Jump to content


Can anyone help please? Important!


Labtec81
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3942 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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

 

I'm not treating anyone like anything, nor am I treating the prosecution of this offence as if to continue to fight with the victim as the only victim here is myself as I didn't do what has been alleged.

 

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.

 

How is hearsay proof is what I'd like to know, seriously I could say my next door neighbour hit me and make a statement to the police saying exactly that but I'd need proof in order to get a conviction against him surely, what is the world coming to if you don't need proof these days and just because someone says something happened doesn't make it so.

 

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.

 

As mentioned previously I'm not being hostile towards anyone, I'm simply trying to get some good advice from the members of this forum.

 

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

 

But if there is no proof that I did anything and it's my word against the complainant, surely they need to have concrete proof that I did do something and surely someone can't be accused of something AND convicted with no real proof and real proof isn't just someone saying yes he/she hit me surely?, and as mentioned previously I haven't said anything at all to the police in my statement as advised to me by my solicitor.

 

I mean "beyond reasonable doubt" surely means they still need to have proof I did anything at all? And as I've also already said, just because someone says I did something doesn't make it true UNLESS they can prove it.

 

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.

 

Sorry the word 'apprehend' which you've used in your post above means 'to catch' doesn't it, forgive me if I'm confused but it doesn't make sense that you put 'To apprehend the immediate use of force' but I haven't been in this situation ever so I don't really understand all the terms.

 

Also it seems like your saying even if their are no injuries I can be charged with something just because someone said I did it, even if their is no concrete proof I did anything? But if that's the case they still need to prove I did it surely? Which they can't as I didn't.

 

Please bear in mind I'm nearly 30 years old and have NEVER been in any of these types of situations in the past nor would ever want to be now or in the future but in this case I clearly have no choice in the matter even though I'm innocent.

 

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 ....

 

I phoned the police, exactly I phoned them!! I didn't say I phoned them to report any injuries, I phoned them to report the incident in MY HOME.... So get your facts straight first please!, and seems as though you read everything so clearly you'll know that the police did NOT come out and I had to make my own way to the police station 56 hours later when the police still hadn't been out to see me.

Edited by Labtec81
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hearsay evidence is permitted in some instances. The CPS seem to be of the view that there is a good chance that the evidence they have will be admissible and enough to secure a conviction.

 

Your case will have already been put through the CPS's own tests, one of which being an evidential test. I.e. Is there enough evidence to secure a conviction?

 

As I said, it appears the CPS has established there is. This does not necessarily mean that you have already been convicted. If you plead not guilty, a review of the evidence will take place, which is when the case against you could fall apart if there is insufficient evidence.

 

Please bear in mind however, It is common place now to have trials based on the evidence of just one person. The most obvious example being in cases of domestic violence, where the majority of the incidents take place behind closed doors.

 

I could say my next door neighbour hit me and make a statement to the police saying exactly that but I'd need proof in order to get a conviction against him surely

 

Of course. And it would be the job of the police to investigate it, the CPS to select a charge and review the evidence and possibly a trial to establish guilt.

 

It is Obvious that there has clearly been a disagreement between you and the alleged victim. You say that injuries have been caused to both of you. You say the police were called regarding a disturbance.

 

Now, it hardly takes Kavanagh QC to put these pieces of information together (information which you have told us) and come to the conclusion that a crime may have been committed.

 

In your case, there IS evidence to suggest a disturbance.

 

You keep saying concrete proof. The only proof needed will be some sort of evidence of a disturbance and the victim feeling threatened at that time. Now, clearly if she was injured in this disturbance... there is a good amount of proof!

 

You may find that the case will be dropped. Its not unheard of.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only evidence the CPS had at the time was her statement which in their view you say will have been enough (in their opinion) to secure a conviction, which brings me back to what I was on about re: I could say my next door neighbour hit me and make a statement saying he but without the necessary proof (which a statement alone can't possibly be) then I wouldn't be able to have him convicted down to lack of evidence/proof, that's what makes no sense, it comes down to common sense that just because someone says you did something then you can't be found guilty without absolute proof, again which a statement can't be.

