Is there a French PACE Act?

[Juswundrin]

"Surrey Police are referred to as the 'SP'. But that doesn't seem relevant here?"

SP = Starting Price (as in horseracing), surely? More generally used, to "know the SP" means, sort of, "know the score", "know how things are done".

Or thereabouts?

[Espresso]

That does make a lot more sense.

[chris pp]

Continuation..

I have to admit that my normal relative calm deserted me as I made my way home, in fact I was in a state of total fear. That evening my wife and I couldn't do much else other than talk about the situation and by the end of the evening I had already decided that I wouldn't open the shop the next day. In the morning I got up at the normal time and just wanted to be away from everything, so I got in my car and drove. I drove best part of the day around London, no idea now where I went as I was in a kind of daze.

The following day I was due at the Magistrates Court for  a pre-trial hearing where the case would hopefully either be thrown out or I would be formally "sent" for trial at Crown Court sometime in the future.

Some time, late afternoon, my aimless driving found me near to New Scotland Yard. Should I go in? Did I trust anyone anymore? WHAT TO DO? 

I parked the car and apprehensively went through the doors of NSY and approached the desk. A female officer asked if she could help, I stuttered that I wasn't sure, well yes maybe, I don't know etc. I have no idea really what I said. She could see that I was distressed and said that if I wished to wait a few minutes in a room that she showed me to, she would get someone to talk to me. Perhaps 5 minutes later, no more, an officer entered the room, gold braid and medals dripping of his uniform and asked me what the problem was. I  clearly remember looking him straight in the face and saying that ""I had serious problems with the police in "where ever" and was being threatened and that at that moment I didn't even trust him"". He replied that "I could trust him completely, anything that I said to him would be confidential and no one would ever know that I had spoken to him". I wasn't happy, but non the less I told him my story. He told me not to worry and that he would investigate and once again no one involved would know.

The following morning, as I said, I had to be at the Magistrates Court. On arrival at the Court I went to the toilet for a pee before proceedings began, here I was followed by two of the CID officers involved. One of them said "Scotland Yard, you're dead" and they left saying no more.

Leaving the toilet I headed for my legal team, told them what had happened and never moved from their side until it was our turn in Court. When proceedings finished, I headed for home, talked to my wife and we decided to put the house on the market straight away, move a long way away and only tell a few relatives and friends where we were.

We moved to Northumberland on the borders where we stayed for nearly two years waiting for the trial date to be announced, all our resources dwindled away and it was impossible for me to make a living. This was not long after M. Thatcher had been elected, high unemployment and soaring interest rates. A friend in London, knowing of our predicament, found an opportunity for us back in London, but it would be tricky as I needed to keep my name out of it and keep a low profile, at least until the trial and we had to use my wifes name, we went for it.

Back later with the trial, Chris

 

[Llwyncelyn]

Please forgive me but I have (not on a personal level but certainly professional!) extensive experience of PACE and without name dropping appeared on behalf of a client in the Court of Appeal in November 2005 and where PACE figured somewhat strongly in our appeal.

I am sorry but there is nothing better than a witness statement signed by the then accused admitting guilt and responsibility.  The decision firstly depends upon whether in all of the circumstances the Police decide to make a fist of it and this very much depends on their views and nothing else.

Then to the CPA and whilst your percentages are correct they too for a number of reasons think that public policy would not be served by bringing the accused in front of Magistrates for both alleged offences can be heard at this level but it would depend what sort of harassment and the nature and the threats surrounding it whether it should be heard at Crown.  With the alleged offenders record it could go to Crown. Again serious Criminal Damage could also go to Crown.

There is nothing circumstantial in all of this admission of guilt under caution is pretty damning evidence.

 

However thats the UK I now have retired and live in France and hopefully will keep personally away from the Gendarmes.  Been in cells many times in my life professionally could not hack it personally.

 

 

 

[Tresco]

[quote user="chris pp"]

 I  clearly remember looking him straight in the face and saying that ""I had serious problems with the police in "where ever" and was being threatened and that at that moment I didn't even trust him"". He replied that "I could trust him completely, anything that I said to him would be confidential and no one would ever know that I had spoken to him". I wasn't happy, but non the less I told him my story. He told me not to worry and that he would investigate and once again no one involved would know.[/quote]

Chris, I had a horrible feeling about this when I read it..I knew what was coming next. Something similar happened to us in Manchester. I'm reading this with great interest. 

