Advice needed on a criminal matter

Savvy_Sue

DVardysShadow wrote: »

A possible avenue is to consider whether DS's statement can be admissible, as it was taken without an appropraite adult being present?

I think if the boy's father was present throughout the interview, that would count as an appropriate adult. Even if he is an Aspie, the 'appropriate adult' doesn't have to be trained or qualified, AFAIK.

More to the point, if all the CCTV shows is a car drawing up, DS taking something from the car and handing it to two men, what evidence is there that there was anything other than bath salts in what was handed over?

Definitely needs GOOD legal advice. I wouldn't personally want to rely on the duty solicitor, who can only come in on the day and pick up what's going on there and then. A solicitor you instruct beforehand can interview the DS and offer advice in a less stressed and hurried atmosphere.

Gingham_Ribbon

Re a lad 'knowing who to call' somehow being untrustworthy - at 16 years old I would certainly have known at least 3 people in my year to call and had never even seen an illegal drug at that age. (One addict, one occasional user and one whose dad was a drug dealer.)

Re the possible aspergers, this is something that might make a significant difference, so a call to someone like the national autistic society in the morning might be useful.

The best of luck to the person who asked for help, and to the boy.

jamespir

im sorry but if i was stopped by two blokes demanding drugs id tell them to jog on
if i called anyone it would be the police (as ive not the first clue as to where to get drugs from)

how did the lad know where to get drugs from

something dont add up here

Gingham_Ribbon

jamespir wrote: »

im sorry but if i was stopped by two blokes demanding drugs id tell them to jog on
if i called anyone it would be the police (as ive not the first clue as to where to get drugs from)

how did the lad know where to get drugs from

something dont add up here

No wonder some people give up on this site. Either help or jog on.

Ladyshopper

daska wrote: »

Yes, of course the police can arrest someone without their agreement but there is a difference between not being given an option and agreeing with something without questioning the necessity of it. (This is based on a solicitor telling me his advice was always to ask for the duty solicitor to be present, he feels that the police can be a little too assiduous about arresting people when is isn't necessary.)

Sometimes offences are dealt with by means of a voluntary interview rather than arrest. This is generally lesser offences, perhaps some time after the incident, or for other reasons. The disadvantage of a voluntary interview from the police's perspective as you then have no power to impose bail conditions, as you are not released on bail after the voluntary, you are simply released. The case is then looked at by the cps, and if they feel there is enough evidence they you are reported for summons rather than charged.

I'm sure a solicitor would give you advice about the police being too quick to arrest people - thats their point of view, and criminal solicitors are there to get people out of trouble!! When someone is arrested, the officer has to give the reasons to the Custody Sergeant, and if they it is up to them to judge if they can then be held under that arrest at the station or not. It does often happen that the Custody Sergeant will disagree, and not allow the person into custody - I've seen it happen on numerous occasions.

Despite what a lot of people on here seem to think, the police are governed by strict rules - PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act), which dictates what can and can't happen when someone is in custody.

As for the statement - it was taken with an appropriate adult present, so no reason it can't be used. A/adult is generally a parent, family friend, social worker etc. Having aspergers wouldn't change that.

WhiteHorse

shazrobo wrote:

I would go voluntarily to the police station with ds, otherwise they will turn up at your house to arrest him, for all the street to see.

You do not do this. EVER.

*FACT. You have MORE legal rights once you have been arrested.

Furthermore, it seems likely that the Police are not all keen to go to the house to make this arrest. Given the poor quality of their evidence,I suspect that they simply can't.

If however they can persuade you to go to the police station, you will be in a hostile environment where you can (and will), be confused, misled and bullied. You may also find obstacles being placed in your way if you decide to leave.

Worrying about 'what the neighbours will think' is often used as a form of psychological pressure. Tough it out. Make them do the work.

*FACT. Most people convict themselves. Particularly the innocent.

WhiteHorse

Ladyshopper wrote:

... as you are not released on bail after the voluntary, you are simply released.

If you go there voluntarily, you are free to leave at any time. There is no question of being 'released' as you are not detained in the first place. If they wish to stop you leaving, they must arrest you.

Not that you will be told this of course. They may also try to threaten you into staying or make it difficult to leave.

Ivrytwr3

Sorry, but i personally don't believe DS versionof events. It sounds like there are elements of truth, but it it also sounds like it's not the full story.

However, i do not know DS and do not have the opportunity to speak direct with him. The best advice you would be wise to take (which has been mentioned many times during this thread), is to speak with a solicitor at the earliest opportunity.

(even before going to to see the police i would have spoken with a solicitor.)

Kay_Peel

Your son does not have much to worry about if he's telling the truth.

The main thing in his favour is that he went to the police and gave an account of what happened - robbery, threats and duress - before the CCTV came to light.

There are some inconsistencies to be explained. On the face of it, your son is a 'fixer' and able to arrange drug transactions efficiently. Also on the face of it, your son has one dissatisfied customer prepared to confront him in a very public place, in full view of security people. At this stage the police are still investigating the robbery - but they can't proceed with arrests until they are absolutely sure that your son has told them the truth.

He will attend the police station by appointment, with his father. He will be asked whether he wants the services of a solicitor. Say 'yes'. If he hasn't already got a solicitor, the Duty solicitor will be contacted.

There will be some paper work to sort out and, while waiting for the solicitor to arrive, he will be put in a Detention Room after being searched. Often, but not always, his father can go with him.

He will be interviewed and the interview will be recorded on tape. (A copy of the tape will be made for the Defence). The police will question him about the unexplained anomalies and the inconsistencies between his original story and what the CCTV (and other witnesses?) show.

Anything could happen, then. He might admit that the 'robbery' never occurred - it was a dispute over drug deals and he owed people money. A 'retraction' statement would be taken from him. He may also be referred to CPS for 'wasting police time' (the robbery investigation).

There is weak evidence around the drugs business and I think the police will be more concerned about the 'wasting police time' aspect.

He may be able to give further information and explain away the inconsistencies. In which case, there will be no further action against him and the police can go ahead with the robbery investigation.

There will be more hanging around and sitting in the Detention Room after the interview. No one can predict what happens because it will depend on what your son says.

Incidentally, you get a Reprimand for a the first offence and a Final Warning when you come to the attention of the police a second time. With a Final Warning you are referred to a Youth Offenders' Team. They will assess what needs to be done to get young people's lives back on course and to reduce the risk of further brushes with the law. They do a good job - especially on the drugs side.

I hope that helps.

Ladyshopper

WhiteHorse wrote: »

If you go there voluntarily, you are free to leave at any time. There is no question of being 'released' as you are not detained in the first place. If they wish to stop you leaving, they must arrest you.

Not that you will be told this of course. They may also try to threaten you into staying or make it difficult to leave.

What a load of twaddle, of course you're told it. When you go into interview and the officers give you the spiel, one of the first things you are told is you are free to leave at any time.

I used the term "released" to differentiate from being bailed out.

As for threatening people to stay - never ever seen that happen, and have never threatened anyone in my life. If someone attends the station voluntarily for an interview, then it is exactly that, and if they want to walk, then so be it.