Jump to content


The CPS and police uniting


  • You cannot reply to this topic
46 replies to this topic

#21 Capt Chaos

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 01:44 PM

Quote

 So, just keeping the idea at a base level and non complex offence, if the custody officers are rushed off their feet, the partol/SNT supervisor is running around as well, the inspectors are trying to count the beans, you start to run out of supervisors to make the decisions on prosecute and for what offence, bearing in mind the various and ever changing policies not just of CPS but the courts as well.  Knowing the law is half the equation, knowing how to present it to the court is the other part - allegedly that is where CPS come in, but there are few police officers who would either be capable or want to do it.
Prior to the CPS (in the Met) as the arresting officer, in minor criminal cases, you prepared the case and took it to court, usually the next day.  Presenting a prosecution at magistrates court is no big deal,  every copper in the Met did it on a regular basis.  They used to teach it at Hendon, then teach it at CTC, then you would go and do it for real with 'guilty' pleas, then graduate up to 'not guilty's'.  I think its safe to say that the majority of policemen I knew who used this system used to present cases better that most solicitors, and get more finding of guilt than defence solicitors got not guilties.  At the time, presenting cases at court was no biggie, just another string to your bow. 

Yes it's a Police Dog - Yes you can stroke him - No he won't bite you
Well, he's never done that before.

#22 sykes

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 01:50 PM

Police officers used to present cases at court worked perfectly well, its not a casr of if offcers wanted to do it if its part  of the job get on with it
 

We have two problems since CPS evolved one is there target chasing and none accountability, the second is officers have lost a skill based on target chasing

 

Police officers are now focused on getting a detection this does not always equate to succesful prosecution sometimes because qulity of evidence is eithe poor, poorly presented or missing

 

To the OP the CPS dont (ok are not meant to ) look after the defendant as funnily enough we are prosecuting them that why they have.... defence lawyers.

 

The idea of a joint unit working together in theory makes sense it wont happen to many egos and empire building conflicitng targets and budgets

 


#23 BIkerider

    Forum Member

  • Moderators
  • 7713 posts
  • LocationNorth Yorkshire

Posted 05 March 2011 - 01:59 PM

I have to take issue here. The Police always used to present cases at court, magistrates court anyway. It wasn't up to the individual officer, (generally) but an Inspector who did it as part of his normal everyday job. (and very good at it too. They knew all the lags, the dodges and when someone was lying though their teeth.)  
 

Having said that there were occasions when I as a lowly 4yr service Pc back in the 80's did prosecute and successfully too.  CPS are the biggest waste of space that has been invented by mankind. CPS are the bean counters and will back down at the slightest hint of a fight. The police used to use Solicitors when it was needed and as they were getting paid by the police, if they cocked up they were not asked again.

 

Ask yourself this. Why would a solicitor think of becoming an employee of the CPS as a Civil Servant paid a civil service rates because thats what they are, when a good independant solicitor can make far more cash that the CPS solicitors ever deamed of. It is because they have to WORK for it! They are low grade, low achiveing, throwbacks.

 

It is simply this, they are CR*P. Win or loose they still get their monthly paycheck so where is the incentive to improve?

 

I ask you this, why downgrade a good S20 GBH where a person has lost teeth and has had to have surgery on a partially severed tongue to an offence of  Common Assault, simply because the defendants plead not guilty. This was not in court but the indications given by the defence solicitor before the court hearing started. They have no bottle, imagination, and and frankly are a waste of space!

 

I am afraid those who have not seen it from the other side or who have an agenda that includes the CPS, have simply no idea.
BIkerider2011-03-05 14:05:46
Kingy from Tyneside

Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I just sits!

#24 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 02:37 PM


Quote

So, just keeping the idea at a base level and non complex offence, if the custody officers are rushed off their feet, the partol/SNT supervisor is running around as well, the inspectors are trying to count the beans, you start to run out of supervisors to make the decisions on prosecute and for what offence, bearing in mind the various and ever changing policies not just of CPS but the courts as well.  Knowing the law is half the equation, knowing how to present it to the court is the other part - allegedly that is where CPS come in, but there are few police officers who would either be capable or want to do it.
 
