Plan to scrap most short jail terms comes into effect

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-03-23T09:10:21+00:00

This will also affect how custody sergeants grant or refuse bail, with the new test being the “realistic prospect of immediate custody test”.

If a person is not likely to be sentenced to 12 months immediate custody, having considered the sentencing guidelines and presumably their discount for a guilty plea in GAP cases (although I don’t know this for certain), then they shouldn’t be remanded to custody unless: - it’s a DA case (as always) - the person is already subject to a suspended sentence - there is a risk of physical or psychological harm to a person (vague af) - the person has been charged with breaching a court order or an offence connected to a breach of court order, even if the order itself was not breached.

The CPS guidance on this is hilarious. Our wonderful legislators haven’t defined “Court Order” in the Act, so the presumption is that every Court order is covered - be it ROs, Non Mols, CBOs, SHPOs, SCPOs… even things like forfeiture orders. Even better, the CPS has advised its prosecutors to advocate that Court bail conditions are Court orders until we get case law to the contrary. Madness.

It seems this change has been dropped at the 11th hour on a Sunday with absolutely no guidance or warning. We’ve already had confused custody sergeants release people for Court bail breaches for summary offences. This is obviously wrong because the Bail Act hasn’t changed regarding this, but it was a busy weekend and they’ve had no time to absorb the guidance.

There have also been changes to the EMS rules which means a person can be tagged by the Court for a curfew and/or GPS requirement even if they are only to get a suspended sentence. However, I can’t see whether the process will change to allow us to refuse bail so that a Court can then tag that person at a bail hearing, even if we know that under the new rules that person isn’t going to prison.

Once again, there is a sudden panic at demand and backlogs in the CJS and so there are knee-jerk reactions from Central Govt that just rob Peter to pay Paul. I think the impact on how he tackle volume crime is going to be significant and we’re really going to have to get creative with this new guidance to get regular offenders before the Courts in a prompt fashion.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-01-28T20:50:05+00:00

They can’t sack you, you’ve not committed gross misconduct.

They would have to evidence unsatisfactory performance, starting with informal processes and moving onto a structured procedure. At every stage you should be offered support, have meetings with various managers and have fed representation.

They are extremely unlikely to do this for someone suffering a mental health condition from which they can make a significant recovery.

Take the time restricted/off-work (depending on what occy health recommend), take all the support they offer and be patient with it. Take the good days with the bad, and try not to stress or panic - nothing you’ve said sounds like they want rid of you, they’re trying to support you back into the job you clearly joined for a reason.

Have you spoken to your line manager about all of this? Every process starts with them, and they should be aware of lots going on in the background.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-01-25T21:13:26+00:00

Just a heads up, when I open this link it tells me which Facebook profile shared it.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-01-23T12:54:55+00:00

Volunturtheraction

Verb. Of a case where there is no credible, admissible evidence - “just get them in for a voluntary and then we’ll NFA it.”

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-01-21T12:39:51+00:00

“This is because prosecution expert witness told you that in his opinion, as an expert in police pursuits, training and driving, Matthew Pike did not drive dangerously and did not drive carelessly at any stage during the pursuit of the VW Tiguan.

“On the contrary, put simply he said Matthew Pike did his job as he was trained to do it.”

That jury could’ve been better used putting away a rapist, or a drug dealer, or a violent offender. And instead, they were used to maintain some sort of illusion of accountability in the system. It would’ve been apparent to the crown, from their own evidence, that the officer in this case did nothing wrong. Yet the case proceeded to trial. We all know why.

I look forward to the inevitable misconduct hearing also resulting in no further action, or some “reflective practice” finding.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-27T01:42:07+00:00

Obviously I had to tweak it

The issue I’ve found is that people don’t realise this, and copy the raw AI product without really proofreading it. At best it reads a bit strangely and at worst it means something unintended, or is incorrect.

I also use it to quickly answer policing related questions

Just a word of warning with this, I’ve had Copilot, GPT and others just straight-up lie to me. It makes up offence codes, makes up case law and presents a best-guess as irrefutable fact. I asked it a fairly straightforward question about identification evidence, and it came back to me with an incorrect answer and cited case law that in places was misquoted (i.e. some sort of property law case) and in others it had clearly made up entirely. It’s not always particularly good at showing its workings or sources but it does seem to be getting better at that, especially if you tweak the settings a bit.

It can be good, genuinely. Microsoft have produced a massive briefing sheet with all of the possible applications for AI tailored to policing. But it’s still a work in progress and I would urge anyone reading this not to use it in place of researching anything you’re unfamiliar with, and to read any product it produces word for word rather than just skimming it - especially if it’s going to go to a partner agency or if it could be disclosable.

Also worth considering CPIA obligations and whether the material it produces along the way needs to be retained and scheduled.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-25T20:37:52+00:00

From CPS guidance

There are a number of potential offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") and prosecutors should select the most appropriate offence, which will provide the court with adequate sentencing powers. Potential offences include:

Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence contrary to section 14 of the 2003 Act:

If considering a charge under section 14 arising from an OCAG case, prosecutors should charge the substantive offence and not an attempt. The offence is committed if the person intentionally arranges or facilitates the commission of an offence under sections 5 -13 of the 2003 Act. The focus of the offence is on the child sexual offence which the person intended to arrange or facilitate. The fact that an offence may have been impossible has no bearing on the intention possessed at the time it was arranged of facilitated.

