Jump to content
Labtec81

Can anyone help please? Important!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3530 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have to go to court on the 19th of July to plead not guilty to an offence I've been charged with, and I'm not guilty of the offence I've been charged with and will be entering that plea, now I have NEVER been in court before, NEVER been involved in anything like this in my life and don't want to be now due to false allegations that I hit someone, their is no proof that I did it nor any proof to say I didn't do it but I am innocent of the charge and it's my word against the complainant.

 

Now when I plead not guilty next Monday does anyone know when the main court case usually commences after that because presumably the prosecution have to prepare their case and things don't they??

 

Also what would happen if the person who made the complaint didn't turn up to court as they are now wishing they'd never gone to the police and they regret it because of all the trouble it's caused me and my family, the person involved hasn't yet been told they HAVE TO BE THERE or else but even if they are told that and they didn't turn up would I still be prosecuted for something I didn't do if the one and only person who said I did what I've been accused of wasn't there.

 

Please give me some REAL advice on this as I have never and would never want to be in this situation again.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a civil or criminal action? Who is the pursuer (or prosecutor)? As you say, proof is required and it needs 'beyond doubt' proof for a criminal action, or in a civil matter, whether the judge believes the complainant. It usually best to have some form or professional advocacy (can be free, depending on your financial circumstances). Don't rely on any 'duty' solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's criminal action but just so you know I am not a criminal, I don't have a criminal record and I have NEVER been involved in anything criminal in my life.

 

The pursuer is a woman (I can't name her for obvious reasons) she claims I punched her (but official police photographs will prove otherwise) because if any man of my size (and I would NEVER condone this) punched a woman in the face then 2 days later their is no way there could not be bruising, this person has no bruising at all, no injuries at all that suggest a man of my size had punched her.

 

The duty solicitor is the one who advised me BUT he is a fully trained solicitor, specializes in criminal law and is the one who will be in court when I do go as my defence.

 

Could you please clarify what is 'beyond doubt' proof?

 

Now I think it's only right to tell you the police have been called out on at least 2 previous occasions in the last 3 years due to arguments involving myself and my partner (this recent police call out didn't involve my partner and me by the way) but I have had no action taken against me, I have no criminal record as stated, the police have only been called in the past due to arguments being loud enough for the neighbours to hear.

 

I look forward to any more information you could provide.

 

Thank you.

 

P.S) If the accuser didn't turn up to court, do you (or anyone else reading this) know what will happen? As I have never been in this situation before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOu're not a criminal until the conclusion, and then only if you;ve been found guilty. The pursuer in your caise is the 'complainant', and the CPS will be satisfied they have enough police evidence in order to obtain a successful conviction (or at least, should have). 'Beyond Doubt' proof is only relevant for civil cases.

 

Past actions or police involvement at earlier occasions are irrelevant to this, as your case must be treated on the evidence of the case - nothing else. The proescutor is the CPS, not the complainant. They will have recieved a citation to attend court for your trial. If they do not appear, they'll be in contempt and (usually) arrested. The court date will then be rescheduled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words they already think I'm guilty and they think they have enough evidence to convict me for something I haven't done?

 

The CPS only decided to take this to court because of the statement made by the complainant, I was advised just to say No Comment to every question as I have never been in such a situation before.

 

So even if the complainant doesn't attend court I will still be prosecuted for something I didn't do??

 

I was accused of breaking someones nose amongst other injuries I was accused of (that I didn't do) the complainant had photographs taken the day after the alleged incident and my fiancee saw her 2 days later on the Friday and said there was very minor swelling but NOTHING to suggest I had punched her in the nose and their is literally no evidence that I could have done such a thing so how can they find me guilty of something I didn't do??

 

Needless to say I'm worried because I've never done anything to anyone in the past or this time either and I don't have a criminal record either.

 

Can you please clarify who will have received a citation to attend court for the trial? The CPS or the complainant?

 

What if the complainant was to withdraw her statement, surely something can be done to prevent me getting prosecuted for something I didn't do?

 

Please respond further.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have every right to plead not guilty, but on your other thread about social services you said you hit her as she was hysterical and admitted the truth.

 

Be careful xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi louie,

 

No I didn't say I hit her, I said I'd slapped her because of her being hysterical, lots of people have done that and she was in my home making life difficult for us with our neighbours by being unnecessarily loud.