 

As you say there will be a trial to establish guilt but as you also say it is obvious there was a disturbance in MY HOME where she was invited in, and she caused the disturbance in MY HOME (I know it probbaly doesn't matter where it was) but at the end of the day I didn't go looking for trouble she brought it to my door.

 

Yes injuries (superficial) such as scratches on hands etc did occur, but nothing like what she's claiming happened such as a broken nose etc, and she's already told my fiancee I didn't punch her in the nose and that her nose wasn't broken, my solicitor wants to speak to my fiancee regarding that as well, what is the reason for that? Is it because the complainant says I did something in her official police statement yet has now admitted otherwise which makes a lot of the statement she gave false.

 

I also agree it doesn't take Kavanagh QC to put those pieces of evidence together to come to the conclusion a crime 'may' have been committed but their is no actual evidence to say as such, obviously based on information I've provided there IS evidence to suggest a disturbance in MY HOME not hers, but that still doesn't mean I'm guilty of anything as their isn't any evidence that says I am and I cannot be found guilty of something just because of hearsay, no matter what actual evidence is needed surely? That's what I would like clarifying, because if that isn't the case then clearly it won't be a fair trial without real and concrete proof that I did anything, also bearing in mind she has already admitted to my fiancee her statement is partially false re: She DOES NOT have a broken nose and she has said I did NOT punch her.

 

You also say the only proof needed will be some sort of evidence of a disturbance, yes a disturbance in my home, I didn't go looking for a disturbance, and she wasn't the victim I was, this is what people don't seem to understand, I was in my home, she came causing trouble yet I'm the one being put through all of this.

 

You also said clearly if she wasinjured in the disturbance there is a good amount of proof, but the injuries she said she received, she has now said didn't..... Just not to the police, she said that to my fiancee instead.

 

I'm just very perturbed by all of this because everyones going on about evidence and proof etc which she doesn't have as I did nothing what she has said I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm just very perturbed by all of this because everyones going on about evidence and proof etc which she doesn't have as I did nothing what she has said I did.

 

But this is the thing... If they were charging you based on what she said you done (caused a broken nose etc etc) the charge would be different.

 

All they are charging is assault. This is merely causing her to apprehend some kind of force.

 

Inaccuracies in the statement will be picked up upon. If she went to the police saying she had a broken nose, I would expect the police to be able to tell if this is true or not really?! But I am no doctor so...

 

However, you must bear this in mind: If Someone came up to me and waved their fist saying they were going to kill me and I went to the police and reported them (but lied and said they had punched me etc) the fact I had not be truthful still does not take away the fact that an offence has still been committed - I.E: the waving of the fist (an assault).

 

Can you explain how she received the injuries without you touching her?

 

Your correct, it does not matter where the events took place.

 

Please bear in mind - This is not legal advice. Only your legal rep will be able to do that since s/he knows all the facts.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

....as their isn't any evidence that says I am and I cannot be found guilty of something just because of hearsay, no matter what actual evidence is needed surely? That's what I would like clarifying, ....

 

The CPS Protocol link that I provided before (which you appear to continue to fail to respect) explains that the CPS will

 

# Consider the following options:

 

* If there is sufficient evidence to proceed without the victim attending court;

* Whether an application should be made to read the witnesses statement in his/her absence;

* Whether a witness summons is appropriate;

* Whether to apply for a witness warrant.

:rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecution will likely call the complainer and any other witnesses (if there are any) to the alledged incident as witnesses. The prosecution will initially ask them questions, then your solicitor will ask questions (cross examination). Your solicitor's role is to try and discredit the prosecution witnesses' account of events and point out discrepancies in their testimonies. The prosecution can then re-examine the witness(es)

 

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.

