ArthurHislop

Resident Members
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ArthurHislop

  • Rank
    Relative Newbie
  1. Cheers. Be assured, the case I have in mind isn't any sort of nonsense. The suspect is looking at going down for up to 10 years if convicted. Apparently he is still going to have to wait until the middle of January next year to find out whether he's going to be prosecuted. Stewie, am I correct in gathering that you are in Canada?
  2. Thanks very much for this reply. I now have a follow-up question, which I wonder whether anyone can answer. I am wondering whether it may be the case that the CPS is officially or unofficially fast-tracking Operation Yewtree cases for charging decisions. With the last couple of charging decisions that the CPS has announced in connection with Yewtree, the period between the police file being sent to the CPS and the CPS announcing a charging decision has been 18 days (Rolf Harris) and 16 days (Dave Lee Travis). As I've mentioned before on here, I have provided a statement as a witness to a historic CSA allegation. I am now given to understand that we cannot expect to learn whether the suspect will be charged until early 2014. Now, I understand that every case is going to be different, but I find it hard to believe that CPS turnaround times for such similar types of cases, and in the same CPS area, can vary from around two and a half weeks to around four months. My thinking is that I wonder whether Yewtree cases might be being speeded up, because it is a very high-profile operation, and because it's perceived by some to be no more than a witch-hunt against ageing celebrities, so there would understandably be a certain amount of pressure for it to produce some results, and fast, just to prove that it's worthwhile. I'm asking partly because I'm curious, and partly because I can't believe how slowly all of this happens. It's absolute hell for the victim and other witnesses and their families to have to wait this long, but, even though I have no sympathy with the suspect in this particular case, I also agree with Simon that it is not right that anybody should be kept waiting this long just to find out whether he or she is going to be charged. By the time the suspect gets to find out whether or not he's going to be prosecuted he's going to have been on police bail for almost a year.
  3. Thanks for you reply. No, I don't suppose there is anything else that you can do, in the absence of a criminal offence along the lines of, say, failing to assist a police officer, or refusing to make a statement. It just doesn't seem right to me that people cannot be compelled to assist in the course of justice. This acquaintance of mine is saying, Yes, I am in a position to provide the police with information that would help to put a criminal behind bars, but, purely and simply because I am a thoroughly selfish person who doesn't care about my so-called friends, let alone society as a whole, I am not going to cooperate, I am going to refuse even to speak to a police officer, even though I know that this increases the likelihood of a criminal walking free from justice and continuing to be a risk to the rest of society. I find this attitude very disappointing.
  4. Is it really the case that the police have no powers to compel somebody who has witnessed a crime to cooperate with an investigation? I know that at the court stage it is possible for a witness summons to be issued and that witnesses refusing to give evidence can be imprisoned for up to six months. However, I am asking here about the police stage of the investigation. An acquaintance of mine--I wouldn't go so far as to say a friend--was a witness to a crime and the police would like to interview him about it. So far he has refused to speak to them. This means that the police cannot take a statement and that that statement therefore cannot be sent to the CPS, which could have an impact on the CPS decision as to whether the case reaches the evidence threshold for charging. I am really disgusted by this person's behaviour, which I think is selfish and irresponsible. Clearly there is a moral case that we all have a duty to respect the police and to help them to uphold the law and protect society, but I'm told that there is no legal basis at all to make anybody help the police if they don't want to. Is this true? I'll be disappointed if this person manages to get away with behaviour that is detrimental to the course of justice without eventually facing any kind of consequences.
  5. I Googled CPS waiting time and came up with this article: http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/35870/cps-decision-process-takes-too-long The article linked suggests that CPS waiting time at time of writing was between around four and twenty days, with a national average just above eight, and just under eleven considered unacceptable. The reason for my question is that I've been told that CPS waiting time from the case being sent by the police to a charge decision is now seven weeks. Can this really be the case, given what I have read? A case in which I am involved will be going to the CPS soon and I would like to have a good idea as to the likely wait. Thanks.
  6. Thanks again. It seems that I'll need to wait to see what the OIC has to say. Another officer to whom I spoke said that the suspect would be arrested, but when the OIC said that he would be "talked to" I wondered whether that was less serious than being arrested. I know that a house search will need to be carried out as soon as the suspect is made aware that he is the subject of a police investigation, otherwise it is assumed that he will destroy evidence. He also has a history of harrassing, and offering money to, witnesses, which presumably would have a stop put to it were he to be arrested and bailed with conditions.
  7. Thanks. This is extremely helpful. I do know that I could get this information from the OIC, but I don't want to make a nuisance of myself, and people here have been great at offering advice. I don't want to be too specific, but the suspect is going to be "talked to" about allegations that he has committed sexual offences against a child. So would this normally happen under arrest? To the best of my knowledge the suspect's only "previous" are cycling and motoring offences.
