"He said/She Said" case when the "victim" plays the racecard?

[ghostbot]

I am currently involved in a case where a person was reported for threatening behaviour - the victim has now become the accused after the original aggressor has spectaularly played the race card and invented a whole different scenario to what actually happened. There is CCTV, but no audio - no blows are exchanged. The aggressor has persuaded/co-erced a fellow employee to back up their fictitious pack of lies, who is purporting to be an "independent witness", even though they are work colleagues and "friends" on Facebook. The CCTV shows the "independent witness" leaving the scene prior to the events unfolding. The police have not been in contact since February when the original victim was asked to attend a voluntary interview, when it quickly became apparent that he was now the suspect. Last night they showed up at the home address, demanding to see a utility bill to confirm that he lived at the actual address. Apparently he is being summoned to face charges. How worried should he be? There was no racist element whatsoever in his actions, and he was the one "offered outside" by the gentlman in question, who just happens to be Asian.

[MIKE770]

hearsay at this stage?

[ostell]

Have you managef to save those CCTV images?

[ghostbot]

Yes I have complete CCTV footage and printed off stills to show her leaving the scene before the exchange took place. I also have statements that they both made to their employers days before they were interviewed by the police and the two sets of statements vary dramatically!! In the set that were made to the employer, there was no mention of any racism by the “independent witness” and she herself stated that she had to leave to book on and no record by the alleged “victim” of any actual racist remarks that were alleged to have been made, but in their statements to the police which were made days, if not weeks later, there is a very detailed and colourful description of the insults that were allegedly made!

[ostell]

I would say you are in a very strong position. The "Independent" witness could be in serious trouble for perjury, even a gaol term. Are these sworn statements?

[ghostbot]

I assume the police statements would be, the ones given to the employer wouldn’t be, but they are on the company records! I am not sure who is pushing this forward, but think it’s the British Transport Police, rather than the alleged “victim” - I can’t imagine that the “independent witness” will want to go to court, as if she is found to be lying, she could well lose her job as well!

[AnotherLevel]

I am currently involved in a case where a person was reported for threatening behaviour - the victim has now become the accused after the original aggressor has spectaularly played the race card and invented a whole different scenario to what actually happened.

Who was this reported to? The police? If so, did they decide that there was not enough evidence for charges to be brought?

Last night they showed up at the home address, demanding to see a utility bill to confirm that he lived at the actual address. Apparently he is being summoned to face charges.

Do you know what he is going to be charged with? I believe if it's a hate crime, then the police would need to refer the matter to the CPS before charging the individual.

[ghostbot]

It was originally reported to the British Transport Police as the original victim wanted the threat of violence against him logged, in case there were any questions asked by his employer - in their investigations they obviously chose to believe the original aggressor’s version of events. So at the point at which he attended for a voluntary interview, he was being questioned on a charge of racially aggravated fear of violence. I fail to see how it passes the CPS requirements - do they have sufficient evidence and is it in the public interest?

[AnotherLevel]

It was originally reported to the British Transport Police as the original victim wanted the threat of violence against him logged, in case there were any questions asked by his employer - in their investigations they obviously chose to believe the original aggressor’s version of events.

So did the incident happen at a train station or on a train? How do you know there were no other witnesses?

I am confused why you're referring to an employer - how does this come into the picture?

in their investigations they obviously chose to believe the original aggressor’s version of events.

When two people give different versions of an event, the police must try to determine, with the help of evidence, who was telling the truth.

Just because someone is a colleague or a friend on Facebook does not mean that they should not be allowed to give a witness statement. If that statement can be corroborated with additional evidence, then it does not look good for the person who is accused here.

I fail to see how it passes the CPS requirements - do they have sufficient evidence and is it in the public interest?

Has anyone actually been charged? If they have, then the CPS would appear to be confident that the charging test has been met.

[ostell]

But of one of the "witnesses" was recorded on CCTV before the alleged incident took place then that person is not a witness at all.

[ghostbot]

In response to “Another Level” - yes, it did happen at a railway station and CCTV shows no other witnesses, including the alleged “independent” witness leaving the location BEFORE the alleged incident takes place. It wS reported to the employer as the person involved has high level security clearances any possible police issues have to be reported to the employer! The question is how can the two statements the individuals have given to firstly the employer and dats, if not weeks, later vary so wildly? Would this not set alarm bells ringing that someone is not telling the truth?
Surely if someone is a colleague or friend their testimony is not wholly independent? And independent witness would surely be a third party who has no involvement with either party?
At this point I don’t know if anyone has been charged - the BTP said it was out of their hands and a summons to appear at Court would be issued shortly. I have never known the police randomly I sit someone’s home and ask for a utility bill late on a Friday night, when they have already accessed both the Electoral Roll and the DVLA to establish the person’s residence - feels very heavy handed and smacks of intimidation to me! So much for a person being innocent until proven guilty, especially if you happen to be in the minority of white, male, heterosexual, over 50!

