Due a police visit - help

cathryn107

Sorry, another reason to fight the arrest as possibly unlawful is that for the purpose of visas to countries like the US, an arrest is treated the same as a full conviction. You have to apply and be interviewed at the US embassy if you fancy two weeks in Florida - no visa waiver for you with an arrest record. If you can have it expunged, do so.

Jamie makes the point about being annoyed with a complainant, not the police, which is true. However, it's been established in the courts that if someone is willing and available to be interviewed, then an arrest is not always the right way forward. You certainly don't need to be under arrest to be interviewed under caution. You made an appointment and didn't run away, so clearly what's referred to as the necessity test for arrest - ie necessary for prompt and effective investigation of the alleged crime - wasn't met.

Arrest is often about hitting police arrest targets and administrative convenience, not doing the right thing by the public. With enhanced CRBs, DNA, visa problems etc, the arrest has consequences which can end up as a punishment for someone completely innocent.

ifstar

cathryn107 wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong (unless you're in Scotland). With regard to DNA etc the ECHR ruled against this in 2008 and the Supreme Court in 2011 and we've had the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the English and Welsh forces have yet to act.

Whilst the OP would pass a standard CRB, arrest details could be revealed on an enhanced disclosure. I personally know one teacher who was wrongly accused of assaulting a pupil, and it's on her enhanced CRB despite the fact she was never charged and the complainant had made multiple false allegations against a wide variety of people.

I am indeed in Scotland and quite surprised that the English and Welsh forces do not operate under the same procedure.

To answer Jamie about charges being dropped (or found not guilty/not proven), they would be destoryed in these occasions too.

Catherine, you have mentioned arrests are about hitting targets. This is really not the case. Officers numbers on response teams are ridiculously low so cops don't go out and arrest willy nilly, there just isn't the time or manpower let alone in these days of complaints being made against cops. People aren't arrested for no reason, there must be some sort of evidence (it could be they are named, fit the description etc). If a person makes a complaint to the police, then it needs to be investigated. They aren't allowed to turn round and tell them it's a lot of bull, so in the OP's case, they had to follow up the complaint by the bully. I do agree that it could have been done under caution however this could be a contencious issue in court had the OP admitted to something and was subsequently charged.

cathryn107

OP, you may be very interested in this barrister's article on preventing the unnecessary arrest of voluntary interviewees in light of the Richardson ruling

http://www.mondaq.com/x/134586/Violent+Sexual+crime/Preventing+The+Unnecessary+Arrest+Of+Your+Client

In particular I'd like to draw your attention to the very end.

"As a final point, it is arguable that the decision may impact on individuals whom the police visit at home or work to affect an arrest for the purposes of searches and interviews. If those individuals cooperate fully and are willing to attend at the police station for immediate interview, then those would be factors tending against the necessity of an arrest for a prompt and effective investigation."

The arrest is simply a device to detain you in order to interview under caution and make sure you don't do a runner. If you are present, willing and able to be interviewed under caution, then clearly an arrest isn't necessary. An interview under caution is the same whether it's done voluntarily or coerced under arrest - it has the same legal standing and weight in court.

diable

britishboy wrote: »

Hi all

apologies for stirring up a hornets nest by the look of things

Right, well knock on the door at 3.30pm friday, asked them to come in, was told 'no, put your shoes on your under arrest for harrassment' and was carted off to police station 12 miles away. Was interviewed on tape (well, on CD) and held for an hour while the PC spoke to the charges director (i think) to see if they had enough evidence to go on, which they clearly didnt. apparently i had threatened the bully on more than one occasion and 'roughed him up'. I ws totally humiliated. i was described by the so called victim as 5'11, black spikey hair and muscular build, even though i'm 5'7, dark blonde hair and slight athletic build. Yuo couldnt make it up

anyway, i was released some 4 hours after being taken from my home with 'no further action'

Fuming, embarrassed, and pretty p1ssed off to be honest

Thanks everyone for getting back to me though

What are you going to do now as you can't let him/they get away with false allegations. I hope that you have told the Police/School about this maybe speak to your local MP as well as I would be fuming.

bitemebankers

Assuming the interview hasn't already happened, I only have one thing to say to the OP:

GET YOURSELF A SOLICITOR!

Nobody should consider (or is required to) talk to the police about an allegation without a solicitor present. Demanding legal representation DOES NOT count against you in a court of law. It's YOUR UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT and you fail to exercise it at your peril.

Jamie_Carter

diable wrote: »

What are you going to do now as you can't let him/they get away with false allegations. I hope that you have told the Police/School about this maybe speak to your local MP as well as I would be fuming.

The false allegations were made by a third party. And were only investigated by the police. The police have decided that there is no case to answer. So that just leaves the school to speak to. However I'm guessing that the allegations were made in the first place because the OP (or their partner) complained about racist bullying to either the school or the police.

So unless as some people have suggested the entry on the police database could cause problems in the future, then there is no reason not to let this drop as far as the police go.

Jamie_Carter

bitemebankers wrote: »

Assuming the interview hasn't already happened, I only have one thing to say to the OP:

GET YOURSELF A SOLICITOR!

Nobody should consider (or is required to) talk to the police about an allegation without a solicitor present. Demanding legal representation DOES NOT count against you in a court of law. It's YOUR UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT and you fail to exercise it at your peril.

The OP has already been interviewed, and the case dropped.

HeatherintheHills

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Give it a rest. I wasn't there, so I don't know the full situation, and don't know how old the minor looked, and even what they were investigating. All I know is your (police hating view).

Do you really think it's a good idea to give children a bad example, by encouraging them to think of the police as the enemy?...remember the riots last year?

Oh puleeese!

I'm a police hater now because I took issue with YOUR posts? :rotfl::rotfl:

To quote the government (they are the people who make the laws on behalf of the public, remember?) with regard to interviewing minors they say this

If your child is arrested for a criminal offence and they are under 17 years old, the police must tell you as soon as possible. The police should not interview your child until you are present, unless a delay would mean an immediate risk of harm to someone or serious loss of, or damage to, property. In such cases the police have to ensure that an independent 'appropriate adult' is present to make sure your child is treated fairly.
Your child has the same rights to legal advice as an adult.

There you are, it is in black and white. The interview NewKittenHelp described was in breach of the child's rights. What relevance does how old a person looks have? It is how old they are that matters, it is the responsibility of any law enforcement officer to ensure that correct procedures are followed.

And just because some people, children or adults, behave badly does not give anyone, including you, the right to suggest throwing out the rule book for everyone else. Your criticism of NewKittenHelp's intervention implies that you think the police should be able to act in any way they see fit? Sorry, but the law applies to the police too, and the vast majority of officers have the sense to realise that.

I repeat what I said, whatever your connection with the police force is, you haven't done them any favours on this thread.

DVardysShadow

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Give it a rest. I wasn't there, so I don't know the full situation, and don't know how old the minor looked, and even what they were investigating. All I know is your (police hating view).

Do you really think it's a good idea to give children a bad example, by encouraging them to think of the police as the enemy?...remember the riots last year?

Did they not start when the police shot someone? Thinking of people as the enemy is a 2 way street and it seems that the police bear some responsibilities themselves in that direction in relation to the riots.

woody2234

Reality check

1 the op posted a question and said he would get a police visit then the op disappeared of the face of the planet and we did not get an answer

2 why does this Jamie Carter post every 3 minutes 24 hours a day 365 day a year

3 Is jamie carter a group of people representing the metropolitan police ,
the chief of police , the home office, the uk border agency, customs, new scotland yard, the flying squad and the sweeney