Arrested after taking legal advice

BitterAndTwisted

Of course being arrested and questioned is an unpleasant experience. Only a fool would try to argue otherwise. And I haven't seen any fools try that one on here.

Still, taking pre-emptive legal advice is no insurance against a ne'er-do-well making spurious allegations. Or even real ones, for that matter. Doing everything in your power to avoid being accused of something cannot prevent it happening.

The issue is that an allegation has been made and no matter how trivial, untrue or vexatious to the accused the police are bound to investigate it if they think a criminal offense may have been committed. Here, one hasn't so nothing will happen.

geoffky

NFA when you next answer your bail..

marywooyeah

lika_86 wrote: »

If the goods were abandoned this does not preclude a bailment situation, the OP becomes an involuntary bailee which carries with it certain standards of care, it is on this basis that Tesco have advised.

But bailment has not been mentioned by the op at all, only by you. The op was charged with theft and is being investigated forva criminal, not a civil matter.

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Being arrested and questioned is a million miles away from being charged with an offense.

Op says in the firstpost that she was charged with theft and bailed.

[/QUOTE]. If the details in the OP are all accurate, I think it's pretty unlikely that you will be charged and even less likely that you'll be convicted. The police received an allegation that they have to follow up - the most expedient way to do this was to arrest and question the alleged offenders which is what they've done.

As for brining up things that happened four years ago and asking why nothing was done then - your own post makes it sound as though the local police officer spoke to you about the prospect of taking action against your ex and that you agreed not to proceed. Four years on is way too late to change your mind and want them to take action.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree with all of this.

Please let us know how you get on op x

Nicki

marywooyeah wrote: »

Op says in the firstpost that she was charged with theft and bailed.

No she said she was arrested and bailed. She doesn't say anywhere she was charged. She could well be on police bail where she has been arrested questioned and bailed to come back to the police station in a few weeks at which point they will decide whether to charge, caution or take no further action.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html

Sounds really unpleasant OP. I think this is unlikely to result in a charge or if it does in a conviction but Tesco legal should have been clearer in their advice that although you were unlikely to be convicted of anything with a vindictive ex you were very likely to be reported and investigated for theft. That was a failure on their part IMO.

Yorkie1

OP, could you clarify whether you were :
a) arrested on charges of theft, interviewed, and released on bail for further enquiries but without bail; or
b) arrested on charges of theft, interviewed, charged with theft, and released on bail to attend a court hearing?

I am slightly concerned about posting too much on here if sub judice issues apply.

Nicki

Yorkie it makes no difference. Contempt of Court act applies from the point of arrest not charge so the proceedings are already active for the purposes of reporting.

That being said, its only an issue if what is said causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to any forthcoming trial and nothing on this thread gets close to that not least because it is all anonymous and the facts are fairly commonplace.

marywooyeah

anniefoss wrote: »

Charges were theft and we have both been bailed. .

Nicki wrote: »

No she said she was arrested and bailed. She doesn't say anywhere she was charged.

From the top quote I understood it as op has been charged.

lika_86

marywooyeah wrote: »

But bailment has not been mentioned by the op at all, only by you. The op was charged with theft and is being investigated forva criminal, not a civil matter.

My initial comment was that I wouldn't expect the police to understand civil issues, ie. bailment. You then said that the situation didn't scream bailment as the goods were abandoned not willingly taken on by the OP. I then said that a bailee can be an involuntary one. Please follow a thread of argument/conversation. I have not suggested that the police have anything to do with that, clearly their remit is the criminal law, not civil tort matters.

marywooyeah

lika_86 wrote: »

My initial comment was that I wouldn't expect the police to understand civil issues, ie. bailment. You then said that the situation didn't scream bailment as the goods were abandoned not willingly taken on by the OP. I then said that a bailee can be an involuntary one. Please follow a thread of argument/conversation. I have not suggested that the police have anything to do with that, clearly their remit is the criminal law, not civil tort matters.

I didn't dispute that a bailment can arise involuntarily: I said that the issue here does not indicate bailment and that the op is being investigated for the criminal matter of theft. This thread therefore is centering around the criminal/police side of things that op is going through. I would respectfully refer you to follow your own advice of following a tgread of conversation as that is the way this thread has developed.

lika_86

marywooyeah wrote: »

I didn't dispute that a bailment can arise involuntarily:

I refer you back to your comment "Nothing in this scenario screams bailment to me - the ops account suggests he abandoned the goods rather than there being an understanding that op would be looking after them for him."

I said that the issue here does not indicate bailment and that the op is being investigated for the criminal matter of theft. This thread therefore is centering around the criminal/police side of things that op is going through. I would respectfully refer you to follow your own advice of following a tgread of conversation as that is the way this thread has developed.

There are two issues here - what the actual situation is (ie. civil matter) and how the police have treated this (ie. criminal matter). The latter does not change the former. I am aware that the OP is dealing with a criminal matter but this does not preclude and in fact necessitates some consideration of the underlying facts and situation.