[chris pp]

The trial date eventually arrived and the Prosecution started to make their case, this comprised all the background stuff about the victims, the items that were “stolen” and a general who’s who and so on. Eventually the police officers gave their version of events in the witness box; these are supposedly recorded contemporaneously in their “pocket books”. This is where the process called “verballing” comes in; conversations that never took place and that are not in your actual signed statement, lots of very correct and polite words from the officers and lots of ambiguous, not so polite replies from you. These are “conversations” that took place either at the shop, during transit to the police station or in the cells. Anyway, eventually it was my turn to go in the witness box and to be able to deny much of what had been said. When asked about the “notes” that had been taken contemporaneously by the officers, I replied that I had never seen any notes being taken at any time. When the prosecution questioned me, they asked if I was calling the officers liars about taking notes. I replied that if they had been taking notes it was possible that they had been doing it in their pockets and that I had not actually seen them doing it. At this point the Judge intervened as he had a question to ask himself. He repeated to me what I had said “just to make sure that he had heard correctly”. I affirmed. He then asked for any one of the officers’ notebooks to be passed to him from the evidence table.  Big silence, then the prosecution barrister said that there were no officers pocket books entered as evidence. The Judge was a picture as he peered over his glasses (yes, he really did that), “Do you have any of the pocket books in Court so that one could be entered into evidence so that I may see it?”  “No, I don’t think so” replied the prosecution barrister, looking round at the police officers.  “Would it then be possible for someone to be sent to fetch one?” the Judge asked. “Well, err, no, um you see the pocket books can’t be found” came the response. “Can you remind the Court what happens to police officers pocket books when they are full” asked the Judge, leaning forward and starting to sound a trifle stern. The prosecution barrister started to look a bit lost. “Perhaps the officer in charge of the case could answer” said the Judge. Well, it seems that when complete, they should be handed in, recorded and kept under lock and key in the police station, but in this case they seemed to have gone missing. “Are you telling the Court that all the officers’ concerned pocket books have been lost?” asked the Judge. “It seems so” was the reply. The Judge sat back and started making some notes. My questioning in the witness box continued in a normal manner, and then I was asked a series of questions by the prosecution that were clearly nothing to do with the case and were clearly designed to imply something. The Judge stepped straight in and sent the Jury out of the Court room. There were some questions from the Judge to both me and the Prosecution barrister, after which the Prosecution received a “ticking of” from the Judge, the Jury were brought back in and instructed to forget what had been said just prior to them being “sent out”. The trial continued in a normal manner.

Tom G. was not available to give evidence as he was undergoing private rehabilitation.

Finally the Judge started summing up, an interesting process, he made it quite clear, without actually saying so and by directing the Juries attention to the various aspects of the evidence what he thought their verdict should be. After 3 hours the Jury came back with a unanimous verdict of “Not Guilty”.  Filthy looks from the police officers and Tom Gs family members.

 

From these events, I, my wife and three children lost our house, our business and thousands of pounds for the items that had been paid for by me to Tom G as these were returned to his family. I could in theory have sued Tom G, but he had no money of his own apparently and was undergoing treatment for his addiction.

 

I never hold grudges, never look for sympathy.  These events took place before tape recording and video recording were introduced, the good old days according to some, before PACE. I would never want anyone to be subjected to these types of events, it is wrong; there is no other way to describe it, just wrong.

 

I will come back to this later, but if anyone has any comments or questions I will be happy to answer them. I have obviously left out anything which would identify individuals because of forum rules, I thank the forum Mods etc for letting this run.

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Tresco]

I never hold grudges, never look for sympathy.  These events took place before tape recording and video recording were introduced, the good old days according to some, before PACE. I would never want anyone to be subjected to these types of events, it is wrong; there is no other way to describe it, just wrong.

Well, you have my sympathy anyway [:)]

Chris, I've pm'd you.

[WJT]

You also have my sympathy as well; I can only imagine what you must have gone through. I just hope that there was at least some justice in the end with the policemen involved.

[Evianers]

We often think [feel] that the punishment no longer fits the crime. Look at the recent 5 years and 108 days for the rapist of a three year old child - it beggars belief - simply because he pleaded guilty.

[Christine Animal]

... and what will he do again when he is released.

What a story Chris   [:(]   [:(]   [:(]

 

[Espresso]

It's pretty damned depressing how law and order, and social standards, have sunk so far in the UK (etc etc, blah blah blah).

Having read the above, it sounds like the police are too busy running their own rackets to be of any use protecting the public. Shame they weren't even clever enough to pull it off.

I wish I hadn't read this thread now. It was compulsive reading, and I sympathize, but life is depressing enough without this. :(