 


I repeat. We (the police) used to do it before, the police could do it again. I used to make the charging decisions as a sergeant, there is nothing to it. The CPS made it more complicated by trying to save money by weeding out any case they were not confident of winning.

Our charging standard was to charge if there was some credible evidence. It was not our role to assess the evidence, that was for the court to do. By assessing the evidence like that they were effectively trying a person behind closed doors by a faceless individual. What sort of justice is that? We need to go back to charged people being examined in open court by someone who can be seen.

Further, get rid of the CPS and the custody officer will no longer be rushed off his/her feet. Calm and tranquillity will return to the custody suite and police officers will again be able to do their jobs.

Please note: ALL of the problems with the current justice system are the fault of the CPS. They need to be disbanded.



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#25 BBB*

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 05:39 PM

I joined prior to the CPS coming into existence and remember the court presentation sergeant who would take all the cases to court initially. I spent a week with him during my street duties course and still remember giving the facts for a guilty plea and how nervous I was in front of the magistrateSmile But by the end of the week I had learnt a lot and was dealing with cases that involved objecting to bail being granted. Subsequently, like all officers at the time, I found myself going to court for not guilty pleas in the magistrates court and cross examining the defendant. It was normal to do and wasn't a problem.
 

Once the CPS took over in about June 1986 the first impact it had was on our paperwork. We went from the old 611's (in the Met) to the form 151's and overnight it doubled the amount of time it took to put the paperwork together, thanks to the multitude of forms that the CPS required. That was a retrograde step, and then there were the issues of having to go to court on dates that had been marked up to avoid within the case papers but the prosecutor had not bothered to look at it. I remember being sat at the back of a court once for a case that was adjourned and the clerk suggested the date which the prosecutor accepted without checking the case papers. Luckily I was able to stand up and advise the court that the date was not suitable.

 

Looking at the further changes over the years has reinforced my belief that the CPS was not the correct way forward. The process is not rocket science, though the CPS seem to make it look that way.
BBB*2011-03-05 17:41:10
"There are too many people mistaking this joke for a job"

#26 Old Codger

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1551 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 08:47 PM


Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".


Trouble is that us English like to scatter vowels about.  It assails our sence of correctness to have six consecutive consonants without a vowel to separate them.


It is the same in Welsh, OC; just that the Welsh have vowels that are not recognised by the English. There are two more than in English, the "y" and the "w".

The "y" is what is known in most languages as a neutral vowel. It sounds like a short "er" or a grunt.

The "w" serves as both a vowel and a consonant. When used as a vowel, it takes an "oo" sound. It is that vowel that is used in my username, which, very roughly, sounds like PENBOOLK (the ch at the end sounds like the ch in the Scottish loch and the closest I can think of is the letter K).

See? no 6 consonants without a vowel.Wink


Always did think the Welsh were strange but, in view of the above, perhaps they are cleverly strange.  Big smile

Old Codger



Been there, seen it, done it.

#27 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 09:53 PM


Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".


Trouble is that us English like to scatter vowels about.  It assails our sence of correctness to have six consecutive consonants without a vowel to separate them.


It is the same in Welsh, OC; just that the Welsh have vowels that are not recognised by the English. There are two more than in English, the "y" and the "w".

The "y" is what is known in most languages as a neutral vowel. It sounds like a short "er" or a grunt.

The "w" serves as both a vowel and a consonant. When used as a vowel, it takes an "oo" sound. It is that vowel that is used in my username, which, very roughly, sounds like PENBOOLK (the ch at the end sounds like the ch in the Scottish loch and the closest I can think of is the letter K).

See? no 6 consonants without a vowel.Wink


Always did think the Welsh were strange but, in view of the above, perhaps they are cleverly strange.  Big smile


No, it is the English that are strange. Welsh existed for decades before English came into existence.

Hey, have you noticed that the new software is getting the quoting right?



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#28 999tommo

    Forum Member

  • Moderators
  • 5556 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:04 PM

Do we get a prize for the most quotes of quotes of quotes.....etc ?Wink

#29 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:06 PM

Possibly



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#30 M&MBM

    Author of Death in Spigg's Wood

  • Moderators
  • 67514 posts
  • LocationEssex

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:09 PM

Back on topic. I think the OP meant a merger, not the removal of the CPS.
MOP, Joker & reformed character. Honest. Posted ImageI moderate with purple prose

#31 Old Codger

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1551 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:30 PM


Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".