 

Beyond all reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings. Proof will likely be in the form of witness testimony. Your solicitor will be able to obtain the statements which were made to the police. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case. In civil cases the standard of proof is "on the balance of probability". ETA - I see mighty has already explained this - my apologies.

 

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

 

No. They have to prove that you are guilty of what you have been charged with - common assault. If the judge disbelieves that you punched her but does believe there was an altercation in which you struck her or otherwise became physical, that is enough to convict, because the charge is one of common assault, not of the nature of the assault. Where the altercation took place is irrelevant though it can be used in mitigation that she brought trouble to your door, provocation was prevelent etc.

 

How is hearsay proof is what I'd like to know, seriously I could say my next door neighbour hit me and make a statement to the police saying exactly that but I'd need proof in order to get a conviction against him surely, what is the world coming to if you don't need proof these days and just because someone says something happened doesn't make it so.

 

An eye witness' statement is evidence. It is for the prosecution to show it as fact and for the defence to show it as a falsity. From the judge's point of view - he wasn't there. You were there and the eye witness (complainer and others if there are others) were there. Any one of you could be lying. His job is to decide who is telling the truth of the matter which is the purpose of a trial.

 

Mightymouse has given excellent advise in regard to how it works.

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)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is the thing... If they were charging you based on what she said you done (caused a broken nose etc etc) the charge would be different.

 

All they are charging is assault. This is merely causing her to apprehend some kind of force.

 

Inaccuracies in the statement will be picked up upon. If she went to the police saying she had a broken nose, I would expect the police to be able to tell if this is true or not really?! But I am no doctor so...

 

However, you must bear this in mind: If Someone came up to me and waved their fist saying they were going to kill me and I went to the police and reported them (but lied and said they had punched me etc) the fact I had not be truthful still does not take away the fact that an offence has still been committed - I.E: the waving of the fist (an assault).

 

Can you explain how she received the injuries without you touching her?

Your correct, it does not matter where the events took place.

 

Please bear in mind - This is not legal advice. Only your legal rep will be able to do that since s/he knows all the facts.

 

Sorry but as per what I asked/mentioned before apprehend means 'to catch someone/thing' doesn't it?

 

She was also apparently asked to have a medical professional take a look at her nose, she didn't.

 

And surely if I or someone else came up to you and waved their fist at you, how could that possibly be assault? Because to assault someone you need to put your hands on them surely! Otherwise it's impossible to assault someone as you didn't touch them, common sense says so, do courts and the police and the law not apply common sense to anything these days?

 

And I would explain her injuries without me touching her but this is what I'm telling you there were no injuries but scratches to my hand and face due to her attacking me, so any injuries she may have got are down to her attacking me not the other way round.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply again anyway.

 

The CPS Protocol link that I provided before (which you appear to continue to fail to respect) explains that the CPS will

 

I haven't failed to respect your link at all and I did have a look at it, I just don't understand it that's all as I have NEVER nor should EVER be involved in this type of thing.

 

No. They have to prove that you are guilty of what you have been charged with - common assault. If the judge disbelieves that you punched her but does believe there was an altercation in which you struck her or otherwise became physical, that is enough to convict, because the charge is one of common assault, not of the nature of the assault.

 

Where the altercation took place is irrelevant though it can be used in mitigation that she brought trouble to your door, provocation was prevelent etc.

 

An eye witness' statement is evidence. It is for the prosecution to show it as fact and for the defence to show it as a falsity. From the judge's point of view - he wasn't there.

 

You were there and the eye witness (complainer and others if there are others) were there. Any one of you could be lying. His job is to decide who is telling the truth of the matter which is the purpose of a trial.

 

Mightymouse has given excellent advise in regard to how it works.

 

This is what confuses me, you could say to me (say I was a judge) that Mr or Mrs X hit you, but just because you said so doesn't make it true, I would want proof that they did and if you had none then how could I convict someone soully based on what one person/yourself says.

