Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bruce1977 last won the day on January 2 2013

Bruce1977 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Bruce1977

  • Rank
    Learning Curve
  1. magistrates court

    You can make an application for costs out of central funds. A successful award and the amount is discretionary. Don't expect to necessarily receive all your costs. As others have said - speak to your solicitor.
  2. I've never called you a "frontline grunt" or meant to imply as much. You doubt much of what I say and my experiences, and vice -versa, I feel the same in relation to you. About the only thing that you and I appear to agree on is that the OP deserved to receive a PIN and that if he has genuine concerns about the contents then he's best writing to the CC rather than contacting the issuing officer. I'm all done on this thread now so I'll leave it at that. Have a happy (and safe) 2013.
  3. Of course I've seen one. I don't have a photographic memory. I don't know about you but I can't remember the exact wording of every document that I read during the course of my working day, especially where it was one of my colleague's files. Why do you mention an apology? The whole point of contacting the police is to get the PIN cancelled. A PC can't do that. You have to go up the chain. I've come across PC's who think that it's not possible to expunge a caution because "you signed the form admitting the offence and it's too late now". Your whole attitude appears to be predicated on the basis "I've never seen it done before, so it can't be done". It probably wouldn't but again you're showing your lack of understanding of the way it works. The CPS wouldn't prosecute relying on a PIN/HW that was wrongly issued and where the stated grounds were false and malicious. Your argument for not cancelling/withdrawing a PIN appears to be based on the ground "OK you didn't do it now. We accept that the complainant lied, but we're not going to cancel/ withdraw it because it might be useful to have it on file if you ever harass somebody else in the future." That is a very strange argument.
  4. I can say from my own experience and knowledge that in certain circumstances it is possible to obtain written confirmation on behalf of the CC that the police have received information to lead them to believe that the facts as outlined in a PIN/HW did not occur and that the PIN should not have been issued and is therefore withdrawn. I don't know the exact words used whether that be withdrawn, cancelled, revoked or expunged. The effect is the same though. In my view it should. You obviously have a different view. No offence intended to you, but that's why I would always recommend that any application of this nature should be made to the Chief Constable and not the issuing officer.
  5. Of course a PIN can be cancelled if it was issued as a result of a pack of lies. I really can't see why a senior officer shouldn't admit that it was wrongly issued. Mistakes happen. There's nothing wrong with rectifying that in the same way that cautions get expunged. Absolutely. But what use is a PIN where it's quite clear (and admitted by the complainant) that the alleged harassers haven't harassed anyone. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be cancelled just in case they ever do decide to harass the neighbours from hell next door? That doesn't sound very fair to me and I doubt very much that the CC would get very far arguing the point in a Judicial Review. I can't comment on your area but A&S police are fairly good at rectifying these sorts of mistakes. You say that a PIN can't be cancelled. I say that it can in certain circumstances but it's pointless asking the issuing officer. The request should be addressed to the Chief Constable.
  6. I wasn't referring to you in particular, rather any issuing officers. You did though say "Police can chop and change the PIN to their hearts content." Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. My colleague is a solicitor, as I am (which explains my interest in this site). He acted for a middle-aged couple both working for the NHS who had the proverbial neighbours from hell. False allegation made against them. HWs issued. CCTV showed the allegations were completely false. Complainant admitted lying. Alleged harassers were worried about Enhanced CRB checks revealing the harassment warnings. Complained to CC and they were cancelled. A PIN/HW is a non-statutory notice so there's no statutory appeal mechanism. The only remedy is Judicial Review. In practice though it's always going to be best to first ask the CC to cancel the PIN/HW. If it's quite clear that it shouldn't have been issued (as in the above case) then why wouldn't the CC cancel it? If a senior police officer can expunge a caution, why do you believe that he/she can't also cancel a PIN in circumstances when it was quite clearly incorrectly given?
  7. I actually think that the present system of written PINS is OK. My concern is that some police officers try and treat them as contracts between the alleged harasser and the police and put in unenforceable obligations not to contact other people or go to certain areas, with little thought of the implications and consequences. Thoughtless drafting of PINS is causing problems especially in relation to child contact issues.
  8. Correct. So don't try and put an unenforceable obligation in it. It's a warning, and not a contract between the police and the alleged harasser. I have personal experience of a HW being cancelled where the complainant admitted that it was all a pack of lies. One of my colleagues obtained the letter of cancellation from Avon & Somerset. I don't think that it was an unreasonable request.