[AnotherLevel]

But of one of the "witnesses" was recorded on CCTV before the alleged incident took place then that person is not a witness at all.

How do we know that a witness did not hear the incident from an angle not caught by a camera?

In response to “Another Level” - yes, it did happen at a railway station and CCTV shows no other witnesses, including the alleged “independent” witness leaving the location BEFORE the alleged incident takes place.

Is it possible that someone could have heard the incident, but not appeared on CCTV? You said there was threatening behaviour, so I'm assuming that voices were raised. Is it possible that the sound travelled beyond the scope of one camera?

The question is how can the two statements the individuals have given to firstly the employer and dats, if not weeks, later vary so wildly? Would this not set alarm bells ringing that someone is not telling the truth?

How did you get the police witness statement? As far as I am aware, police never normally disclose the names of their witnesses and their statements until the disclosure stage after charges have been brought.

Surely if someone is a colleague or friend their testimony is not wholly independent? And independent witness would surely be a third party who has no involvement with either party?

They might not be completely independent, but that does not mean they should be completely discredited - for example, imagine someone goes to my neighbour's house and starts shouting abuse at him. I go to see what's going on and hear the abuse. If I was the only person to hear the abuse, should I be discredited because I am friends with my neighbour?

At this point I don’t know if anyone has been charged - the BTP said it was out of their hands and a summons to appear at Court would be issued shortly. I have never known the police randomly I sit someone’s home and ask for a utility bill late on a Friday night, when they have already accessed both the Electoral Roll and the DVLA to establish the person’s residence - feels very heavy handed and smacks of intimidation to me! So much for a person being innocent until proven guilty, especially if you happen to be in the minority of white, male, heterosexual, over 50!

This bit seems a bit strange to me. I thought the police check this before placing someone on bail.

Are you sure they were not checking that they were complying with the terms of bail?

[ghostbot]

How do we know that a witness did not hear the incident from an angle not caught by a camera?

The witness has freely admitted that she had to leave to go and book on in a completely different area from the station.

Is it possible that someone could have heard the incident, but not appeared on CCTV? You said there was threatening behaviour, so I'm assuming that voices were raised. Is it possible that the sound travelled beyond the scope of one camera?

The platform was deserted, and all four cameras show there is no-one in the vicinity.

How did you get the police witness statement? As far as I am aware, police never normally disclose the names of their witnesses and their statements until the disclosure stage after charges have been brought.

The witness statements were read out to him at the voluntary interview. No charges have been brought as yet - he was interviewed "in respect of an allegation".


They might not be completely independent, but that does not mean they should be completely discredited - for example, imagine someone goes to my neighbour's house and starts shouting abuse at him. I go to see what's going on and hear the abuse. If I was the only person to hear the abuse, should I be discredited because I am friends with my neighbour?

I would agree with you on this one - but the witness wasn't there - has stated she wasn't there in her statement to her employer - and her statement made to the police some time later (after which they both had a chance to sit down and concoct an alternative version of events) is wildly different.

This bit seems a bit strange to me. I thought the police check this before placing someone on bail.

Are you sure they were not checking that they were complying with the terms of bail?

He, as yet, has not been charged and therefore there are no bail conditions.

[AnotherLevel]

He, as yet, has not been charged and therefore there are no bail conditions.

Someone does not need to be charged with an offence to be placed on bail.

If the police do not have sufficient evidence but believe there is a case, they can place someone on pre-charge bail pending further investigations. This would be used in cases where there is a chance someone might not surrender in the future or talk to the witnesses etc.

I can't really get my head around why the police would turn up at the property, unless they have real reason to believe the address given was incorrect.

[ghostbot]

That's what I can't get my head around - he has had no contact with the police since the "voluntary interview" in February - he has not been advised that he has been charged or that he is on bail. The police were asked when they arrived at the address whether they had already checked both the electoral roll and the DVLA, and they confirmed that they had, and when asked what both sources said, they confirmed that both sources had the address recorded as the same one they had visited. Seems like intimidation tactics to me - the "suspect" for want of a better word was not at the address at the time, and at 9:00pm on a Friday night, one can only assume that they had the intention of arresting the "suspect", or had nothing better to do than go on a jolly car outing to pass away the hours until their shift ended.