 

You say an eye witness statement is fact but I was there as well so I am an eye witness as well, she says I did it, I say I didn't, there were no other witnesses or people present, you seem to forget the fact I'm innocent until proven guilty.

 

I also do understand the purposes of a trial but their is not enough evidence against me (or shouldn't be) that I did anything at all, so surely to goodness this will get thrown out of court should she not turn up (regardless of if the CPS give evidence on her behalf) evidence which they don't have but in the form of a statement that says I did it, how can it ever be fair if I didn't do it and how can I be convicted of something I didn't do, that's not justice.......

 

In fact it's wrong, because that would mean I could say anyone assaulted me and unless they could prove otherwise then it's a very likely chance they'll be WRONGLY punished for something they didn't even just based on me making a statement saying they did do it.

Edited by Labtec81
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but as per what I asked/mentioned before apprehend means 'to catch someone/thing' doesn't it?

 

She was also apparently asked to have a medical professional take a look at her nose, she didn't.

 

And surely if I or someone else came up to you and waved their fist at you, how could that possibly be assault? Because to assault someone you need to put your hands on them surely! Otherwise it's impossible to assault someone as you didn't touch them, common sense says so, do courts and the police and the law not apply common sense to anything these days?

 

And I would explain her injuries without me touching her but this is what I'm telling you there were no injuries but scratches to my hand and face due to her attacking me, so any injuries she may have got are down to her attacking me not the other way round.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply again anyway.

 

Labtec,

 

Your welcome.

 

Apprehend in terms of assault merely means "to perceive". There is no need to touch the other person. Touching another is known as a battery - charged under the same Act.

 

Words alone can be an assault. So saying "I'm going to hit you now" could be an assault. Silent phone calls can also be an assault. So someone coming up to me and waving there fist is a textbook example of an assault! You can't have people walking around putting others in fear of force can you now!

 

I do not understand what you mean by "these days". These offences have been around for ages!

 

If you are saying that she attacked you first, you should tell your legal rep this - if you haven't already.

 

 

This is what confuses me, you could say to me (say I was a judge) that Mr or Mrs X hit you, but just because you said so doesn't make it true, I would want proof that they did and if you had none then how could I convict someone soully based on what one person/yourself says.

 

It is a problem area. In domestic violence cases, as I said earlier, the only evidence is often just from the victim. I recently sat through a rape trial which involved a young woman claiming that her step father had raped her many years ago. Due to the time since the alleged rapes, there was no DNA evidence. The only evidence was the 'victims' statements and letters she had written in her childhood about her step father. The defendant was acquitted.

 

It will be up for the prosecution to build a strong case against you. I agree that a case built solely upon the victims police statement appears flimsy. Don't concern yourself too much with the strength of the other sides case!

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what confuses me, you could say to me (say I was a judge) that Mr or Mrs X hit you, but just because you said so doesn't make it true, I would want proof that they did and if you had none then how could I convict someone soully based on what one person/yourself says.

 

That is the purpose of examination in cheif and cross examination. The witness is asked to give their account, prompted by the prosecution. Your solicitor then "tests" her testimony in cross examination in order to discredit her account to show the judge her account cannot be believed.

 

 

You say an eye witness statement is fact but I was there as well so I am an eye witness as well, she says I did it, I say I didn't, there were no other witnesses or people present, you seem to forget the fact I'm innocent until proven guilty.

 

No, and no. You misunderstand. I did not say that it was fact, I said it was evidence. Evidence and fact are two very seperate things. When a person speaks as a witness, or gives a statement they are "giving evidence". The evidence has to be tested by cross examination in order to decide if it is fact. Your eye witness account is also evidence. It's evidence for the defense, whereas hers will be evidence for the prosecution.

