OIC cancels evdidence meeting

[weary]

My HO, weary, was in a "voluntary interview" with the police last week on allegations of historic indecent assault from nearly 40 years ago. He denies it and said during the interview he has lots of evidence (letters, photos, diaries) proving the FA is lying. The OIC agreed to come and look at some of it and today weary got it all set out, arranged to have the house to himself and then the OIC rang to cancel. When my OH expressed his disappointment that the meeting was cancelled, because he genuinely wanted to show proof of innocence before the OIC sent off his report , the OIC said "but mr Weary- that's for your defence"
What kind of a comment is that? It's almost as if he himself has made up his mind even before he sends off the report to the CPS.
And what happened to weary's being allowed to make his side of the argument with his evidence?
Do we need to start looking for a solicitor now?

[Rights Fighter]

If you look at other threads you will see that the general advice is to NOT give the police any evidence that will help prove innocence. They will either twist it or go to the complainant who will then change their evidence to suit.

The OIC. What he has is for his defence case, should it go to trial.

[weary]

Thankyou for replying. But don't the police have to look into both sides before sending in their report to CPS? Or is what my OH said on the taped interview all he will get?

[Rights Fighter]

They are supposed to, but usually do not. They also hide useful defence evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-crime.html

They did that in my friend's case in 2000. That's what got me into this line of work. I was horrified that the police could be so dishonest. Now I know it's the norm.

[weary]

Thanks. I get it now and I've printed off that shocking story you linked to. I guess we just wanted to give the police as much proof of innocence as possible to avoid having to go to court - but it seems to me now we could well end up sharing this evidence in court as his defence - only then to get justice for him - and then what a waste of time and lot of suffering.
Well, perhaps it will be NFA. I just know we have to be prepared for months of waiting.

[Franticwithworry]

How it seems to work is that the CPS make a decision on charging based on the evidence from the complainant. If Mr Weary gets charged, then a he and a solicitor can work on his defence. If his evidence is overwhelming, it's possible that the charges will be dropped and the trial cancelled, but if not, then a jury will weigh the evidence on either side and decide.

The idea of the police conducting an impartial investigation and providing CPS with a balanced report on which to make a charging decision seems to be something of a myth. The aim seems to be a conviction at all costs and looking only for evidence of guilt. The amount of taxpayer's money that is being wasted on trials that are either halted or reach not guilty verdicts in a matter of minutes, is a national disgrace, and to my mind simply demonstrats that the CPS's priority is not much to do with justice. A brief look at their website, where they talk of 'victims' rather than 'complainants' and so on, demonstrates their bias from start to finish. It's all very well to be 'tough on crime' but if the system is based on 'innocent until guilty' it's wrong to treat every suspect as a criminal before the guilty verdict is in, and to fail to act impartially whilst gathering evidence.

[Chigirl]

What a shocking thing to say!!! You would assume they'd be impartial look at his evidence and if that showed she was lying then that the case would be dropped but they just aren't interested in that at all. It was the same with us.

[soulbug]

Sadly as pessimistic as this may sound , Its a no conviction no promotion policy down at the police station....! simple as that !

[Staystrong1]

Have to agree no investigating to prove or disprove the allegation (Acting seargent in OH case so,clearly after promotion) they just gather information from FA and do not do an Investigation as in other crimes to negate/legate. Its an unfair system that needs to be addressed. Would keep your evidence ro prove FA for your solicitor, barrister experienced in historical cases. Unless you are actually charged you dont even get to know the actual details to defend yourself properly at IUC just what they choose to disclose Then its passed for the CPS decision its madness how can CPS even know whether to proceed if they havent seen both sides of the story. No other crimes, alleged crimes are dealt with in this way. Keep,strongx

[weary]

Sorry for my ignorance - what is IUC?

[Staystrong1]

Sorry using jargon Interview under caution. In OH case it was only when we had disclosure after charged he could really prove his defence and expose discrepancies . Plus disclosure held back right up to and even in trial. But keep faith it was unanimous NG but the 2 years of hell up to trial is unfair.

[weary]

How incredibly depressing
I guess we need to be thinking of a solicitor then just in case. I do see that Chris Saltrese is in a neighbouring town to us in the North West; maybe when the time comes (sorry - IF the time comes ) a conversation can be had. Though I admit we have absolutely no idea of costs involved if you pay privately- whether it's nearer 5K or 10 K or 20 K - haven't a clue- or even if we could afford it. I'd have thought as pensioners we'd be on legal aid but that again is a whole other issue and I don't want to go off topic.
Much obliged for all the supportive responses here.
On the plus side - whichever solicitor did get to support my OH would have lots of juicy stuff to demolish the FA with

[Rights Fighter]

If he is charged I would advise that you contact Mark Newby of Jordans, in Doncaster. He's south Yorkshire and covers the north west

http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jor...ple/mark-newby

[Staystrong1]

Thats good to hear, you sound confident that you can expose it for the false allegaion it is so I would be keep positive and hopefully an NFA forthcoming but its nice to think you will have a strong defence if necessary x

[weary]

Thanks for the link Rights Fighter - we are in Lancashire but obv I am not saying where exactly. And thankyou for your support Staystrong.
Mr weary is still thinking the police will be objective and will listen to him and he will get an NFA. He only posted here once and has relied on me to keep him informed of what I have learned - I dont think it is what he wants to hear, really, that the police are not impartial - but it is best to be prepared for the worst I suppose.

The same FA has made the same false allegations twice before in the last 3 decades and twice he's been investigated and it never went further. But the police never kept the files. I think my OH was/is hoping the CPS wont charge him because it would show the police in a bad light, but reading the stories on here I have got very cynical. The FA obviously thinks times have changed, and whereas before, her case was properly investigated and so she couldn't take it any further, maybe she now thinks in the culture of automatically believing the complainants, she can get him charged and cause much more mischief - even if it does end up with him demolishing her case in court