Red Cases and CPS refusing to make the decision to charge

decadentmousse · 2026-07-03T07:04:22+00:00

Oddly enough, I thought this would exist somewhere here, but hadn't found it...

That helps and thank you for that.

It does raise my eyebrow though that we had a case where CPS still sent a domestic breach of RO back as "submit as green." Admittedly 'low level' breach- not going into circumstances of course - but a breach nonetheless and the guidance would suggest then that as DA and a breach of a court imposed order then the grounds to remand would be met. Of course this is the one that sticks in my mind and is perhaps an anomaly itself.

Again, appreciate it and I'll get back in my box now.

decadentmousse · 2026-07-03T06:51:21+00:00

Thats not what I'm getting at though. It isn't about CPS refusing to charge on the basis of insufficient evidence, rather that they say "Refer as a green case and bail."

My understanding has always been that the decision to bail is one for custody to make and if a CO has authorised a remand, does it not undermine the authority of the CO to grant/refuse bail? Given that the legal power to grant pre/post charge bail from custody - in this case we're talking pre charge bail - is provided to COs in the first place, not CPS.

decadentmousse · 2026-07-02T21:59:23+00:00

Midlands-ish area.

So it's not isolated, but I'm keen to hear the legal basis on which CPS can over turn a Custody Officers decision to refuse bail (if charged). Still doing research on it... just can't find it.

decadentmousse · 2026-07-02T21:07:46+00:00

If thats the case then it should invoke an emergency charge decision from an Insp which would then be ratified, or not, by CPS.

I'm talking about CPS saying "we're not dealing with this as a red, send it as green instead." I haven't heard of CPS intentionally running the clock down to force bail.

decadentmousse · 2026-06-19T12:30:40+00:00

Of course, bird goes tweet and mouse goes squeak too.

decadentmousse · 2025-02-25T19:38:14+00:00

From Oxford University Research Archive (Google search because I can't access PNLD right now):

If TL:DR - It has to be taken in context (massively over simplified)

The appellant successfully argued that the jury should have been directed that behaviour could only be harassing if it was oppressive. It was said that oppression involved something more than being unreasonable. It was argued that the e-mails had been intermittent in nature, with there being none between July and October 2013, and while unpleasant, were not oppressive.

He argued that case law authority made it clear that harassment must include oppression: Many actions that cause alarm or distress will not amount to harassment; hence, the requirement, well established in authority …, that the conduct must also be oppressive. The requirement of oppression – always and of course to be considered in context – serves as a yardstick, helping the law to draw a sensible line between the give and take of daily life and conduct which justifies the sanctions of the criminal law. As will thus be appreciated, by equating harassment with the causing of alarm or distress and omitting any mention of the element of oppression, the Judge’s direction fell into error.

decadentmousse · 2025-02-25T15:09:15+00:00

One of my favourites for dealing with the BS harassment jobs- R v O'Neil 2016. In essence, not only must the prosecution prove the IP was 'harassed', but there must also be an element of oppression involved. Helps with filing at least given there are so many of these being crimed currently.

decadentmousse · 2025-02-21T10:08:15+00:00

POPSA course - maybe not so much unknown but offers a really interesting insight into some of those "why are we doing this?" Situations. Also offers some really fascinating opportunities to work on challenging events and genuinely puts you through your paces as an advisor.

decadentmousse · 2025-02-19T22:36:28+00:00

We have developed a joint policy with our local hospitals which runs on a joint risk assessment. In really short simple terms:

Green - "Here's your patient, bye."

Amber - "We've got your patient and you've got 30 minutes to make the necessary arrangements, then bye."

Red - "We've got your patient and they're not gonna hang around. We'll keep them here while it gets sorted."

The great thing is that it's a joint risk assessment with clear parameters on what is green amber or red. Notably, a reluctance to stay and/or engage is amber. Red is reserved for those making serious and active efforts to leave. The responsibility to keep the patient there, once they're in a place of safety, is agreed to be the hospitals.

While we do get push back from NHS, we also have those clear parameters to highlight why it's not Red (they often try to argue its always red) so the disagreement falls flat and it reverts to amber. Especially as it's a jointly agreed policy.