 

I didn't say nor do I assume you are guilty. I am advising you on what can happen as you asked. Whether you did it or not is of no concern to me - but if you want advice then I'm afraid as per my signature - I advise on facts, all of them if I can give them - not on what a person wants to hear, therefore I will tell you that a statement is evidence, because it is, not because I believe you are guilty. Court is not an easy thing to go through. If you want advise I, and others can give it, but advice covers the good the bad and the ugly otherwise it's useless. Advice which misadvises is of no use to you.

 

A person giving evidence doesn't mean you will get convicted. It means they have to test what that witness says to decide if her evidence (eye witness account) is fact or falsity. If there is any reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge of her account then you will not be convicted - and she could be liable for perjury if it can be shown she deliberately lied in court. As she is lying, then your solicitor should not have any problem tearing her apart on the witness stand.

 

You are just as entitled to take your place on the witness stand, if you wish to do so. Defendants don't have to but witnessses who are summonsed do have to. Your solicitor will advise whether he thinks it would be beneficial for you to give evidence in the trial.

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)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

having read this thread and looked at your comments it seems to me that you might have actually assaulted this person, but that there might have been some form of mitigation, perhaps self defence. If the prosecution get hold of this thread, I think you might be sunk.

 

In the circumstances I think giving a no-comment interview was poor advice. Was this followed up with a statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me (as a complete outsider with no idea of what exactly has happened i.e. I may be 100% wrong) that the OP has not been advised very well.

 

The least his legal rep could have done would be to tell him about the offence he is charged with, what the prosecution has to show and how he can achieve the best result.

 

This has always been the kind of routine whenever I have been on visits to those charged with a crime.

 

1) Look at the evidence against

2) Get the clients story

3) Tell the client the ins and outs and advise

4) Drink coffee number 152

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

having read this thread and looked at your comments it seems to me that you might have actually assaulted this person, but that there might have been some form of mitigation, perhaps self defence. If the prosecution get hold of this thread, I think you might be sunk.

 

In the circumstances I think giving a no-comment interview was poor advice. Was this followed up with a statement?

 

No I didn't assault this person and the things she is saying happened didn't happen, all the facts will prove this, and what she's also said to other people, and the fact she also didn't go to a medical professional in order to get a medical report done as she was advised to do just that.

 

I agree the advice I was given which was to say no comment in my interview was poor, I have now questioned this as I now strongly believe I should have been told to tell the truth which is I didn't do it, because if it was me interviewing someone you either did something or you didn't so I should have been advised just to say I didn't do it.

 

And I believe the interview was the statement as it was recorded, I was made to sign something afterwards but I don't know if it was a statement or not as I just did as I was asked and signed whatever I was asked to.

 

It seems to me (as a complete outsider with no idea of what exactly has happened i.e. I may be 100% wrong) that the OP has not been advised very well.

 

I agree I haven't been advised very well so it seems and I'm not best pleased about it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be an idea to compile a list of questions and put them to your legal rep when you next see them.

 

A no comment interview is not bad for a trial per se. Often when making a full comment interview, people will inadvertently reveal information which can cause trouble for them later on.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I read what you originally posted before you edited your post and deleted it all, trust me the law most definitely is NOT on my side, the fact is this though yes I did slap my mother because she was hysterical, she made a complaint against me which she had the right to do, but what has essentially been a long running family dispute for many years (where me and her just don't get on) it's me looking at getting a criminal record just for slapping her which will ruin mine and my families life, my family meaning me, my fiancee and our 2 children.

 

But I'll tell you this I will make damn sure if I get a criminal record out of this that she will NEVER see my kids again, because I honestly can't believe I would ever end up with a criminal record for slapping someone when the fact is I'm the one who has suffered years of emotional abuse and some physical abuse (nothing like abuse in that sense by the way) that I'm the one whose life will be essentially over, not being able to do a job I'd like to do because of the simple fact IF I get a criminal record I wouldn't be able to do a hell of a lot of jobs I might have been interested in before all this happened.

