Cautions by the Police

[pendlewitch]

A Person who was responsible for all forms of abuse towards children, was arrested by the Police. This person told the Police 'He did NOT understand a Caution' they let him walk. They did NOT pass the Case onto the CPS for their verdict. Has anybody else come across this and was the Police in their Rights to act as Judge and Juror?

[des8]

How are you so sure of what happened? were you a witness of the person being cautioned.
PACE Code requires "If it appears a person does not understand the caution, the person giving it should explain it in their own words

[pendlewitch]

How are you so sure of what happened? were you a witness of the person being cautioned.
PACE Code requires "If it appears a person does not understand the caution, the person giving it should explain it in their own words

I was one of his Victims. The Police had all the evidence, asked him to turn up to the Station instead of arresting him there and then. Turned up with a Solicitor and was well versed into what to say. The arresting Officer had no interest in the case, just saw him as an old man. The Police said there was absolute nothing they could do. I have recently asked was the file passed onto the CPS. The answer from the Police was no.

[efpom]

It is a commonplace, for a person to be requested to turn up, by appointment at a police for an interview under caution. It is also a commonplace, for a person to be arrested the minute he sets foot in the police station, so that he can be lawfully held, for that interview under caution.

Not understanding the caution given by an arresting office, would not, of itself, cause the police to refrain from putting a charging decision to the CPS.


Unfortunately, if the strength of the evidence is very questionable, the police will not ask the CPS for a charging decision.

I recognise that you take a different view of the evidence. You can ask the police to review their decision not to put a charging decision.

[pendlewitch]

It is a commonplace, for a person to be requested to turn up, by appointment at a police for an interview under caution. It is also a commonplace, for a person to be arrested the minute he sets foot in the police station, so that he can be lawfully held, for that interview under caution.

Not understanding the caution given by an arresting office, would not, of itself, cause the police to refrain from putting a charging decision to the CPS.


Unfortunately, if the strength of the evidence is very questionable, the police will not ask the CPS for a charging decision.

I recognise that you take a different view of the evidence. You can ask the police to review their decision not to put a charging decision.

Thank you for your reply. The evidence was very strong (more victims came forward to give Statements and Interviews where conducted with several other people) I am just asking why the Police would not give the File to the CPS to get their opinion on the file.

[des8]

So contrary to your first post, he was not arrested, but invited in for an interview under caution.
As was his right he was accompanied by his solicitor.
Following the interview the police decided "No further action"

This is not an unusual outcome.
It generally follows from the police investigating allegations and then coming to the conclusion there is not sufficient evidence to proceed with charges, or it is not in the public interest.

Have you requested the decision not to proceed be reviewed.
If the police decide you do not have the Victim's Right to Review (there should be details on your local force's website), you should ask them how to make a complaint and/or look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) website.


Crossed with efpom
Left page open whilst doing other things and should have checked back

[jaguarsuk]

Thank you for your reply. The evidence was very strong (more victims came forward to give Statements and Interviews where conducted with several other people) I am just asking why the Police would not give the File to the CPS to get their opinion on the file.

In your opinion, but I assume you are not legally qualified and thus wouldn't know the threshold of evidence to obtain a conviction. It might have seemed to you as a victim damning, but the fact the file didn't even progress for a charging decision would suggest otherwise.

[pendlewitch]

So contrary to your first post, he was not arrested, but invited in for an interview under caution.
As was his right he was accompanied by his solicitor.
Following the interview the police decided "No further action"

This is not an unusual outcome.
It generally follows from the police investigating allegations and then coming to the conclusion there is not sufficient evidence to proceed with charges, or it is not in the public interest.

Have you requested the decision not to proceed be reviewed.
If the police decide you do not have the Victim's Right to Review (there should be details on your local force's website), you should ask them how to make a complaint and/or look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) website.


Crossed with efpom
Left page open whilst doing other things and should have checked back

I am going off what the Police told me. They got him in, they 'tried' to Caution him before they arrested him. He said 'he did NOT understand a Caution' They allegedly tried to explain what a Caution was. He said 'He did not understand' The Police told me there was nothing else they could do and there was nothing else I could do. They did not tell me about a Victims Right to Review, they just kept saying there was nothing anyone could do. I have all the proof in the correspondence. The Police also said the Evidence was strong enough for a Conviction but because he 'did not understand a Caution' they could not proceed.

[jaguarsuk]

I am going off what the Police told me. They got him in, they 'tried' to Caution him before they arrested him. He said 'he did NOT understand a Caution' They allegedly tried to explain what a Caution was. He said 'He did not understand' The Police told me there was nothing else they could do and there was nothing else I could do. They did not tell me about a Victims Right to Review, they just kept saying there was nothing anyone could do. I have all the proof in the correspondence. The Police also said the Evidence was strong enough for a Conviction but because he 'did not understand a Caution' they could not proceed.

The only way this could be the case is if they determined he did not have the capacity to understand it, such as dementia or mental health issues.

[pendlewitch]

In your opinion, but I assume you are not legally qualified and thus wouldn't know the threshold of evidence to obtain a conviction. It might have seemed to you as a victim damning, but the fact the file didn't even progress for a charging decision would suggest otherwise.

No I am not Legally Qualified. I wish I was. The Police themselves told me the Evidence that my Siblings gave as well as my evidence was good for a Conviction. They said because 'He did not understand a Caution' they could not arrest him' They said there was nothing else they could do. I was not offered any other means for this to be reviewed. Has anyone come across this before?

[pendlewitch]

The only way this could be the case is if they determined he did not have the capacity to understand it, such as dementia or mental health issues.

They said he was drunk and that he refused to give them access to his Medical Records.

[jaguarsuk]

They said he was drunk and that he refused to give them access to his Medical Records.

If he was drunk I would have expected them to arrest him and then put him in the cells to sober up before interviewing him, the fact they want access to medical records is more pertinent here I believe. For confidentiality reasons they are not telling you the whole picture it would seem.

[pendlewitch]

If he was drunk I would have expected them to arrest him and then put him in the cells to sober up before interviewing him, the fact they want access to medical records is more pertinent here I believe. For confidentiality reasons they are not telling you the whole picture it would seem.

I have always thought they were keeping back something. He has been an Alcoholic all his life and we suffered for it. The Officer who was in charge of the case was more concerned that he was an Alcoholic and was Vulnerable and just saw him as an old man He could not even be bothered to get back to me of the outcome and it took me pressuring a Senior Officer before he got back to me. Just waiting now for the CPS to get back to me just to confirm that the Police did not hand his file over. Then will take it from there. Thanks to everyone who took time out to help me with this.

[jaguarsuk]

The Officer who was in charge of the case was more concerned that he was an Alcoholic and was Vulnerable

If he is an alcoholic the officer would be correct to treat him as vulnerable, certainly the custody sergeant would take it into consideration when detaining him. As an alcoholic they can't put him in the cells to sober up as I described in post #12 because that would be detrimental to his health and it's why he can understand the caution.

Drip feeding information really is unhelpful as it results in not being able to fully answer.

[pendlewitch]

If he is an alcoholic the officer would be correct to treat him as vulnerable, certainly the custody sergeant would take it into consideration when detaining him. As an alcoholic they can't put him in the cells to sober up as I described in post #12 because that would be detrimental to his health and it's why he can understand the caution.

Drip feeding information really is unhelpful as it results in not being able to fully answer.

Like I said I am not legally trained. After 15 years of being dropped kicked from 2 years old, beaten, starved and subjected to horrendous abuse, does leave its mark.