  8. Thanks very much to everyone who helped with my earlier question on here. I hope that you won't mind helping me out again. It's a bit easier at times to raise a question here, rather than putting it to the OIC in the investigation in which I am a witness. Several weeks ago the OIC told me that he had been planning to "talk to" the suspect in this investigation, although this had to be delayed for legal reasons. I didn't like to ask at the time, but I wasn't sure what "talking to" a suspect actually meant. It certainly doesn't sound particularly serious. Is it police jargon for arresting somebody and interviewing them under caution, or does it mean interviewing somebody under caution but not under arrest, or does it mean simply talking to somebody, neither under arrest nor under caution (which I understand would not be admissable as evidence)? What determines whether somebody is arrested before being interviewed under caution or whether they are interviewed under caution without having been arrested? Should I assume that at the same time as the person is being interviewed a search warrant will have been issued so that evidence can be removed from the suspect's premises? If the evidence isn't removed while the suspect is with the police the chances are that he'll just go back to his premises and destroy it. Finally, can I assume that the OIC will not go alone to arrest the suspect and/or escort him to a police station? It is clear to me that the suspect could easily physically overpower the OIC, but I'm not sure what the best way is of pointing this out. Thanks ever so much again for your help.
  9. Hello. Thanks very much. This is very useful. I think that it's extremely unlikely that officers involved in this case are corrupt or naive. The investigation currently has no profile whatsoever. Police officers and staff aside, currently a total of six people know that this investigation is taking place. It is also very unlikely that anybody who had been arrested on suspicion of an unrelated offence would be able to identify the suspect. Based on what I've been told here, I think that the only possible way in which information about an arrest would reach the media would be if it were to be provided by immediate neighbours, who would be able to identify the suspect, or by family, friends, or former colleagues of the suspect. I wouldn't say that I *suspect* that it will all take off in the media; I think that it very much depends whether the media get hold of the story. Based on what I've been told here, I think that there is every chance that the media won't get hold of this story, which would suit be very well.
  10. Aha. Meaning what, more precisely?
  11. Anna, thanks very much. As I'm sure you can imagine, when people are witnesses in police investigations there's a lot to worry about. I would go on to say more, but I think that it might provide too much information that might be damaging to the course of justice. I can, as I said before, just ask the OIC for more information about this, and I can also try posting the question in another forum that might be geared more towards the media than policing. I think that that's also a very good idea to try contacting my local police force's press bureau, and I'm sure that if I were to explain the situation to them they would probably be able to tell me what was likely to happen.
  12. "to be"="to me" (no editing rights).
  13. Since this post has had 46 views and no replies I'm just wondering whether I ought to provide a little clarification. I am certainly not raising this question with any intentions in mind as to any possible course of action that I might be able to take, which I know would be both illegal and morally wrong. I just want to have some idea of what will happen when the arrest takes place, as I would like to be as prepared as I possibly can be for whatever series of events is likely to develop as a result of this happening. I should say at this point, and I almost said it in my original post, that in the course of this investigation I've had to deal with eight police officers and one member of civilian staff, and I could not hold the police in higher esteem. Somebody recently put the question to be (rhetorically), 'Why don't people like the police', as if taking for granted that I too didn't like the police. All of the officers, as well as the civilian SRO, with whom I have had to deal have nothing but my utmost respect and gratitude.
  14. Hello. I'm new to this forum, and I hope that I'm using it properly and that I'll manage to find an answer to my question. I am currently a witness in a police investigation. I know that it's very important that I do not talk to anyone about this, and I have followed absolutely the advice that I've been given by the OIC, not even talking to some of my closest family members and friends about it. I should point out, therefore, that the name I'm using here is not my real name (I chose it by picking two books at random from my bookshelves and taking the first name of the author of the first book and the surname of the author of the second book). The investigation has not yet reached the stage at which it is possible for the suspect to be arrested, but I know that once one or two further statements have been made he/she is going to be arrested on suspicion of certain offences. What I am wondering is, how do the media find out that a suspect has been arrested? I know that police forces issue very brief statements to the media, noting the time, date, and location (broadly speaking, e.g. Manchester, Warwickshire, etc) of the arrest, the sex of the suspect, his or her age (again, broadly speaking, 20s, 30s, etc), the nature of the offence(s), the location of the police station where the suspect was taken into custody, and bail arrangements. One question that I have is how the police decide which arrests should be announced in this way to the media. The MPS, for example, announces an arrest around once every two days, which obviously is just a tiny proportion of the total number of arrests. When these arrests are published in the media, the reports are normally very much more detailed, usually stating the suspect's name, even though the police force concerned will only ever confirm that the arrest has taken place, not who was arrested. How do the media receive this information? I know that individual officers do not provide details to the media. Is the information gathered from neighbours, passers-by, etc? I know that in some investigations publicity surrounding the arrest of a suspect leads to more witnesses coming forward to provide information. Do the police welcome, or even encourage, media coverage of an investigation, hoping that it will lead to more witnesses coming forward? I know that I could probably get more information about this from the OIC, but he/she has already discussed the media aspect with me, so I don't want to waste his/her time and/or seem to be unduly concerned about this question. Thank you very much to anyone who is able to provide me with any information about this.