 

Also bear in mind I barely see my mother as it is and that's by choice because I quite simply don't and haven't needed her for years and that's just the way it is, I don't give a camn about people saying 'well she's still your mother' that's not the point, she might be my mother but that doesn't mean I need her and I've proved that all the years I've had my own family, and the fact is (even if she doesn't need me at all) she still needs me more than I'll ever need her, that's how much I don't need her...

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did court go on the 19th?

 

Slapping someone is indeed a crime - your story about the grief she has caused could only be mitigation and not a defence.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
How did court go on the 19th?

 

Slapping someone is indeed a crime - your story about the grief she has caused could only be mitigation and not a defence.

 

Court on the 19th was only for me to say whether I was guilty or not guilty, the actual trial is on the 27th of this month.

 

I need some advice now though!

 

My mother has said that she's been told she has to go to court on the 27th of August, but she hasn't had a witness summons sent to her which would mean she DEFINITELY had to attend court, she was only told she had to be there from someone at the court as she was the only witness, so for all intents and purposes it's still up to her if she goes or not and she's said she will ring the court to check as she has said she doesn't actually want to give evidence against me now (but she didn't tell me this she told my fiancee as I'm not allowed to speak to her in case I seek to pervert the cause of justice) and from what I can gather from reading up on the internet right now (unless she receives a witness summons) she doesn't have to attend court and if she doesn't then their is a high possibility the case would be dropped, but even if she was issued with a witness summons that's only forcing her to attend court, and if she attends then she couldn't be forced to give evidence, as a witness summons is only to get a witness to attend court, so I've read anyway.

 

Can someone please clarify all this for me please?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't condone un-called for violence but she was in your home and not welcome there, you can use reasonable force to remove them and protect your family. If what your saying is right and it was just a slap then you shouldn't have too much to worry about. You also have an inherent right to self defence but again with reasonable force, she swung at you and you gave her a slap. Probably better suited to Jeremy Kyle rather than the courts unless you're not giving us the full picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please clarify all this for me please?

 

Your mother is the one who needs to clarify, as was already explained:

 

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.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what I'm asking to be clarified isn't that, it's that if she doesn't have a witness summons issued against her then she doesn't have to attend court does she? Because I've been told if she didn't turn up (if no witness summons issued) the case would be thrown out.

 

Also you say she would need to convince the poice and the CPS to that effect on her own, how could she convince the CPS because to my knowledge they can't be contacted anyway can they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you say she would need to convince the poice and the CPS to that effect on her own, how could she convince the CPS because to my knowledge they can't be contacted anyway can they?

 

Crown Prosecution Service Consultations : The CPS

 

Your Local CPS

 

The CPS office to serve our local Magistrates Court is immediately above the Police Station.

 

When a person intends to drop a complaint it is of course the duty of the person to say so as soon as possible, so as not to squander so much of the considerable cost of administering.

 

One would rather have hoped that this would go without the saying.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't condone un-called for violence but she was in your home and not welcome there, you can use reasonable force to remove them and protect your family. If what your saying is right and it was just a slap then you shouldn't have too much to worry about. You also have an inherent right to self defence but again with reasonable force, she swung at you and you gave her a slap. Probably better suited to Jeremy Kyle rather than the courts unless you're not giving us the full picture.

 

But because I did slap her I've been told by my solicitor that I'd have to plead guilty because even though I didn't make a statement saying I slapped her that he has a duty to not mislead the court and he couldn't allow me to lie, which has to be fair enough, nothing I can say about that I suppose.

 

And yes it's right that it was only a slap but she made a statement saying otherwise and that she got punched in the nose which didn't happen and she told my fiancee that 2 days after I'd supposedly done it, and there were no bruising or anything to even suggest any man had punched her in the nose, needless to say I would NEVER do that to any woman anyway.

 

So what now?

 

Either way I've had it because whether it's a slap or a punch looks like I will get a criminal record for assault unless she can convince the CPS to drop the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...