 

And the fact of the matter is I told the truth, a slap is a world away from an alleged punch, and if any man punched any woman regardless of anything, any woman would have severe bruising and that wouldn't go within a day, they (the cps) are merely going on what she told the police in a statement, that doesn't make it true though does it.

 

I could say for example my neighbour punched me but with no actual proof or anything then how could he be found guilty for it??

 

Your thoughts please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. The poplice will have prepared a report, and the CPS will believe they can get a successful prosecution from it. THey also lose many cases becasue the judge disagrees, or that for other unrelates issues (admin or procedural) it fall apart and they have to withdraw or abandon the process.

 

Your complainant is the CPS's all-important requirement. Without their testimony, there is no point in pursuing you if there is no other evidence available. So, the case would be continued until this person becomes available, or the CPS drop the matter.

 

Both you, the defender and all witenesses will have recieved notice to attend the court at the specified date and time. Only in America can a witness 'withdraw' their statement. Here, if a complaint has been made, it is the CPS that decide whether to act (in Scotland, there are Procurator's Fiscal). So the decision to abandon is only in the hands of the CPS, nobody else. If the witness to a criminal act refuses to testify, they have their own worries over not complying with the CPS.

 

Anyone can be prosecuted, but the CPS/PF must show good evidence to the Judge in order to win. As they don't always, when a case is dropped you have no stain on your character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could say for example my neighbour punched me but with no actual proof or anything then how could he be found guilty for it??

 

Witness statements would be required to substantiate the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi louie,

 

No I didn't say I hit her, I said I'd slapped her because of her being hysterical, lots of people have done that and she was in my home making life difficult for us with our neighbours by being unnecessarily loud.

 

And the fact of the matter is I told the truth, a slap is a world away from an alleged punch, and if any man punched any woman regardless of anything, any woman would have severe bruising and that wouldn't go within a day, they (the cps) are merely going on what she told the police in a statement, that doesn't make it true though does it.

 

I could say for example my neighbour punched me but with no actual proof or anything then how could he be found guilty for it??

 

Your thoughts please.

 

You say slapped, she says punched, trouble is something happened has been admitted and its up to the court to decide whos correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not not going to impress anybody by arguing over a slap and a punch. A person my be charged with assault for not so much as a slap.

 

If the complainant feels that it is in her best interest to back out, it is up to the complainant to convince the Police and CPS to that effect, on her own.

 

It does often happen that a prosecution eventually fails because a complainant retracts a statement, refusing to give evidence, but the case would none the less proceed as far as the court hearing, where the CPS report the situation to the Magistrate who could then dismiss the case.

 

What they are certainly not so likely to do is drop the case with the wheels already in motion.

 

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that a witness statement would be needed to substantiate the claim but their were no witnesses to anything and their was nothing to witness had anyone been there.

 

And is the complainant able to retract her statement because buzby said she couldn't in this country??

 

Also I may have admitted slapping her yes but not to the police only the social services and that's not an official statement to what happened, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you called the police as you were both injured - how did you explain her injury ??

 

And if it was 'only a slap' how did it result in an injury that required the police to be called??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will clarify everything later as I'm out at the moment but she didn't end up with the injury she said she did that's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any injury she has would have to be backed up by a medical report. Yur solicitor would be the first to ask for this if he was doing his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will clarify everything later as I'm out at the moment but she didn't end up with the injury she said she did that's the point.

 

But YOU called the police due to you BOTH being injured - surely you could tell if she was injured or not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And is the complainant able to retract her statement because buzby said she couldn't in this country??

 

A statement to the Police is essentially a fact, the same as any other relevant fact.

 

However, the victim may make another statement, to explain why she prefers to retract the complaint.

 

Read this:

 

The CPS : Croydon Protocol

 

 

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What offence are you charged with?


Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your complainant is the CPS's all-important requirement. Without their testimony, there is no point in pursuing you if there is no other evidence available.

 

Both you, the defender and all witnesses will have recieved notice to attend the court at the specified date and time.

 

Only in America can a witness 'withdraw' their statement.

 

Anyone can be prosecuted, but the CPS/PF must show good evidence to the Judge in order to win. As they don't always, when a case is dropped you have no stain on your character.

