Is there a French PACE Act?

[hastobe]

We have just had a pretty unpleasant experience.  Our house (in the UK) has been targeted by an individual - known to the police and only just released from an ASBO.  He has caused repeated (and fairly serious) criminal damage and harrassed our family.  Although we now know who is responsible - and he has been arrested and has admitted to the police that he is responsible - the police cannot charge him because we don't have photographic evidence / eye witness account.  Under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act), an admission of guilt together with circumstantial evidence (however strong) is insufficient.  Even if we had photographic evidence / eye witness account we still couldn't guarantee that the individual would be charged because all prosecutions have to be approved by the CPA - and they won't prosecute unless there is 60% - 70% chance of securing a conviction.

Whilst it is frustrating there is nothing we can do - but it did make me curious about the French system.  What are the rules of evidence in France and are there similar difficulties in prosecuting if there isn't a very strong chance of conviction?

Kathie

 

[Sunday Driver]

The rules of evidence in France are similar to those in the UK.

In the legal systems of both countries, a defendant has the right to silence in that throughout the entirety of the criminal proceedings he or she has the right to refuse to answer questions, and may not be exposed to criminal sanctions for exercising this right.  Furthermore, there must be other evidence to support a prosecution. This is the essence of the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act.  It is designed to ensure that convictions are not soley based on confessions (for example, the Birminghmam Six trial). 

Until recently, in France, there was no duty at all to caution the suspect and hence no question of excluding evidence of a statement they made without one.  However, that has changed and since 2000 there has been a comprehensive duty to warn the suspect of his/her right to silence. 

For both the UK and France, who have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, several conditions must be fulfilled in order to allow inferences from silence to be drawn.  First, a conviction must not be based solely on inferences from silence; so if there is no other evidence and the accused refuses to comment, then he cannot be convicted.  Secondly, it seems that the evidence must be strong enough top carry the conviction on its own.  Inferences from silence may only be added as a corroboration of the prosecution's case.  It must not be the other way round, so the main basis for the conviction are inferences.  Article 67 of the Rome Convention says that the silence of the accused cannot be a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence.

 

In summary, there must be sufficient evidence other than an admission by the suspect.  In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service must apply strict criteria to each case before deciding to proceed: 1) there is sufficient evidence to make a conviction likely and 2) the prosecution is in the public interest.

 

In France, it is the juge d'instruction who is in charge of the investigation and it is he who decides whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

[chris pp]

Hi SD, how's it going?  I am going to have to point out a few things about France, sorry.

First, primary evidence cautions are rarely given by Gendarmes and a persons rights are rarely pointed out to them, sure there is a poster on the wall, but you have to see it, be able to read it and then ask for your rights. Also there is no tape recording or video recording in Gendarmouries, in fact they were amazed in our local Genarmourie when I told them that this was standard practise in the UK.

This is all then passed to the Procureur who will decide what further procedures should be pursued, which may involve questioning by a Judge.

So, similar but not the same as UK.

Chris

 

 

[Sunday Driver]

Hi Chris.

Thanks for adding that information.  The principles are the same, but as you say, the methodologies do differ.  It's a similar situation to that in the UK involving foreign nationals where understanding of the caution may be an issue.  The procureur will need to ensure that a suspects rights have been fully understood by them before considering any responses as being admissable.

[hastobe]

Thanks for the information.  We  had guessed that as France

was a member of the EEC its laws would be similar. We are now hoping

that the incidence of such crimes in France will be lower.

It's interesting though how the Human Rights legislation is often quoted to support the perpetrator but rarely the victim...

Kathie

[chris pp]

The crime level in France is much the same as the UK, just depends on where you live and what the local "crime" happens to be. I think, of the top of my head, that prison populations are on a par.

I would also add that personally I generally support any legislation that protects innocent people, in the past in the UK there was far too much invented evidence and "verballing up" by the good forces of law and order and the sooner France has video taping of interviews the better.

