tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post3595521738572783247..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Death of Mr Ian Tomlinson - no charges to be broughtObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-80045072241766794512010-07-28T09:05:20.966+01:002010-07-28T09:05:20.966+01:00A post advertising Criminal Attorneys has been del...A post advertising Criminal Attorneys has been deleted. They operate in the USA.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-55725924260498239212010-07-25T10:03:39.454+01:002010-07-25T10:03:39.454+01:00To Louseandflea - thank you for your comment.
The...To Louseandflea - thank you for your comment.<br /><br />The <strong>basic</strong> position regarding time limits for prosecutions is that: (a) for offences triable only in magistrates' courts (i.e. summary offences) the "information" must be laid with the magistrates court within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence; (b) for offences triable on indictment in the Crown Court then there is no time limit.<br /><br />The basic position has been modified by Acts of Parliament in a number of areas. There is a summary of these on the <a href="http://mle.ncalt.com/MLE/data/PL_LGL_NLD_01_02/d1995.asp" rel="nofollow">Police National Legal Database</a> though I do not offer any guarantee as to its accuracy.<br /><br />Certain other rules of law might prevent prosecutions or trials. One is the "double jeopardy" rule (as modified by the Criminal Justice Act 2003).<br /><br />I don't propose to consider the position in tort here apart from saying that, in some circumstances, liability for a tort may continue to exist even after the death of the victim of the tort.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-77716017103571106572010-07-25T00:23:55.599+01:002010-07-25T00:23:55.599+01:00An excellent, informative summary. I have seen a l...An excellent, informative summary. I have seen a lot of commentary elsewhere, but it is highly informative to have the facts laid out so succinctly and in simple English.<br /><br />As an 'umble layman, may I ask a question that I have not been able to find an answer to elsewhere: the six month limit notwithstanding, is there any other limit in UK criminal law to bringing a charge, such as assault, in which the victim is dead? That is, a charge that does not relate to the manner of his death (murder, manslaughter, negligence etc), his remains (cannibalism, necrophilia etc) or his estate? Is such a limit set within the statute/s covering that particular offence, or is there an overreaching limitation in criminal law similar to that which might apply in civil law? Or both?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-42212194041238758812010-07-23T17:03:33.380+01:002010-07-23T17:03:33.380+01:00Interesting summary. Thank you.Interesting summary. Thank you.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-16410003020220994262010-07-23T11:52:43.876+01:002010-07-23T11:52:43.876+01:00It's a "realistic" chance of convict...It's a "realistic" chance of conviction AND "in the public interest" according to the CPS website. Strange decision though. Not charging a policeman with anything based on that video, can do nothing but undermine public confidence in the police and the law.<br />I expect a private prosecution. I know the family said they can't afford it, but a barrister prepared to act Pro Bono would get round that.Conornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-66871176527050263282010-07-23T09:13:57.238+01:002010-07-23T09:13:57.238+01:00Isn't there also a public interest test that t...Isn't there also a public interest test that they need to perform?<br /><br />Surely it is in the public interest to put this before a jury, even if there is little chance of conviction? After all, a jury might well decide to convict on very little evidence; could it be that the CPS is trying to shield the police from that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-37139335225923113992010-07-22T20:08:30.983+01:002010-07-22T20:08:30.983+01:00As an 'umble magistrate I see one end of the s...As an 'umble magistrate I see one end of the spectrum of competence within the CPS. I usually reassure myself that for the small number of cases we send upstairs, that these will be dealt with more professionally. My court has a dedicated domestic violence court and there is a regular prosecutor who does an excellent job, but who normally appears in the Crown Court.<br /><br />It seems that my assumption that others are more competent than those I meet may be misguided. Given the extent to which the CPS intervenes with charging of J.Public Esq for trivia, I am amazed that they can allow an investigation in a matter so high profile to be so ineptly led. We pride ourselves in the UK on the system and standard of justice but it seems that the Tomlinson family have been denied this. I have just seen the BBC clip where a relative makes the point that had the perpetrator been anyone other than (as he puts it) the old bill, this would have been dealt with. Difficult, I regret, not to reach the same conclusion.rex_imperatornoreply@blogger.com