 

The complainant has now apparently said she wishes she hadn't gone to the police or done/said anything because of the trouble she's caused for me and my family, and she has expressed that she also doesn't want to attend court.

 

None of us have yet received notice to attend a 'full hearing' I'm due in court next Monday only to plead Not Guilty, that isn't the main trial.

 

As for the CPS must show good evidence to the judge in order to win, their is no evidence to suggest I did anything, also when the complainant was told by the police to seek medical advice regarding her 'alleged' broken nose, she didn't go to seek any advice, and has since said to my fiancee that I did NOT punch her in the nose (she told the police I did in her statement might I add!) she also said she told the police it WAS broken but it's NOT.

 

You are not not going to impress anybody by arguing over a slap and a punch. A person my be charged with assault for not so much as a slap.

 

If the complainant feels that it is in her best interest to back out, it is up to the complainant to convince the Police and CPS to that effect, on her own.

 

It does often happen that a prosecution eventually fails because a complainant retracts a statement, refusing to give evidence, but the case would none the less proceed as far as the court hearing, where the CPS report the situation to the Magistrate who could then dismiss the case.

What they are certainly not so likely to do is drop the case with the wheels already in motion.

 

Firstly,

 

I'm not trying to impress anybody, whether it was a slap or a punch I know both would be deemed to be just as bad as the other, what your missing is the point! I haven't told the police anything! My statement to the police consisted of constant 'NO COMMENT' which is what I was advised to say.

 

And I can only assume the complainant does feel it is in her best interest to back out??, but I haven't seen or spoken to her so I honestly wouldn't know.

 

The other thing is as well (and I've said this previously) the complainant has no evidence against me because I didn't do what she said I did, she told the police and made a statement to the fact I punched her and broke her nose, a statement which is false as she has told my fiancee I didn't punch her and her nose is NOT broken!!

 

I understand that they aren't likely to drop the case with the wheels already in motion but their isn't any evidence against me anyway.

 

You say you called the police as you were both injured - how did you explain her injury ??

And if it was 'only a slap' how did it result in an injury that required the police to be called??

 

I called the police YES but they didn't come out to the house like they said they were going to, in fact they didn't come at all despite several phone calls from me to find out why, so I ended up making my statement voluntarily 56 hours later at my main police station, and I didn't say I called the police because we were both injured at all (not sure where you got that from?) and I have no idea how the slap resulted in an injury that required the police to be called as I've already said I didn't phone the police because we were both injured, I phoned them to report the incident.

 

Any injury she has would have to be backed up by a medical report. Your solicitor would be the first to ask for this if he was doing his job.

 

She may or may not have had a medical report done BUT I do know for certain she did NOT see a doctor or any medical practitioner regarding the broken nose she hasn't got, and my solicitor hasn't asked for anything yet as far as I know because it's only in the early stages of the court proceedings.

 

But YOU called the police due to you BOTH being injured - surely you could tell if she was injured or not!

No I didn't see previous posts that will back this up, if I had called them due to us both being injured then yes of course I would have been able to tell if she was injured or not.....

 

What offence are you charged with?

 

I was told it's Section 39: Common Assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing much will happen on this occasion. The court will be informed of the charge, you will be asked to declare your plea. If you plead guilty the case would either go straight to sentencing or be deferred for reports. If you plead not guilty a trial diet will be fixed. The complainant and any other witnesses are not required to attend the initial hearing. They will be summoned to the trial diet, which is usually a few months after the initial hearing to allow both sides to build their case.

 

At the trial diet the burden of proof rests on the prosecution; they must be able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. If there is any reasonable doubt in the judge's or magistrates' mind, he must find not guilty. As common assault is a summary offence, you will be tried by a judge or magistrate - it need not involve a jury.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was told it's Section 39: Common Assault.

 

In which case, any injuries are irrelevant.


Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing much will happen on this occasion. The court will be informed of the charge, you will be asked to declare your plea. If you plead guilty the case would either go straight to sentencing or be deferred for reports. If you plead not guilty a trial diet will be fixed. The complainant and any other witnesses are not required to attend the initial hearing. They will be summoned to the trial date, which is usually a few months after the initial hearing to allow both sides to build their case.

