We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cambridge case hoax phone call
Comments
-
Oh dear, I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
The CPS decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the hoaxer. Whether you agree with them or not, that is what they have decided.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
We don't know that the CPS made any such decision, or that the police passed the file to the CPS in the first place.Oh dear, I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
The CPS decided that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the hoaxer. Whether you agree with them or not, that is what they have decided.
Speaking to an former detective friend about this, he said that it was quite likely that both the evidential and public interest boxes were ticked, but that the police decided to deal with it by means of an official caution to both offenders.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
We don't know that the ... police passed the file to the CPS in the first place.
IIMU that the police are required to pass details to the CPS who then advise whether a caution is appropriate or not.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
We don't know that the ... police passed the file to the CPS in the first place.
IIMU that the police are required to pass details to the CPS who then advise whether a caution is appropriate or not.
Indictable offences yes, summary offences no. Dunno which these might've been.Je suis Charlie.0 -
...and we shouldn't forget that the judge concerned has jurisdiction and considerable discretion with regard to matters of contempt and how he chooses to deal with them, or not. Who knows?
Perhaps HHJ Moloney considered that a few hours banged up in a police cell, being subject of (one hopes) a reasonably rigorous interview and sweating for a few weeks on bail was sufficient punishment?
Perhaps the Pranksters radioactive spiders intervened? Perhaps this all a dream and we'll wake up tomorrow in a world free of idle and pointless speculation?
My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
...and we shouldn't forget that the judge concerned has jurisdiction and considerable discretion with regard to matters of contempt and how he chooses to deal with them, or not. Who knows?
Perhaps HHJ Moloney considered that a few hours banged up in a police cell, being subject of (one hopes) a reasonably rigorous interview and sweating for a few weeks on bail was sufficient punishment?
Yes, I'm sure once the miscreants had been identified by the police they could have been brought before the judge who could have dealt with them for criminal contempt, no need for a charge of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice, nor a decision by the CPS or a separate trial.0 -
This was all going on around about the time Parking Eye dragged us through the court. Had a dicussion about it with the Parking Eye lawyer over tea and toast, she reckoned it usually got messy when civil judges got mixed up with criminal stuff.Illegitimi non carborundum:)0
-
We don't know that the CPS made any such decision, or that the police passed the file to the CPS in the first place.
Speaking to an former detective friend about this, he said that it was quite likely that both the evidential and public interest boxes were ticked, but that the police decided to deal with it by means of an official caution to both offenders.
Without saying too much about my source - that is not what happened.0 -
That's piqued our interest. More please???I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
peter_the_piper wrote: »That's piqued our interest. More please???
Mrs BP is a person with legal training... If I say too much, she might lose her position, which she had to fight for after being told by a well-known London set that she wasn't being taken on after training.
She's not now London-based and doesn't intend to go to Preston again...
Blankety-Blank0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards