote:

Even though they found it during a raid and the crim is probably locked up, they may need to have the bike forensically examined to establish who may have been in contact with it. This should not take more than a couple of days for them to arrange.
Other than that, they may state that the item is evidence and needs to be retained. They can take a photo of the bike and as long as you retain it you should be able to have it back.
They cannot produce it in interview as its too bulky anyway..
If it was 100% identified then the crim has no claim to it so I would continue to ask for it back regularly if you are being delayed. Get the OIC's number (officer in charge of the case) and go up the ranks to get it back as sometimes officers can be reluctant to give items back while the case is ongoing. Ask why it needs to be retained and most likely they will try stonewalling you. Its not being obnoxious, they just think they will be criticised if they give it back too early. Keep at them, they tend to mean well.

Bikes don't tend to offer up much in the way of forensic evidence and they're readily prone to claims of accidental touching whilst it was parked up somewhere public. Its often not so much the OIC being difficult as a CPS lawyer or case worker dragging their heels on reviewing the case file or being overly officious on retaining it for evidence, they can be an utter PITA & complaints up the chain of command without good reason won't make a lot of difference other than to p*** off the person you need on your side to be keeping the lawyers on the ball.

Glad to hear a good news story from the OP since I'm a Revolution Cross 10 missing since Wednesday night!

al2098

Quite right that bikes don't offer up much forensic evidence but some forces have them checked anyway as a matter of course.
Just trying to think of what may delay the return of the item.
Hard to believe that no charges were brought even though the crim was caught with the item. Was that a decision of the CPS?

napoleond

It will most likely have been a CPS decision. Can't see why police wouldn't want to prosecute. The CPS only seem to take on sure bet cases as it boosts their conviction rate...

Lynx_516

So I talked to the police. The first guy said that it would be months "until after the trial" but to phone the guy who was dealing with the case.

So I phoned him and he said I could take it away as long as I retained it after I have IDed the bike. So going on Thursday to ID it, give a statement and collect it.

From what he said they found it in the guy's parent's shed after they had raided two other addresses looking for iPads and laptops. Supposedly he has previous for burglary and he will most likely be going to prison.

Just need to see what wheels it has on it. At the time it was wheelless hanging up, the only paid of unused wheels I had where my Zipp 404s which were also nicked so I am praying that the 404s are on the bike.

The ironic thing is I was phoned on Thursday morning and the previous day I had just received a new (to me) frame to start to build its replacement. So if anyone fancies a mint condition Giant TCR Composite frame in large let me know!


Thanks for the advice

spen666

NapoleonD wrote:

It will most likely have been a CPS decision. Can't see why police wouldn't want to prosecute. The CPS only seem to take on sure bet cases as it boosts their conviction rate...

That is of course completely and uterly false and you know it.

the CPS can only authorise charge in a case when there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

This means there needs to be EVIDENCE, not just speculation.

Having read many thousands of CPS charging decisions, both where they authorise charge and where they don't, the big reason why the CPS fail to authorise charge is the police have not provided/ obtained/ been able to secure the necessary evidence.

A charge of handling requires far more than simple possession of the item in question.

As you should be aware, it is "the dishonest handling of stolen goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen".

All there appears to be in this case is the possession of the items - there is no evidence of dishonesty on the part of the suspect, nor is there evidence he knew or believed them to be stolen.

It is for the prosecution to prove these items.

A good example of why cases are not charged - ie the police have not produced sufficient evidence to enable there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.

Sadly, all too often cases fail because the police officer fails to obtain the necessary evidence and then tries to blame the CPS for his failings

Mayhemwmb

spen666 wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

It will most likely have been a CPS decision. Can't see why police wouldn't want to prosecute. The CPS only seem to take on sure bet cases as it boosts their conviction rate...

That is of course completely and uterly false and you know it.

the CPS can only authorise charge in a case when there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

This means there needs to be EVIDENCE, not just speculation.

Having read many thousands of CPS charging decisions, both where they authorise charge and where they don't, the big reason why the CPS fail to authorise charge is the police have not provided/ obtained/ been able to secure the necessary evidence.

A charge of handling requires far more than simple possession of the item in question.

As you should be aware, it is "the dishonest handling of stolen goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen".

All there appears to be in this case is the possession of the items - there is no evidence of dishonesty on the part of the suspect, nor is there evidence he knew or believed them to be stolen.

It is for the prosecution to prove these items.

A good example of why cases are not charged - ie the police have not produced sufficient evidence to enable there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.