 

At the trial diet the burden of proof rests on the prosecution; they must be able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. If there is any reasonable doubt in the judge's or magistrates' mind, he must find not guilty. As common assault is a summary offence, you will be tried by a judge or magistrate - it need not involve a jury.

 

If I'm found guilty (which I shouldn't be based on lack of evidence or witnesses, but who knows these days?) it would be a 1st offence anyway but I am very disturbed at IF I got found guilty for something I haven't done as I would then have a criminal record I should never have had.

 

This 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is that relevant as Buzby posted earlier on in this thread that 'beyond doubt' was only for civil cases? Sorry I'm a little confused on that.

 

And this 'beyond reasonable doubt' surely their cannot be any evidence to say I did what I've been accused of based on a false statement given to the police saying I broke her nose and that I punched her in the nose as medical reports (from any source) will prove I didn't break her nose and she's already told my fiancee I also didn't punch her in the nose (but she made a statement to the police that I did!) which is why my solicitor wants to speak to my fiancee to find out what has been said, and a neighbour of mine has also hand written a letter saying I'm well respected on the street I live on so that will definitely help in this case.

 

Basically from what I've read the prosecution will have to prove without reasonable doubt that I did punch her in the nose and that I broke her nose when all the evidence points to the contrary including any photographs taken by the police and what the complainant has said to my fiancee, so surely their will be some doubt in a judge or magistrates mind that I did actually do it based on parts of her statement being false and what she has said since the alleged incident?

 

In which case, any injuries are irrelevant.

 

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean?, I've been charged for something I haven't done so how are any injuries irrelevant? Their are no witnesses, just a statement given by the complainant, and her statement made to the police is false as she hasn't got a broken nose and she has admitted to my fiancee that I didn't punch her in the nose, which is why my solicitor now wants to speak to my fiancee as a potential witness for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean?, I've been charged for something I haven't done so how are any injuries irrelevant? Their are no witnesses, just a statement given by the complainant, and her statement made to the police is false as she hasn't got a broken nose and she has admitted to my fiancee that I didn't punch her in the nose, which is why my solicitor now wants to speak to my fiancee as a potential witness for myself.

 

The mistake you're making here is to treat the prosecution of the offence as if to continue to fight with the victim.

 

The CPS prosecute the case (not the victim) and the essential proof that an assault took place is the fact that a person complained to the Police and made a statement. As a matter of common sense, that would not have happened except that the victim was frightened or harmed, which is the essence of the charge of assault.

 

Whether or not the statement made by the victim is the whole truth and nothing but is another matter. She may have exaggerated her statement; she may have fabricated some of it, or falsely recalled, but that is beside the point. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

The Police are keen to pursue this sort of prosecution because the statistics show that the vast majority of grievous bodily harm cases were preceded by lesser complaints of assault. The essential concern of the Police, the CPS and the Court is then to be sure that the situation is completely settled, peaceful, resolved and safe.

 

It would thus be sensible and helpful to direct the energy toward that end.

 

Alternatively, the predictable effect of continuing to appear to be hostile to the victim is to continue to engage the concern of the authorities whose job it is to keep the peace.

 

It is inconsistent to contest an issue of fact but not to expect to be tried, the purpose of a trial being to sort it all out.

 

:cool:

 

P.S.

 

One should also add that the Police may have exaggerated the victim's statement, or fabricated some of it. This has been known to happen.

 

:eek:

Edited by perplexity
P.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labtec81,

 

Buzby was talking about something known as the 'burden of proof'. In very basic terms: In criminal law, for a person to be convicted of an offence, it must be shown "beyond reasonable doubt" that they committed the offence.

 

In civil matters, the burden of proof is less. You do not need to worry about this though.

 

Basically from what I've read the prosecution will have to prove without reasonable doubt that I did punch her in the nose and that I broke her nose

 

This is incorrect.

 

The offence you are charged with only requires that the prosecution show that you, by intent or recklessly, caused the victim to apprehend the immediate use of force.

 

This is why I said that the injuries are irrelevant. No injuries are required for this offence.


Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As posted on your other thread -

 

On Wednesday of last week I had an argument with a person (a woman but NOT my fianceelink3.gif, she was at work) in my house which involved us both getting injured (but not severely in any way shape or form) now I phoned the police ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...