This is hilarious!

StillGoing

diy wrote:

The really sad thing is that plod up and down the country see no problem with the nod nod, wink wink approach to getting off traffic offences or getting "police discount" in restaurants, shops and cafes.

If plod wants to stick a fictitious offence on you, as long as its not the offence that is the fiction and just the committing of it that is, he or she will have no problem. Magistrates tend to look at plod as honest, decent and members of the public as lying. Its only if you have the expertise to challenge them thoroughly will you get any chance of justice if you find yourself on the wrong side. Generally, I would say avoid annoying them and if they want to dispatch crap advice, let them. After all nobody is paying you to educate them.

Not sure what it is like where you are, but nationally, the magistrates have been trying to demonstrate their independence from the police. The assumption that a police officer is honest is a long gone one thanks to a minority of unscrupulous idiots. I can hand on heart say that in having completed my full service and happily retired, I never fitted anyone up even where it was obvious they had done it. No evidence, walk free. Better 1 guilty person walks free than 1 innocent man gets locked up. I've been the accused following a malicious complaint and know what a fit up is. Thankfully I had a Judge and jury who saw right through it all and my accuser is doing a 10 stretch for serious offences.

Colinthecop

Roberto di Velo wrote:

I'm a bit dubious about this story, it sounds a bit too good to be true.

Vaguely reminds me of something I saw a few years back. I was out for a Chinese meal with my parents and some of their friends. A copper stops outside and puts a ticket on one of my mums friends car. She goes out and there's a big row, as it wasn't clear why she got a ticket (it's not on yellow lines or near a junction); he claims it is dangerous parking. Unfortunately for the copper, she's a magistrate and knows who to speak to at the Police.

Interestingly, despite the copper getting a bollocking about it, the original ticket couldn't be rescinded and she ended up paying the fine anyway.

edit: turns out that said plod was trying to impress the young lady special he had with him that night.

I'm a bit dubious about your story.... If she was a magistrate surely she'd know if she had done nothing wrong then she didn't have to pay the fine. She could easily have opted for a court hearing.

Unless the true story is, she got a ticket, tried to call in a favour, get the Station Superintendent to rescind the ticket (easily done btw), he refused, she paid the fine as she was in the wrong, and she later changed the story to suit.

It does happen you know. I arrested someone once who thanked me for being nice, he said he was arrested two weeks before and that copper was an arse who gave him a right kicking. He didn't recognise me as the cop who arrested him two weeks before (and no I didn't give him a kicking). Still, we all need good stories, don't we...?

:roll:

markhewitt1978

It sounded more to me like a "don't you know who I am" thing. If he was being straight up with it he wouldn't have pulled rank on him like that but let the 'stop' proceed, or is there a rule you have to identify yourself as a fellow officer?

Roberto di Velo

Colinthecop wrote:

I'm a bit dubious about your story.... If she was a magistrate surely she'd know if she had done nothing wrong then she didn't have to pay the fine. She could easily have opted for a court hearing.

Unless the true story is, she got a ticket, tried to call in a favour, get the Station Superintendent to rescind the ticket (easily done btw), he refused, she paid the fine as she was in the wrong, and she later changed the story to suit.

It does happen you know. I arrested someone once who thanked me for being nice, he said he was arrested two weeks before and that copper was an ars* who gave him a right kicking. He didn't recognise me as the cop who arrested him two weeks before (and no I didn't give him a kicking). Still, we all need good stories, don't we...?

:roll:

Ha!

If I remember correctly, the restaurant was on a bend in the road and hence she was parked on a bend. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it is technically an offence to park on a bend? Albeit one that's not really applied. The street has numerous areas of yellow lines, but this bit wasn't one, and I'm pretty sure you'll see cars parked in that spot to this day. But, yep, I was told she still paid the fine.

I don't have a particular downer on the Police, as I work with them pretty regularly and find them helpful. It's just as well the Police never tell stories...

diy

While magistrates have no legal training, I would expect one to be able to read the information on the ticket and follow the appeals process. Now if mage was trying to use influence, then plod should have further reported the offence - which is far more serious than parking dangerously.

Having seen both sides in various forms of work, I would encourage everyone to have a healthy distrust for plod and treat them as you find them. I would say its actually a minority that stand out as being totally straight, as far too many are influenced by a low standard of education, training focus on the wrong things and a general culture of lets find a suspect and get him to confess. We only have to see the abuse of the cautions system to know that people are taking offences which would not stand the scrutiny of the CPS review let alone a court.

Colinthecop

You were almost convincing until,

diy wrote:

We only have to see the abuse of the cautions system to know that people are taking offences which would not stand the scrutiny of the CPS review let alone a court.

Since about 2001ish all formal cautions or 'simple cautions' as they are now known must be authorised by a CPS prosecutor.

Unless you are trying to say that CPS decision do not stand up to CPS scrutiny just to mess with our minds. :roll:

diy

You are mistaken.

CPS review is mandatory on Indictable only offenses. Referral of cases to CPS to agree a caution is not permitted
in the Directors Guidance on Charging. Cases should only be referred to CPS in exceptional instances if they are sensitive, complex or serious and the police are asking CPS to ensure that the evidential test has been met. Where the caution relates to an indictable only offence the matter must be referred to the CPS.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/dire ... tions.html

The requirements of the police caution are outlined in Criminal Justice Act 2003 sec 22, 23.

And yes there are many cases where plod offer people cautions for things like assault or criminal damage when the act does not meet the legal test. The conversation goes along the lines of "you are up for criminal damage, but if you admit it we can deal with it as a caution and then its done and you can go home". Most Duty Sols are wise to this and if they can advise their clients in time will give them the fuller picture of the legal test for the offence they are charged with. Quashing a police caution is a nightmare. This is why if anyone is ever arrested you should always request to speak to the duty solicitor.

napoleond

I only ever authorise a caution if the threshold test is met and the defendant fully admits it. Not hard really.

Colinthecop

Apologies diy, I see that came into force on 8th April 2013.

Didnt realise it had changed this year, as i've not dealt with English law since 2001. :oops:

diy

no need to apologise. But just to clarify the process was actually worse before. In the act I referred to “authorised person” means—

(a)a constable,
(b)an investigating officer, or
(c)a person authorised by a relevant prosecutor for the purposes of this section.

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/3

The process changed due to the issues around people being offered "simple cautions" after being talked in to confession in exchange for a lower penalty.