Sadly, all too often cases fail because the police officer fails to obtain the necessary evidence and then tries to blame the CPS for his failings

I disagree, you seem keen to identify shortcomings on the part of the Police whilst excluding the CPS from any liability in these matters - is it not the case that both Police & CPS have very capable practisioners whilst also carrying their share of 'deadwood.'
The CPS have performance indicators like every other public body, they are less inclined to charge a marginal case, the ' realistic prospect of conviction' stick is used to get rid of the marginal cases. With more robust CPS lawyers these cases are tried & often the offender is found guilty........ Sadly most CPS lawyers are more likely to play it safe

spen666

Mayhemwmb wrote:

....

I disagree, you seem keen to identify shortcomings on the part of the Police whilst excluding the CPS from any liability in these matters - is it not the case that both Police & CPS have very capable practisioners whilst also carrying their share of 'deadwood.'
The CPS have performance indicators like every other public body, they are less inclined to charge a marginal case, the ' realistic prospect of conviction' stick is used to get rid of the marginal cases. With more robust CPS lawyers these cases are tried & often the offender is found guilty........ Sadly most CPS lawyers are more likely to play it safe

The realistic prospect of conviction is the legal test that the CPS must apply. It is not used to get rid of cases. The CPS are bound by the code for crown prosecutors and this specifies the test that must be applied.


In the example in this case, I have given you reasons why the offence is not made out. Where the burden of proof is on the Crown, then the Crown must proove the necessary points. It is not enough to show someone handled a stolen item - it must be proved they did so DISHONESTLY and KNOWING or BELIEVING said item was stolen. In Handling cases, the police too often stop at the point they can proved the suspect had possession of the item and fail to obtain / are unable to obtain evidence to PROVE the other points.

I am no apologist for the CPS and will readily criticise them for their failings. (Incidentally, the number of cases the CPS lose after trial is not one of the PIs that they are measured on or called to account for - bizarre I know)

I spent many years as defence lawyer in and out of police stations and had clients acquitted so often , not because they were innocent, but because the prosecution ( police and CPS) had failed to adduce evidence to prove ALL the necessary points.

I have recently been doing a lot of work with HMIC and was surprised at how little understanding these officers (rank Inspector and above) have of the legal points needed to prove a case. They do a job that I could not and would not want to do, but the average police officer's understanding of what is necessary to prove an offence is generally inadequate. This is down to inadequate training rather than blaming the individual officers.

The police as an organisation are very good at blaming the CPS in public, often even where it was their own failingsthat were to blame.

Criticisms of the CPS are many, but the application of the code test at the charging stage is not the best point to criticise them on.

al2098

Its a shame so much of the burdon of proof is weighed in the wrong direction.
The victim is so easily victimised yet the offender has so much at his or her disposal to get off.
The CPS will not run a case where there may be an unrealistic prospect of a prosecution, but that does not mean they should not be running many of the cases. Why should you decide what a jury may determine. ?
So you studied law and think its clever that you get so many people off because of police mistakes.

I spent many years as defence lawyer in and out of police stations and had clients acquitted so often , not because they were innocent, but because the prosecution ( police and CPS) had failed to adduce evidence to prove ALL the necessary points

You are everything that is wrong with the current legal system in this country.
No better than the scum you managed to get off I think is a reasonable conclusion to refer to you based on the cold mechanical arrogant statements you posted.
Defence solicitors are with very few exceptions, financially motivated and could not care one iota about any victim of any kind.
If you sleep well, its because you have no heart.

The police as an organisation are very good at blaming the CPS in public, often even where it was their own failingsthat were to blame.

Criticisms of the CPS are many, but the application of the code test at the charging stage is not the best point to criticise them on.

I think the CPS are the ones throwing the blame. Also, who made up the code test at charging stage? I think its a dam good point to criticise them on.

CambsNewbie

al2098 wrote:

Its a shame so much of the burdon of proof is weighed in the wrong direction.
The victim is so easily victimised yet the offender has so much at his or her disposal to get off.
The CPS will not run a case where there may be an unrealistic prospect of a prosecution, but that does not mean they should not be running many of the cases. Why should you decide what a jury may determine. ?
So you studied law and think its clever that you get so many people off because of police mistakes.

I spent many years as defence lawyer in and out of police stations and had clients acquitted so often , not because they were innocent, but because the prosecution ( police and CPS) had failed to adduce evidence to prove ALL the necessary points

You are everything that is wrong with the current legal system in this country.
No better than the scum you managed to get off I think is a reasonable conclusion to refer to you based on the cold mechanical arrogant statements you posted.
Defence solicitors are with very few exceptions, financially motivated and could not care one iota about any victim of any kind.
If you sleep well, its because you have no heart.

The police as an organisation are very good at blaming the CPS in public, often even where it was their own failingsthat were to blame.

Criticisms of the CPS are many, but the application of the code test at the charging stage is not the best point to criticise them on.

I think the CPS are the ones throwing the blame. Also, who made up the code test at charging stage? I think its a dam good point to criticise them on.

Wow, just read this and think you are being very harsh. I'm a police officer and can't begin to describe how frustrating it is when someone gets off with or doesn't even get charged with an offence you know they have committed. You know they have committed the offence, they know you know but you have to PROVE it with evidence, unfortunately a 'gut feeling' doesn't stand up in a court of law.

Every offence has 'points to prove' and it is up to the us (the Police) to provide the evidence for each point. Whenever I interview someone I always write these points down so I can make sure I cover them not just in interview but also when building my case. Unfortunately not everyone is so thorough and sometimes you can get so wrapped up in a case that until someone looks at it critically and starts taking it apart, you can miss some glaring weakness. you just hope someone does this before you have to stand in the witness box and look a complete idiot while the scroat sits there gloating.

And yes, I hate some defence solicitors and ask the same questions, how do you look your daughter in the eye after you have just got a rapist off, but at the end of the day if you are wrongly accused of something as some people are, you will be grateful for them. They are one of life's necessary evils, but just might one day save you going to prison for something you didn't do.

rolf_f

al2098 wrote:

I spent many years as defence lawyer in and out of police stations and had clients acquitted so often , not because they were innocent, but because the prosecution ( police and CPS) had failed to adduce evidence to prove ALL the necessary points

You are everything that is wrong with the current legal system in this country.
No better than the scum you managed to get off I think is a reasonable conclusion to refer to you based on the cold mechanical arrogant statements you posted.
Defence solicitors are with very few exceptions, financially motivated and could not care one iota about any victim of any kind.
If you sleep well, its because you have no heart.

You are making a fool of yourself. One day, you might be glad of a defence solicitor. Or are you principles really genuine and that if you did find yourself accused, you'd represent yourself? Even if that meant you might get wrongly convicted due to your lack of expertise......

In this example, Spen would appear to be everything that is right with the legal system in this country - what was wrong with the legal system in this country was the prosecution. It shouldn't be too difficult to see this.

StillGoing

Good to see Spen666 doesn't give up on his moral crusade against the police.

The CPS do operate by their code for prosecutors, but, they tend to err on the side of caution far too readily. In this country we have trial by jury and it should be for 12 men and women good and true to decide on the evidence presented to them should it be an either way or indictable offence of which handling would be. Instead the CPS opt not to prosecute just in case they lose at court showing poor performance indicators. The CPS pay poorly compared to private firms and chambers and as a consequence don't get the cream. There are some very good CPS solicitors and Barristers but many are unwilling to take a punt despite the protestations of the police and the evidence available.

The CPS also use the additional claim of not in the public interest to prosecute. That minor trivial offence that the CPS can't be bothered with could just be the bit of historical evidence needed in a trial such as this. The police make the decision on what is worth putting before the CPS for charging decisions so they would only put before them what is in their eyes worth prosecuting.

Nobody knows the facts of this case. We don't know what offending history the suspect has, in what circumstances the bike was recovered, whether it was obvious the bike was stolen or whether true value and worth was exchanged for it. Only the police and the CPS know so drawing conclusions without the facts that the police are at fault is wrong.

You could have the bike back as soon as it is identified with the proviso you don't dispose of it. Unless of course you have been compensated for its loss by your insurers in which case ownership belongs to them. Forensic examination would not be used in these circumstances as possession of the bike is unlikely to be disputed, just how possession came to be.

Edited to add; It is not a senior officers (C/Insp and above) job to know the points to prove. They sit behind desks using bean counters whilst deciding which public figure they're going to lunch with and how to save more money by reducing the numbers at the coal face. It is for Sergeants and below to know the points to prove and only in the most common offences. Anything beyond that can be looked up in the manuals just like defence solicitors and the CPS do. The only officers who really need to know more are Custody Sergeants in order to safeguard against unlawful arrests and detention.

al2098

The CPS do operate by their code for prosecutors, but, they tend to err on the side of caution far too readily. In this country we have trial by jury and it should be for 12 men and women good and true to decide on the evidence presented to them should it be an either way or indictable offence of which handling would be. Instead the CPS opt not to prosecute just in case they lose at court showing poor performance indicators. The CPS pay poorly compared to private firms and chambers and as a consequence don't get the cream. There are some very good CPS solicitors and Barristers but many are unwilling to take a punt despite the protestations of the police and the evidence available.

