Laying an Information before a Magistrate!

[caledfwlch]

This action (beginning a private prosecution) has been discussed in some of our Bailiff threads, well the process has actually been started by one brave soul, though its against Police Officers, not Bailiffs.

 

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/15/police-accused-kidnap-private-prosecution?cat=uk&type=article

A district judge has given the go-ahead to a private prosecution against two Metropolitan police officers alleged to have kidnapped a man and threatened unlawful violence when they arrested him at his home, the Guardian has learned.

 

Amazingly though, presumably the evidence is thus pretty damming, the Judge agreed and issues a Summons against the Officers. A very rare event it seems!

[ploddertom]

Be an intersting one to watch. I wonder if a parallel could be made where they abet Bailiffs.

[old bill]

This action (beginning a private prosecution) has been discussed in some of our Bailiff threads, well the process has actually been started by one brave soul, though its against Police Officers, not Bailiffs.

 

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/15/police-accused-kidnap-private-prosecution?cat=uk&type=article

A district judge has given the go-ahead to a private prosecution against two Metropolitan police officers alleged to have kidnapped a man and threatened unlawful violence when they arrested him at his home, the Guardian has learned.

 

Amazingly though, presumably the evidence is thus pretty damming, the Judge agreed and issues a Summons against the Officers. A very rare event it seems!

 

I doubt very much it was a summons the Judge issued. More like an Arrest Warrant. Kidnapping is an indictable offence. Criminal Procedures Rules require that a warrant be issued in cases involving indictable offences. I have been in court when a Stipendiary Magistrate (now known as a District Judge) issued arrest warrants against three Met police officers for ABH, unlawful detention and false imprisonment. Police officers are not above the law. The matter will go before the DPP, as police officers are involved, and a decision made whether it should be pursued by the Crown or whether the man can pursue a private prosecution.

 

UPDATE: Just had a look at the article. Looking at the list of offences, it is very likely the DPP will take this over. I would be very surprised if he didn't.

[brassnecked]

Yes OB these allegations are of so serious a nature that if the DPP didn't take this over uncomfortable questions may well be asked of the MET, not a nice scenario for them after the Tomlinson debacle.

 

Now CPS? well they would likely say not enough evidence, or not in public interest to pursue, going off their past form.

[old bill]

Yes OB these allegations are of so serious a nature that if the DPP didn't take this over uncomfortable questions may well be asked of the MET, not a nice scenario for them after the Tomlinson debacle.

 

Now CPS? well they would likely say not enough evidence, or not in public interest to pursue, going off their past form.

 

If a District Judge, who, like the DPP, is legally-trained - they are normally barristers with a minimum of 5 years' practice or solicitors with a minimum of 7 years' practice whilst the DPP is a barrister (QC) - has issued a warrant/summons against the officers, the DPP will take that into account. I would be very surprised if the DPP did not authorise the matter to proceed.

[citizenB]

Be an intersting one to watch. I wonder if a parallel could be made where they abet Bailiffs.

 

I guess we need to keep an eye on this one then.

[brassnecked]

Definitely keep an eye, on this, and OB has dispelled any doubts I may have had in willingness of DPP to proceed, this one will run. Thing is we must look at how this can be applied to rogue bailiffs.

[old bill]

Be an intersting one to watch. I wonder if a parallel could be made where they abet Bailiffs.

 

That is a very distinct possibility, PT. A lot of the time, certificated bailiffs lie and misrepresent their authority and powers to the police. One of the reasons they don't carry LOs and warrants with them, even though legislation requires them to do so, is that if the police found out they were being lied to, custody suites would be filled to bursting point with certificated bailiffs. The police do not like being taken for mugs. My gut-feeling is that when the coin finally drops and the police realise what certificated bailiffs have been doing, it will be payback time. In the meantime, it is up to peeps to educate the police as to the reality of assisting certificated bailiffs in their law-breaking. Highlighting ACPO's inappropriate relationships with the civil enforcement industry would be a start.