Chris

 

 

[Iceni]

[quote user="chris pp"]

I would also add that personally I generally support any legislation that protects innocent people, in the past in the UK there was far too much invented evidence and "verballing up" by the good forces of law and order and the sooner France has video taping of interviews the better.

Chris

[/quote]

Personally I would prefer to see legislation that supports victims but then I believe in Santa too.

John

not

[chris pp]

I don't really think that they are mutually exclusive, it's just that banging up innocent people doesn't do anyone any favours. I think that we all have a good idea of what went on in the past and it wasn't all high profile cases. I accept that it wasn't all officers, but the others knew what was going on.

Chris

[hastobe]

I know I couldn't be a police officer - dealing day in and day out with

habitual criminals who laugh at the system and walk away scot free.

Kathie

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="hastobe"]I know I couldn't be a police officer - dealing day in and day out with habitual criminals who laugh at the system and walk away scot free.

Kathie

[/quote]

Some of them even manage to fall downstairs on the way out.....[;-)]

[hastobe]

I think the temptation to stick my foot in oooops out would be overwhelming

Kathie

[chris pp]

I would like to think that in a civilised society we all try to abide by the law and that no one is above or beyond it, you, me and the people who are employed to enforce it.

I guess that's just my simplistic view, others may think anarchy and mob rule offer solutions. Sure there are people getting away with it, but that never justifies making up evidence or putting innocent people behind bars. The British Judicial system is one of the best in the world, something Brits should be truly proud of and I am not remotely patriotic as many of you know.

Chris

 

[Dick Smith]

Well said, Chris. Spot On.

[Iceni]

I would hazard a guess that each and every one of us is a criminal or has been at some point. Speeding, theft (pens, paperclips and/or unpaid personal phone calls at work)  to name but a few but of course these are not real crimes are they ?

Anarchy exists in England at the moment - Colchester High St was a no-go area for the police on many Fri/Sat nights as are other town centres if we are to believe the news reports. Not enough police on the ground but enough money for shiny helicopters - though that is another story.

The British judicial system may be one of the best in the world but so what, when so much crime (sorry, perhaps I should call it anti social behaviour) goes unpunished. Perhaps it is time for the old maxim "better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be locked up" to be rethought. Though when there is no room in the prisons what is to be done ? I am sure that the general public would vote for a return to the good old days of hanging, flogging and deportation but  which govt would dare to allow the people to decide, however attractive it would look as a manifesto promise ?

John

not

[suzy]

I am sure that the general public would vote for a return to the good old days of hanging, flogging and deportation

Perhaps this (like charity) should begin at home [;-)]

[hastobe]

[quote user="chris pp"]

I would like to think that in a civilised society we all try to abide by the law

[/quote]

Some of us do but there are a significant number who don't.  You are fortunate, Chris, not to have experienced being on the receiving end of those who don't...and who 'stick two fingers up' at you, the police and society generally. 

Kathie

[Photographer]

Hi all,

Getting back to the possible need for extra evidence for criminal damage cases, can I suggest using a dvd/video recorder at times where these instances occur.  Even a digital camera these days can take pics in very low light levels.  I am an ex-police officer and also ex- Brit military.  Sneeky beeky is the way to go to go.   

[hastobe]

We have just had cctv installed  - it has cost us nearly a

thousand pounds but, given that we had damage amounting to more than

that on just one visit from the individual concerned, it was money well

spent.  After the advice from SD regarding French evidential

requirements we are seriously considering a similar system at our house

in France.  I thought seeing my house trashed was bad enough - but

to see the individual responsible walking away scot free - and taunting

us about it to boot was even worse...

Kathie

[chris pp]

I will reply to this, having thought about it a little.

I have been the victim of crime on many occasions. I have been held up by masked men who burst through my front door with sawn-of shot guns, pushed me round the house for 15 minutes with it in my face, telling me that they would blow my f...ing head off.

I have been robbed by two guys with handguns and also on two occasions at knife point.

I have been burgled while absent from the house on two occasions.

These are some of what I would consider to be the more serious crimes that have been committed against me by other members of the public.