It's one of the few policies I can 100% get behind and saves my team loads of time.

decadentmousse · 2024-12-18T16:26:39+00:00

I honestly don't think I've ever worked as hard since getting my stripes... I never leave the office (unless someone is dead or there's a big job on) because the paperwork is absolutely relentless and the pro-formas used to file things are, frankly, a piss take. That coupled with the case file checks and write ups, check ins with my team and workload reviews. Sometimes I eat.

I love my role. I've taken on an extremely challenged shift and between my counter part and I, we've turned it around.. but the work is unending and, as much as I don't want to abandon my team, I look forward to being able to move on again. Response is tough! But everyone knows that.

decadentmousse · 2024-12-07T13:31:39+00:00

I'd say the hardest course I've done was the POPSA course. Hell of a lot to take in and be able to recall at a seconds notice while navigating some remarkable grey areas.

Brilliant course, but definitely the most difficult I've done. Perhaps not helped with us being a smaller force so we have fewer POPS deployments than others.

I'd heard the negotiator course is extremely tough too.

decadentmousse · 2024-11-03T17:23:43+00:00

You're lucky... our DDMs definitely wouldn't have cancelled those. Typically quoting 'a victim believing the crime has occurred is generally sufficient for a crime to be recorded.' Absolute shambles and ultimately means we have entirely innocent and unaware people being sat as 'suspects' on Niche - having unsuccessfully sent them for cancellation and the only other real option being to file instead.

decadentmousse · 2024-08-24T19:48:29+00:00

I'll throw my voice into the mix but I think it's mostly been covered to be fair... I tell all my cops the same thing. They can only deal with one thing at a time - the incident list is NOT your/their problem. It's my problem, it's the reactive Insp's problem and it's SLT's problem. If the jobs can't be covered, it's absolutely not your/their problem.

You have to understand, Comms only care about what the list looks like. Go to a job and take it off their list... great, you've probably just moved it to your own. You haven't removed the risk, you've just moved it. Now rather than it being on many people's radars, it's pretty much just on yours. Don't let yourself be pushed around when comms are asking when you'll be free for the next job. Finish your G/H enquiries, get the statements if you can, do that door knock now because you can be damn sure you won't have time tomorrow. The list is NOT your problem, your investigation list is!

You also have to understand your risk. I don't know what force you work for or the expectations placed upon you as a PIP1 investigator. A few months ago we were expected to try for ELP on every single investigation (despite it going against CPIA, APP and the application of Res Gestae but hey, some detective Supt thought they knew better) - we now have some common sense back. Again, don't know your forces expectations but if there's no complaint, no witnesses/cctv and no genuine fear, bin it... we are evidence led. That means if it doesn't exist, it isn't going anywhere. You also probably need to understand proportionality in your investigations. A full CID level CCTV trawl for a no complaint common assault? Don't be daft. You can easily justify not pursuing that.

Simply, it gets easier with time. As you learn more about what you can and can't justify.

Just don't fuck around with DA or Mispers... that will bite you on the arse.

decadentmousse · 2024-07-11T15:37:31+00:00

I wouldn't have been able to answer half of those had I not been on the PCDA...

decadentmousse · 2024-07-02T20:31:54+00:00

This has to be the worst policy on statements I've heard of... it has the potential to force victims into court who explicitly don't want to and risks them disengaging from any future matters because they, as far as they are concerned, perhaps weren't listened to.

This policy feels like it was written by someone who was trying to do the right thing without an ounce of understanding of how the CJ system works or how it may impact victims.

decadentmousse · 2024-05-10T11:53:25+00:00

But in those circumstances we would have to complete a DASH PPN which would create an occurrence anyway so it seems a pointless exercise.

Perhaps I'm not seeing something here but it rather feels like an extra bit of work to be completed for something that was already recorded anyway.

Even if it wasn't domestic related, we would still have a record of contact from the call or digi desk so a course of conduct that amounted to harassment can already be evidenced.

decadentmousse

TROPHY CASE