chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

Ok son, chill yer boots

Your original posts came across a 'little' anti-police, hence the general curiously from me. Also now you've taken to adding the important details like the key was missing etc. it adds up.

Doesn't come across as so sensationalist and '*** da police' as before. Apologies on my part for the misunderstanding

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Lol

JC-R

No problem. I could see the police's side of the argument with them not knowing who i was , and i didnt really mind staying in the cell for the night as it was warmer and a tiny bit more comfortable than the back of an astra van. The problem i had with it all was the brutality of the arrest from 2 police officers. There was no need for it because i was not showing any anger or violence , I was simply telling them the story of why we broke the window and that it was my brothers van. The way i was treat was like i had smashed loads of other peoples car windows aswell. Thats why i went to them measures about an year after when i got pulled for a breath test. To me that was getting my own back.

Felix.

If your wrists were bleeding, how come this was never addressed in custody by the sergeants etc etc..? Did you complain afterwards. All injuries are documented as you are booked in, so this will have been picked up and addressed there and then. Any use of force is documented too; did you raise this at the time or speak with a solicitor about the arrest..?

I take it they could not get in touch with your brother or anyone at his registered keepers address. PNC on the vehicle would have given them contact info to prove your story at the time; hence no need to arrest and no rafts of paperwork.

At the end of the day, if they could not acquire that info at the time, then you would have to be arrested until further inquiries could be done (ie locating your brother). We can not simply take your word on who the van belongs to no matter how many times you say it to them. Would you be happy if that was your car, house - and found out that the police had let someone go as they said it belonged to their family....?

Felix.

Did something else happen....?

This use to be a grey area, but there is a stated case from around 2004 from the DPP which states that the burden of proof for the intention to drive will fall on the prosecution to prove, rather than being evidence to suggest i.e. the intention at the time can only be taken from the defendant's account and unless these is reasonable grounds to prove otherwise there can be no prosecution.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Don't know mate, don't know how long ago it was either, just that the guy was rather annoyed by the whole thing.

He's a pretty decent bloke, family man, can't see him making things up to make anyone look bad. He only told me as a warning, as I was planning to drive to a night out and leave my car, he warned me against having my keys on me.

I've read about Police grabbing people in pubs and checking their keys against cars outside, then arresting them.

http://www.enjoyresponsibly.co.uk/alcohol-and-the-law/

Felix.

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions
Queen's Bench, Divisional Court (2003) The Times, 25 February

The statute

The Road Traffic Act 1988, s. 5 provides:
(1) If a person . . . (b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

"The defendant was found over the limit in his parked vehicle in a public place and claimed he had been trying to get a lift with a friend."

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

If the accused satisfied the evidential burden, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances were not such that there was no likelihood of his driving while the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

Put positively, that meant that the prosecution must have proved that there was a real risk, in the sense of a risk that ought not to have been ignored, of his driving whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

The prosecution failed to show that it was necessary to impose a legal burden on the accused to show that there was no likelihood of his driving while still over the limit To impose a legal burden on the prosecution to prove that there was a real risk of his driving would not cause undue problems for prosecutors. It was not a heavy burden and should be capable of proof on the facts of the great majority of cases, if not all cases. Therefore, it had not been shown to be proportionate to impose a legal burden.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

He got done for it .. and I don't want to be

JC-R

Im not disputing the fact that they did not know who i was and that they had to take me into the police station and i didnt have a problem that, I said this in my last post. It was the brutality used in the arrest that i had the problem with ? Ecpesially as i was explaining to them calmly that it was my brothers van and then i climed into the front of the van calmly, but as soon as i got into the front they was onto me like a ton of bricks, 2 officers draging me out and ramming my up against the side of the van and cuffing me. And whilst they did that i showed no aggresion back to them ! Maybe they wanted me to be aggresive back but because i was being so calm and compliant, this wound them up possibly. All i was saying was can you please loosen my cuffs as their hurting me and digging into my wrists behind my back. They ignored me, pushed me into the back of the car and slammed the door. By this point i could feel my wrists bleeding, I said nothing all the way to the police station. When we got out of the car at the station , I asked them again to loosen my cuffs, they opened them then re-cuffed me loosely with my hands in front of me. I told them that my wrists was bleeding , but they said nothing and walked me into the station. They then expained to the chief what had happened, I showed my wrists to the chief and that they wouldnt loosen the cuffs behind my back , the police said to the chief that i was ressisting arrest. If i was pisst at the time then it wouldnt of been so bad and i probably wouldnt remember so much, but i was sobber and can remember everything. I was 17 at the time, i did not know my rights and that i could speak to a solicitor. I was a quiet lad then, and still am now, But things would be different if that happened to me now.

Im not implying i would be happy if somebody broke onto my car or house and slept over night and the police seen them and spoke to them and then left them there. Having said that if i had a clapped out , E reg, Astra van (which was what we broke into) and somebody decided to brake a window and sleep in the back for a night , then it wouldnt bother me as much as if they had done it in my nice car or house.
Im sure you would have a different feeling and approach to dealing with somebody who has broken into a house in comparison to somebody braking into and old Astra van ? As the motive of the person breaking an entry would be different in each case ? Im i right in thinking that ?

Felix.

Not really to be honest - if they are not 'kicking off' then why make things harder for yourself - especially when the job offers you no support if you become injured and you even risk loosing money.

Complaints also drag on for ages and again, it often becomes a witch hunt against everything you have done which the job gives you no support for. 'Day one, lesson one - always cover your back' as my tutor said to me.

I can remember catching a burglar in the act - we had the house surrounded pretty quick so he had no escape (which he knew). When we entered the house, he was sat at the kitchen table resigned to his fate. "H'way then" i said to which he said "OK"

Its funny sometimes as the public often see us as being too 'pally' with offenders. I just treat people as i find them and if they are being alright with me then i'm alright with them

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

Ive never been pulled by the police..

Jamie

Same here.