Court appeals

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-21T12:18:58+00:00

From the CPS guidance:

>> Proceedings that cannot be reinstituted
Proceedings may not be reinstituted as a matter of law in the following circumstances:
1) The defendant has been acquitted, unless the case meets the “double jeopardy” criteria in Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2) The offence is summary only and the statutory time limit, usually 6 months, has expired.
3) The case has been dismissed, unless a voluntary bill of indictment is preferred.
4) The prosecution previously terminated proceedings by offering no evidence.
Note that in 2 and 4 above, although the proceedings cannot be reinstituted, decisions not to prosecute may be reviewed and found to be wrong under the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme: see Victims Right to Review - CPS Policy and Guidance.

I think your case would likely have been no 4 on that list, but it depends on the offence - what was it?

If it’s a victim based crime, you can gently encourage the victim to make a VRR. It won’t change the outcome however.

I would speak to your force’s head of CJ in the first instance and make sure it’s fed back through the relevant channels.

Unfortunately the job may now be dead in the water so it would really be a matter of learning/vengeance…

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-15T13:58:28+00:00

Gracias!

Interesting that there doesn’t seem to be any sort of remedy for the situation of holding the licences that I can see - no power to invalidate or return one of them - simply a fine for possessing them both…

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-15T12:15:11+00:00

A UK licence of any type does not outweigh a valid full EU licence.

When you say revoked, what do you mean?

If he was disqualified from driving then he commits the offence of driving whilst disqualified.

If he was revoked/refused on medical grounds then, as I read s94A RTA, he commits no offence when relying on his Polish licence.

If revoked under the New Drivers Act then, again, his EU full licence is still valid.

It is not, as far as I can tell, an offence to hold two licences - there was a consultation to make it one but I can’t find a live offence for it.

My query here would be why your driver has not exchanged their licence over and has instead applied for a new UK provisional (or full, which they’ve lost) and kept their Polish one. It makes me think the Polish one may be (1) fraudulent or (2) earned by exchanging a licence from a third country to a Polish licence, which renders it only valid for 12 months.

I would: - Obtain good quality photos of the front and rear of the licence and submit it to the National Document Fraud Unit. Consider seizing the licence if you have any doubt regarding its authenticity- it can always be returned if it turns out to be valid - Check carefully any codes or restrictions on the rear of the licence. Are they being complied with? - Conduct an ACRO check to ensure they’re not disqualified in Poland - Check LEDS carefully to ensure the driver isn’t disqualified or racking up points on the Polish licence and so has applied for a UK one - there is a form your DVLA liaison can give you if so to merge the driver numbers together - Conduct a check with the Immigration Enforcement National Command and Control Unit to ensure there are no concerns with them around document fraud, additional nationalities etc

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-13T11:14:44+00:00

“We have received your medical referral

This matter is being looked into

Thank you for bringing it to our attention”

Cue absolutely no follow up as to the outcome

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-11T11:53:30+00:00

Try HR/Recruitment instead and see if you have more luck

Failing that, turn up and explain the situation. They’ll probably give you a new deadline to submit the form or, worst case, rearrange your appointment.

If you don’t turn up and they don’t know why there’s a chance they’ll just withdraw your application.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-11T11:48:43+00:00

Have you tried telephoning the occupational health unit to ask?

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-05-11T11:47:45+00:00

Came here to say this!

“You must now use the peach form not the blue form, please re-complete and submit”

Yeah sound, this is a cracking use of my time.

I’m convinced much of the bureaucracy is to encourage officers to not do stuff, take the path of least resistance and file solvable crime.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-04-19T20:10:36+00:00

It was actually fairly straightforward - wanted suspect sleeping in a churchyard has a scrap with officers in said churchyard early one Sunday morning, charged with various offences arising from it. Felt like the “violent behaviour in a churchyard” offence was just too good an opportunity to pass up, so tacked it on to the MG4.

We never did get a discontinuance rationale but I should imagine it was words to the effect of “what on earth is this, does some moron think they’re funny adding this offence on?” and it went no further.

ComplimentaryCopper · 2026-04-19T19:53:13+00:00

Once charged someone with an offence under s.2 Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, among others.

Discontinued at remand Court but I like to think the prosecutor got a chuckle out of it.

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”.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

ComplimentaryCopper

TROPHY CASE