One for RF

[Raptorace]

Hi RF, with the ruling on bail time being counted as time held and the limit for that being 96 hours, should those falsely accused of rape currently on bail be insisting via their sol to be charged or released from bail? It seems a good opportunity in theory to end early the nightmare many on this forum are still facing???

[Rights Fighter]

This came in an email today from MOJUK:



Greater Manchester Police v Hookway, 19 May 2011


Well, after all the activity of the last week, we now have some progress; on 2 fronts as it happens. First, the government announced yesterday in parliament that it will bring forward "emergency" legislation to reverse the effect of Hookway. But that is only a solution to one part of the problem, in the sense that the decision will be reversed from when the Act receives Royal Assent, likely to be within the next 14 days.



But what of the thousands, if not millions of cases between 1 January 1986 when PACE 1984 came in to force and the date of Royal Assent for the emergency legislation? It would appear that there will be a significant number of cases where a suspect has been unlawfuly detained and is therefore perhaps eligible for compensation - legislation will not, and cannot do anything about that. There is also the appeal issue - those cases founded on evidence (confession) obtained in apparent breach of PACE. As sure as today is Friday some lawyer is at this moment (and quite rightly so) pondering the implications. This therefore explains why the case is also headed for the Supreme Court at the end of July. The government desperately needs to head off a collective damages claim going back at least 6 years, which would be quantified at a sum of many hundreds of millions of pounds - that is the real disaster facing policing.



As lawyers of course we cannot afford to be sentimental about pressures on the public purse, if there is a legitimate claim then it is proper that we advise clients accordingly. It was however surprising that CrimeLine has received so many emails on this topic, from lawyers, over the last few days. Why so? Lawyers would do to remember the old addage about those in glass houses. There are arguably 2 lines of attack for the client here, one against the police and another against the lawyers who raised not one single objection to the PACE clock calculation over the last 25 years. Surely, if there is any blame to be apportioned here the lawyers share it at least equally? A client, being advised properly, would be advised not to enter into complex litigation with the police service, but instead go for compensation via the Legal Ombudsman - a simple complaint that the lawyer did not spot what a High Court Judge thought to be an obvious point.



So, be careful what you wish for when considering Hookway. You may not get quite what you hoped for....


RF: Plus as I understand it Hookway does not apply to serious crimes such as rape or murder.

[help-please]

"RF: Plus as I understand it Hookway does not apply to serious crimes such as rape or murder."

I dont understand , how can this not apply to those cases ? hookway was on bail for murder .

[Rights Fighter]

This is what is causing the outrage - hence the loud backpeddling to get it all changed for serious crime. I don't blame them in part.

Let's say your daughter was raped violently, causing physical injuries leaving her unable to have children. The alleged perpetrator is caught and put into a police cell then interviewed. Due to unforeseen circumstances the DNA evidence is not back within the required period - would you want that man to walk away?

He may be innocent and could be the victim of mistaken ID but would you want the police risk losing this potential suspect?

If he was guilty, for argument's sake, and he is allowed to walk because the clock has stopped ticking,that would mean your daughter would not get justice and there's a violent rapist let loose back into the community who could kill next time.

We need to look at this from all angles - not just from the falsely accused.

Something needs to be done to address the problems. What that something is I do not know and I am grateful I don't have to make that sort of decision - because there are no winners.

[help-please]

Agreed in principle , but the fall back of re-arrest on new evidence , i appreciate that there is currently not a true understanding of what is considered as new evidence , the DNA perhaps could only be considered as new evidence once a lab as analyzed (i know the dna has not changed in form , but perhaps only becomes new evidence once correctly analyzed), the same could apply for any piece of evidence , computers , phones , DNA etc , but of course the police may then as standard practice start to take peoples equipment in the hope of new evidence been found .

The police have been bending the rules for far to long , but like you say , who is to blame , the police for bending the rules or the legal advice for not pointing out the polices mistake in the first place , this is one big mess .

Hopefully the people will not be made to suffer , like any advice given if it is incorrect regardlessly of how many times it has been incorrectly used before does not make all those past wrongs a right , that has to be considered as poor practice , people have suffered mental anguish , suicides , loss of standing within the community , friends , family , jobs , houses , etc while on bail sometimes for years.

Interesting legal times ahead .

[Rights Fighter]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-being-let-off

[Saffron]

I agree RF. This was the point I was originally trying to make earlier in this thread. Plus if there are no bail conditions, that perpetrator could easily abscond, surely, so if there was any "new evidence" (even, for example, if the forensic results came back late) the perpetrator could no longer be available to re-arrest.

[help-please]

I agree RF. This was the point I was originally trying to make earlier in this thread. Plus if there are no bail conditions, that perpetrator could easily abscond, surely, so if there was any "new evidence" (even, for example, if the forensic results came back late) the perpetrator could no longer be available to re-arrest.

Hopefully going forward new rules will be made to encompass those kinds of situations , rather than making people wait on bail for months at a time where no DNA or any type of evidence that requires to be analyzed is part of the case .

As mentioned , i would suguest :- any evidence that needs to be analyzed (electronic equipment, DNA etc) is not considered as new evidence until it has been analyzed and is considered as part of the case ,then re-arrest .

Why should a persons case be considered as reading material for when the police officer has time to put some time into the case , peoples lives are not the back cover of a book , that can be picked up , read , put back down for 6 months , then considered again to be picked up and then put back down for six months .

How could all the best legal minds in English law never of picked up on this bail rule ? it beggars belief , i am sure the conspiracy theorists may suggest , that the constant misinterpretation suited the police and the legal teams , i do not subscribe to those kinds of theories but many will.

Past errors of the bail rules need to be looked at , no win no fee solicitors will indeed be rubbing there hands , the day time TV advert slots may well soon be filling up just like the eyes of the police and legal teams that have not done there homework on the bail rules , the very basic rule of thumb " two wrongs do not make a right "

Time will tell .

[help-please]

less powers / revised powers based on the current situation , could make the police more efficient and effective (subject to suitable understanding of what is considered as new evidence) .

I was reading Canada operate on a similar method that is currently enforced upon the police in this country due to the high court ruling .

http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/inde...han-four-days/