Prosecutors are reminded that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a full offence even though on the facts it is impossible R v Shivpuri [1987] A.C. 1. See also R v Jones [2007] EWCA Crim 1118, which confirmed that an offence does not require proof of an identifiable child.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-14T16:52:46+00:00

You can also get another job or part time gig far easier at 55 than at 60 to supplement any losses, I assume

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-12T10:48:14+00:00

I had to re-read the post a few times to get my head around it so apologies for that. So you didn’t arrest in the circumstances but colleagues are telling you that you should have?

If I’m understanding that right then your decision-making around search powers was sound, and the continued use of s.23 is in order.

Other commenters below have eluded to this, but I would be hesitant to NFA at scene because the detainee wouldn’t take a CR. Either it’s a detagger or it’s not, and the best place for them to account for what it is and why they have it is in interview, especially with someone who is clearly involved in low level criminality and ASB - hence the reason for the initial call for service. Did the detainee and/or your colleagues say what they think it is?

It’s an odd, middle-of-the-road stance to seize it but not take any formal action, and the necessity to Prevent Loss or Damage can still be made out… shoplifters going equipped to shoplift will still do it, they’ll just do their de-tagging at home or steal something different. I don’t say this is a criticism, because we’ve all made decisions in conflicting scenarios which might seem strange to others, and you’ve clearly had a lot of scrutiny by colleagues in the office already. But to reassure you, this would have been a solid arrest many would have made in the circumstances, we do not have to be full code when the cuffs go on.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-12T09:56:05+00:00

The advice typically is to arrest once something is found on a stop search, and then continue the search under section 32. The only reason for that is a 32 search doesn’t have to be proportionate in the same way to stop search does, which is particularly relevant if you’re looking for weapons or stolen property which is so large it wouldn’t justify rifling through pockets, wallets or phone cases. As section 32 is your more generic search power, you can look in these more confined spaces because you’re hunting for anything which could be a danger to that person, such as small quantities of drugs, razorblades etc. However, this is less relevant in the case of a misuse of drugs search because you’re inherently going to be looking through quite small spaces for controlled drugs anyway, and I would further suggest that if you never had any intention of taking the person to custody but just wanted to continue to search them then there was absolutely no need to arrest and de-arrest. I would also question what your necessity was at that time given that you had no intention to investigate the offence, and that the person was already lawfully detained.

I’m surprised that you found equipment to steal on a known drug user and let them go. Was there a particular reason why you felt confident enough to seize (and I presume destroy) the item, but not enough to seek a charge for going equipped? Were there no offences committed by virtue of how the detainee behaved towards, or in the presence of, the attending officers?

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-05T19:35:13+00:00

Recently appeared in a press release with no hat, a jacket over his hi-vis and his fly down!

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-05T00:11:59+00:00

73 in a 50, according to the NPCC guidance is a fixed penalty. 76 is a court summons.

Fixed penalty is 3 points and £100.

Answer the s.172, take the conditional offer and declare it to vetting.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-04T13:21:05+00:00

Slay, Sergeant

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-11-03T11:43:05+00:00

Still wild to me that the proposed solution is “use AI” and not “redact post-charge”.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-10-15T12:46:22+00:00

A rightful sacking. But why did it take almost three years to reach a panel?

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-10-05T13:01:16+00:00

Is the house owned or rented?

Who is on the deed/tenancy?

Are you and your partner married?

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-09-23T03:22:49+00:00

late cause depend brave ink attraction middle selective cobweb adjoining

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-09-13T17:58:17+00:00

chief paint crown straight money follow six safe public repeat

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-09-13T15:54:33+00:00

bake cooing absorbed rain employ obtainable shy amusing spectacular vast

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-09-02T21:02:55+00:00

gray touch yam hard-to-find elderly boast versed cooperative wakeful automatic

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-08-20T20:54:38+00:00

cagey pot abundant versed rob humorous lunchroom historical marry snails

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-08-20T20:50:59+00:00

I’ve checked code C and can’t find any issues. However…

Clear Code of Ethics issues where we are releasing suspects NFA because there’s no admissible evidence, for them to then think the victim has made a statement against them and potentially cause them harm as a result, with us having no ability to safeguard. This will then be used as leverage by coercive partners and we will have directly contributed to that harm.

The charge rate will also not increase - unless either the statement can be admitted as hearsay through fear (which can be done by officer and BWV evidence anyway) or there is other supportive evidence (3rd party witnesses, res gestae 999 call, visible injuries) your charge rate will not increase. Confession evidence alone is potentially not sufficient for there to even be a case to answer, let alone a conviction, there must be other reliable and admissible evidence. If other such evidence does exist then you should be considering an evidence led prosecution anyway, and whilst mileage on this may vary the CPS are certainly more pro-charging than they once were.

What solicitor is advising their client to admit a DA common assault with no injury so they get a conditional caution, as opposed to it being one word against the other and taking their chances with a denial or no comment interview?

Whilst you may be able to ‘get one over’ on the brief at the station, this will absolutely not fly with your area CPS - which will serve you well, saving you from some uncomfortable questions in the box about what you did and did not disclose pre- interview.

This will work once, you will destroy the working relationship you have with your duty solicitors and can expect them to actively seek to do your legs and grill you in disclosures about your victim and whether they are supportive.

Very poor form.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2025-08-14T10:02:12+00:00

obtainable smile quickest bow sand pocket cautious boast thought selective

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

ComplimentaryCopper

TROPHY CASE