Part one.

Now the first event with the shotguns took a somewhat strange turn, which turned and tuned and turned. At the time I was a coin dealer, back in 1970 or thereabouts. A few weeks after the robbery I was sitting in the back of another dealers shop when a man came in to try and sell some coins, some of these were very identifiable and the dealer asked the man if he could just go into the back of the shop and check the values in a reference book. He quickly showed them to me in the back of the shop and I nodded. He didn't buy the coins from the man and when he left the shop I followed him to his car and took the registration details. Great, I went immediately to the police station that was dealing with the robbery and told them my news, the CID officers who were dealing with the case were not there but the Station desk officer took the details. A couple of days later I received a phone call from the police station telling me that the car had been sold a couple of months before but that no new owner hadn't registered it, but even so it had been briefly seen in a certain area and then "lost". So, for a week, every evening I patrolled the streets where the car had been seen until one evening I spotted it and followed it to a pub where the occupants went inside. I waited in my car, parked opposite in a side road, until closing time when the "owners" of the car left the pub and drove of,  I followed it to an address in a cul de sac on a council estate and took the details "like a good cop". So, back to the police station, "thanks very much, I will pass this to the CID officers who are dealing with your case".  Days go by and I decide to ring the police station to see what's happening. Nothing is happening, this is not enough to follow up on and to "forget" it.

Hmmmm,  about five weeks later my house is raided by the police because an informant (their words) has told them that I have stolen property, house searched etc, no problem, nothing dodgy found. I then ask how is it that an "informant" can get my house raided when I haven't done anything, but I can't get any action taken for an armed robbery when I have done the donkey work and found one of the people involved. This was probably a big mistake on my part. "Look, just keep quiet, OK!" with a few knowing looks they left.

End part one.

This is only the beginning of a 9 year history of events.

Later, Chris

[chris pp]

Part two.

Nothing followed these events and in 1975/6 I spent some time in Asia. On returning to the UK I took a shop and started selling antiques, everything was going fine. I was very careful when buying goods, always got a receipt and asked for identification (driving licence or passport), meticulously recorded everything and kept proper books. Then, out of the blue, first thing in the morning the police raided our house, turned it upside down - Nothing.   OK, fair enough forget it, carry on as normal.   Shortly after this a man came into the shop late on a Saturday, said he was a dealer on his way back from Portabello market, asked the prices of a few items, chatted a bit and left. This became a regular occurrence, sometimes he bought a few things, sometimes I bought items from him - having seen and recorded his driving licence details. Basically just another regular who passed through the shop.  Then, one day, the full works, CID piling through the shop door, "OK, lock up, you're nicked".  Of to the police station, put in a cell for a couple of hours, then brought out for questioning. Fairly straight forward, "Do you know this man" "Have you ever bought items from him" I answered all their questions, why not?  The next thing was "Right we are going back to your shop now with you"  When we arrived back at the shop, I pointed out any items that were there that I had bought from this man and also showed them my books and receipts, all of these where then taken back to the police station where I was charged with "handling or receiving goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen". OK, fine, but I wasn't exactly hiding anything, all the items that were in my possession at that time were on full public view and recorded in my books. I should say that at no time had this person alluded in any way that any of the items may have been stolen or that they shouldn't be put in the shop window.

I carried on as normal and two years later was acquitted at Crown Court in a trial that lasted 5 weeks. It goes without saying that the statements from the police about what I was supposed to have said that were not in my signed statement were "interesting" to say the least.

But, this is when my troubles really started.

Chris

[WJT]

OMG Chris, that is awful [:'(]. Will be watching this thread to learn what happens.

[Iceni]

[quote user="suzy"]

I am sure that the general public would vote for a return to the good old days of hanging, flogging and deportation

Perhaps this (like charity) should begin at home [;-)]

[/quote]

Well spotted, suzy. Now you all know the real reason for my relocation to France.[6]

John

not

[chris pp]

Part three.

Having got the trial out of the way, apart from continuing with my business, I was being pressed by both the Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise, for accounts and VAT returns for the periods that were covered in my accounts books which had been seized as evidence. I tried asking the police station concerned on a number of occasions and one way or another was fobbed of, people in charge of the case couldn't be contacted, busy elsewhere, no one else could deal with it, trying to locate them etc.

I should say that throughout these events my father in law was a serving police officer in a different division, he was becoming more and more furious as time went on, but due to his position he was in a difficult situation, finally he had enough and made an official complaint on my behalf. I received a phone call from a senior investigating officer asking if it would be OK to meet me to hear what the problem was, he seemed like a nice enough guy and promised me he would sort it out. A few days after this he contacted me to say that all my papers were available at the police station desk for me to collect, which I did with no problems.

Life returned to normal, but not for long.

One day a young man came into the shop, we will call him Tom G.  I didn't know him, but he introduced himself as Tom G. son of Mr G of Something House, Something House was very well known in the area, bit of a mansion in its own walled grounds and home to the Something House summer fête every year. According to him Mr G had died, Tom had been asked by the family to dispose of some unwanted items, in this instance a gold Rolex watch. I suggested that he took it to Austin Kaye in central London to get an offer and that I would either match it or pay a little more. As he left the shop another customer came in and said "hello Tom" as they passed each other. The next day he returned with a written offer from Austin Kaye, I asked for his driving licence, filled out a buying receipt and noted his licence number on it as normal and saw that the address was indeed "Something House".

From time to time Tom G would bring other items to the shop for sale, sometimes he would say that my offer was to low and leave without selling them, the visits were not in any way regular and just another part of the day to day business, I didn't give it a thought, he had alluded to the fact that the family was having a bit of a clear out after his fathers death and getting rid of excess items that were never used.

Back later, Chris

 

[chris pp]

Part three continued.

About 6 months or so after the trial I started to get "visits" from the CID from various different stations in the Met region, sometimes at home, early in the morning or during the evening and sometimes at the shop, basically poking around and asking where I had got this or where I had got that, always saying that it was a result of "information received". Frankly, it became a bit of a joke with friends and people that I knew locally until I started getting dragged of from the shop to various police stations, only to be released after a short while following vague questions.Then one day I was arrested at the shop and taken to a police station nearby. "Did I know Tom G?"  "Had I bought items from Tom G?" etc.  Of course I told them everything that I knew and surprise, surprise, I was charged with "the stolen goods" thing all over again. It turned out that although Tom G was who he said he was, his father wasn't dead and he had been flogging off the family goodies to pay for his heroin addiction. I wasn't very pleased about the situation, but reasonably happy that I hadn't done anything and my previous experience in Crown Court gave me some confidence in the system and I thought that all I had to do was wait until the case finally came to Court, not so. I then became the subject of mega hassle, often being abused in the shop in front of customers by CID officers or made to close the shop to be dragged of to the police station and then released. It was on one of these occasions that a Detective constable said to me that "he didn't like doing this but someone at the station wanted it done"  It would be impossible to go into all the conversations and comments that were made, but one that continually cropped up was "You know the SP Chris". I have no idea to this day what this means and when I asked them what it meant they would say "Don't treat us like ..nts, you know what you have to do" and other similar responses and so it went on until one evening I closed the shop and went to the car park behind a Pub where I used to leave my car each day, it was dark and in the car park there were three officers waiting for me with a shotgun, one of them grabbed hold of me and said that they wanted the shop closed permanently or the shotgun would be "found in my car".

Chris

 

[Espresso]

This is all pretty horrific stuff. I'm not sure I can read much more of it, but I'm sorry you've been subjected to all this. It does sound like some sort of personal vendetta.

I come from Surrey, so I know the Surrey Police are referred to as the 'SP'. But that doesn't seem relevant here?

"...you know what you have to do" sounds like something you'd expect from a thug in a protection racket.

If I was watching this on TV, I'd expect the twist to be that they want you to pay them to get off your back. Sorry if that's way off the track.