Trouble is that us English like to scatter vowels about.  It assails our sence of correctness to have six consecutive consonants without a vowel to separate them.


It is the same in Welsh, OC; just that the Welsh have vowels that are not recognised by the English. There are two more than in English, the "y" and the "w".

The "y" is what is known in most languages as a neutral vowel. It sounds like a short "er" or a grunt.

The "w" serves as both a vowel and a consonant. When used as a vowel, it takes an "oo" sound. It is that vowel that is used in my username, which, very roughly, sounds like PENBOOLK (the ch at the end sounds like the ch in the Scottish loch and the closest I can think of is the letter K).

See? no 6 consonants without a vowel.Wink


Always did think the Welsh were strange but, in view of the above, perhaps they are cleverly strange.  Big smile


No, it is the English that are strange. Welsh existed for decades before English came into existence.


Ah, it is all down to old age then.  LOL

Quote


Hey, have you noticed that the new software is getting the quoting right?


I haven't had any trouble (boasting again)  LOL

Sorry M will try to behave.



Old Codger



Been there, seen it, done it.

#32 M&MBM

    Author of Death in Spigg's Wood

  • Moderators
  • 67514 posts
  • LocationEssex

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:23 PM

I'm not fussing, Old codger, just thinking that we have extrapolated merging to mean abolishing.
MOP, Joker & reformed character. Honest. Posted ImageI moderate with purple prose

#33 Emzy kay1

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:13 PM

Yes the topic is fusion of the CPS and the police, by working together to carry out the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. Why was there an initial decision by the government to seperate the two as prior the CPS being established the police were in charge of both investigating and prosecuting, what advantages and disadvantages are there when the police MERGE with the CPS in carrying out these duties.



#34 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:25 PM

Merging would make no difference to present. The two bodies are so far apart in culture that they would not be able to effectively merge. The only way of achieving anything beneficial would be for the CPS to be abolished and for police to resume the responsibilities they once had. The CPS is a failed experiment.




I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#35 Emzy kay1

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:49 PM

so there was no rational basis for seperating prosecution and ivestigation?



#36 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 06 March 2011 - 03:34 PM

That depends on whether you are a lawyer or not. To most people, not being either lawyers or gullible, there was no rational basis at all.

However, the original report was made by lawyers, recommending that a lot of lawyers be found employment in a body called the CPS. This was acted upon by yet more lawyers (this time failed ones who had become MPs) who made it happen.

Really, it was nothing less than jobs for the boys and their total failure is the proof that it was the wrong way to do.




I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#37 M&MBM

    Author of Death in Spigg's Wood

  • Moderators
  • 67514 posts
  • LocationEssex

Posted 06 March 2011 - 04:06 PM

I keep saying this is a useful reference.
 


MOP, Joker & reformed character. Honest. Posted ImageI moderate with purple prose

#38 PennyG

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:53 AM

Of course one of the benefits  the police have for doing the Pros in house would be the process/court admin could become a place to put more officers rather than have them on front line duties.  

#39 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:05 AM


Quote

Of course one of the benefits  the police have for doing the Pros in house would be the process/court admin could become a place to put more officers rather than have them on front line duties.  


That office was, during my service, civilianised. Prior to my service, I understand the role was performed by relief Sergeants (during duty time).



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#40 BIkerider

    Forum Member

  • Moderators
  • 7713 posts
  • LocationNorth Yorkshire

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:47 AM

[QUOTE=Emzy kay1

so there was no rational basis for seperating prosecution and ivestigation?[/QUOTE]



As I understood it the basis for the CPS was to 'releive' the police of the decision making and then the public could see that there was 'transparency' in the proceedings. As it turned out the 'hidden agendas' on ly increased and when there was a mess up generally the CPS washed thier hands and passed the buck. They do not seem to be accountable to ANYONE! When was the last time you heard of a CPS lawyer being sacked for incompetance?
Kingy from Tyneside

Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I just sits!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

members, guests, anonymous users

×