Sort of the point I was trying to make. The words 'poor performance indicators', 'don't get the cream' and 'unwilling to take a punt' pretty much sums up the poor state of affairs..

nevman

al2098-you are so wrong,Nap,you`ve surprised me as well-Spen was and is correct that it is evidence and the collecting of it that motivates charges.Just hope none of you is on the end of spiteful or malicious charging.I`m amazed at this thread.

StillGoing

Spen is not correct in the sense you believe. To charge a suspect and put them before the courts there has to be sufficient evidence to charge. Before it even gets before the CPS for a charging decision it will have gone through a police supervisor to assess whether it meets the standard, the very same standard that applies to prosecutors. Some offences the police can make charging decisions on and spookily in the revamped guidance more of those decisions are being passed back to the police. Coincidence or just recognition that far more offences are preferred to the courts when the police make the charging decision? Under the Criminal Justice Act and streamlined charging if an offence is admitted or a guilty plea is expected, the file of evidence need only contain the briefest of evidence. The CPS are tying the police in knots insisting they accumulate every bit of evidence "just in case we need it at court" even in these cases. Where the suspect refuses to give an account or gives a complete fabrication of events and suddenly previously unavailable cctv evidence becomes available showing the suspects guilt, the CPS will insist that they are interviewed again to try and gain an admission rather than charge them as the dishonest scumbag they are. That guilty plea and avoidance of a trial gains them credit and a lesser sentence when but for the cctv becoming available they'd have walked.

I will concede there are police officers who don't know their arse from their elbow, but equally there are CPS solicitors who opt for the easy ride by never taking the option to charge if there is less than a 70/30 chance of a successful prosecution when it should be 60/40 and in the eyes of a lot of people 50/50. The CPS are hard worked but so is everyone in the criminal justice system. A CPS prosecutor will get their hands on the file probably the morning of the first hearing and only refresh themselves with the file shortly before trial. Unless it is bold as the spots on a spotty dog they are rarely up to speed with the evidence. I have lost count of the times they have failed to apply for a remand or bail conditions on suspects at first hearings when the individual is a menace to society or a danger to the public despite the application being on the file. The defence solicitor hasn't even had to argue against it with one of their spurious claims of a suitable bail address that cannot be verified at short notice.

There are failings on all sides including the defence who have been caught contacting witnesses to withdraw their evidence, creating false alibis with other clients, allowing suspects to use their telephone knowing full well there is an authorised block on the suspect contacting anyone, interupting the flow of the interview and breaching their own codes in numerous ways.

So yes the police make mistakes but who doesn't.
Yes the CPS err too much on the side of caution with charging decisions.
Yes defence solicitors do have dishonest practitioners in their midst.
Yes some accused are innocent of the charge but that's why we have juries and more people are found innocent by juries than by magistrates in my experience.
Yes some guilty suspects get off without being charged.

al2098

I`m amazed at this thread.

If this amazes you then your either not reading enough or just living in a bubble of fiction.

So yes the police make mistakes but who doesn't.
Yes the CPS err too much on the side of caution with charging decisions.
Yes defence solicitors do have dishonest practitioners in their midst.
Yes some accused are innocent of the charge but that's why we have juries and more people are found innocent by juries than by magistrates in my experience.
Yes some guilty suspects get off without being charged

Sums it up.

nevman

No it doesnt-the Police have to operate under the 4th Ed of the Directors Guidance on Charging and are therefore subject to the same rules ie they have to have a realistic prospect of conviction before charging-the only exception is a `threshold` test where a defendant is to be remanded to custody and it is believed that further evidence will soon be received to complete a full code test-even then there has to be sufficient evidence to suspect of an offence.
It is a fallacy to think there is any difference between CPS and the Police over this.CPS have to prove the case at Court,Police dont.Its therefore easy to charge and pass a case on to someone else then sit back and blame them when it goes wrong.You cant blame the CPS for wanting enough evidence-thats what witnesses and the public expect,not to leave a case half complete.

al2098

All good and well but what for what reasons would a case be half complete?
Lots of reasons and maybe no-one to blame but a lack of evidence which obviously cannot be simply manufactured.
In the past there were many cases where the police were certain that the suspect was guilty, maybe even with an 'off the record' admission. Evidence was then created to convict. Now we pay the price of these 'wrongfull' convictions.
I don't think its too harsh to say that the system is in favour of the defendant. Just look at the legal situation with 'going equipt'. CPS never seem to want to run it. They say "It's not illegal for a group of previously convicted thiefs to have some tools in their van (bolt croppers, torches and tarpaulins) 20 miles from their homes at 0300am and its winter so they can have balaclavas as well..
Sorry it didn't pass our tests. Not quite making that 'threshold'.
Maybe we should find something between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities".
As much as you guys quote legal rules, just because they exist does not mean they are not wrong.