  9. Of course they can be cancelled. If the PIN was issued as a result of proven incorrect information (ie. the complainant admits lying about the harassment) then you can ask the Chief Constable to cancel it. You may have no experience of PINS/HW's being cancelled, but I have. It's not going to happen in this case though because the OP admits sending the texts. Again, I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a police officer can put what he wants in a PIN. You may be drafting them correctly, but as mentioned in my last post, I've seen some real shockers. It's just not reasonable to expect someone living in a very small hamlet in rural Somerset not to go within 500 metres of the complainant if they both live in the same village and there's only one village shop. If a father has a contact order from the Family Courts in relation to child contact, the police shouldn't be used by the complainant to frustrate the terms of the contact order by drafting a PIN which attempts to obtain written agreement from the harasser not to contact or attempt to contact the mother in person or by telephone,letter, text, email, or any other form of electronic communication, either directly or indirectly....etc.etc. In most cases (especially those where contact is not supervised in a contact centre) an improperly drafted PIN can cause all sorts of problems . That's not what HW's/PINS were designed for. You may well read the Guidance as saying that you can put in what you want, and that's your prerogative. I happen to disagree. Certainly in my area a polite letter of complaint to the Chief Constable almost always does the trick. Hence my suggestion to forget about Judicial Review.
  10. 150 texts in 3 days sounds like harassment to me. So you've no chance of getting it revoked. The HW/PINS is meant to be a warning that future similar conduct could lead to arrest and prosecution. Under section 5 PHA 1997 the court has the power to prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order. The problem arises when the police amend the proforma PINS/HW to include agreement by the alleged harasser not to contact the complainant, or in some cases not to go within a specified distance of the complainant. The police just don't have the power to do this. In many cases, of course, that's not going to cause a problem to the alleged harasser. However, if there are children involved and/or the Family Court have made a contact order outlining arrangements for contact, then the arrangement proposed by the police could prevent contact. Article 8 HRA (right to family life) comes to mind. You can apply for Judicial Review in relation to the contents of the PINS but I wouldn't recommend that you do so. There's a big difference between a PINS that says that "Attempting to contact the complainant again may be treated as harassment" and one that says " If you contact the complainant again then you will be arrested under the PHA 1997". There are time limits for making an application for Judicial Review. The application must be made promptly and in any event within 3 months.If you lose then you'll have to pay the CC's costs. I suspect that Judicial Review would be more complicated and more expensive than you imagine. Before making the application you'd need to contact the police first under the Pre-Action Protocol. The court would frown upon an application for Judicial Review where you'd not complained to the Chief Constable first. If the PINS does indeed [using your words] "clearly states that any future contact with my ex would result in breach of the protection from harassment act" and "I must make NO attempt to communicate with her" then I'd make a complaint to the Chief Constable about the specific wording that you believe is unreasonable, and copy in the IPCC. You won't get the PINS cancelled but you should get agreement that it's not reasonable for the issuing officer to attempt to restrict all contact with your ex.because it interferes with the contact order and makes it difficult for you to have contact with your children. Forget Judicial Review. You'll get nothing but further grief going down that route.
  11. You need to apply to the DVLA in Swansea for a new form V5C. You can download the application Form V62 from this link: Have a look at this link about the VIC (Vehicle Identity Check) :
  12. Assuming that it was the police (and not one of his mates) I suspect that the informal warning over the telephone won't be revealed on an enhanced disclosure. The cannabis warning could be.
  13. I agree with this. A simple caution is automatically spent. A conditional caution is spent after 3 months. It's a criminal offence to make an unauthorised disclosure of a spent caution to a third party (section 9A ROA 1974). I can't believe that HR would disclose the spent conviction of the sister to the agency or even refer to it in any way.
  14. The disclosure certificate will disclose convictions, cautions (both spent and unspent) and any other information which in the chief officer's opinion might be relevant and ought to be included in the certificate (section 113B Police Act 1997). This is done at a high level within the force and there are agreed forms of tests, checks and matrices in relation to relevancy. It is definitely not the case that interviews and acquittals will automatically be on the disclosure. It would be a pretty unfair system otherwise. There are a fair number of cases where the Chief Constable has been sued over the contents of additional disclosure information. In most that I've seen the complainant lost. If all interviews, appearancs and acquittals were disclosed regardless of relevancy, I can see the police having to pay out a lot more.
  15. The RTA 1988 states that it's an offence. Indeed it's an imprisonable offence. So why do you believe that drink driving is not a criminal offence?