Code of Practice

Spread the love

Following my last blog about the continued failure of the police, I received a letter from the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) of whom I had also raised concerns to.

A fair response

The contents of their letter was, to be fair, very educational and informative.

Within the said letter it stated that the police and CPS operate on a policy (or frame work) called ”The Full Code Test’.

Obviously, I then ‘googled’ the said phrase and followed what they said and measured how it matched up with my experiences. It was to be fair, enlightening, and showed that they had not operated fairly in my case.

Checked and cross referenced

The specific page I used was;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

Below is the response I then sent to their complaints officer of whom offered me the insight to how the CPS and police work when considering a prosecution.

As stated, this was pretty enlightening. So as a result I decided to publish my response so that anyone else in the same or similar position can also cross reference their own story with the police and CPS response.

For obvious reasons I have hidden the names of specific people.

My response

Dear Mrs XXXXX

Thank you for your letter dated 12th December 2017.

I have of course, noted the contents. I am without doubt deeply disappointed with your response and as such I would like you to reconsider based on what I wish to highlight.

As with your letter I too would like to break down my response into two parts, namely ‘that I was arrested and charged although there was no evidence’ and ‘the CPS did not want to pursue a prosecution against my ex’.

As a result of your letter I too researched your policy of the ‘Full Code Test’ and as a result it appears to give me greater strength and emphasis to push my complaint to you further.

As you know there appears to be 2 sections that you have to consider (I don’t intend to teach you to suck eggs – but I feel it is a relevant point to raise).

Firstly, if we consider The Evidential Stage it states;

  • Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction….

The only evidence that my ex supplied was a statement by her daughter (hardly impartial) who clearly stated in her statement that she was not in the room when the supposed assault took place. Furthermore, there was no photographic evidence or any other forms of evidence to support my ex’s claim.  Furthermore, the supposed incident happened several weeks previously to her malicious 999 call to the police.

Hence, I will highlight the fact that there was sufficient evidence to satisfy any prospect of a conviction.

  • The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.

 It appeared following my questioning that at no point was my defence ever taken into consideration (I will of course go into greater detail of within the second section of this email).

As stated the whole case rested on a weak statement from a biased witnessed who actually didn’t witness anything. I am sure that you are aware this is far from satisfactory to consider any form of a successful prosecution.

With this being the only form of evidence, it was clear that an objective and impartial and reasonable magistrate would not convict – there is clearly a lack of evidence. As a point of note, this was also stated by the magistrates summing up at the end of the hearing.

In effect there was nothing to contribute or support a view of beyond reasonable doubt.

  • When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors should ask themselves the following:

Can the evidence be used in court?

Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:

  1. the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and

I appreciate that as this was the only evidence she had thus the magistrates had nothing else to consider

the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.

As stated this was the only piece of evidence of which the magistrates had available to consider

  • Is the evidence reliable?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.

The evidence has questionable quality. It was written by her 17-year-old daughter who obviously wished to support her mother, thus was biased and lacked integrity. Furthermore, she also stated that she was not in the room when the supposed incident happened.

This was the only piece of evidence available so could not be supported by any other form of evidence.

Furthermore, the incident supposedly happened several weeks before the 999 call to the police. I could not recall what I was doing on that suggested date let alone claim to have assaulted her. It all seems very convenient on her behalf to suggest such a date. Hence, based on The Full Code of which you operate, her claim and evidence does not stand up to reliability, accuracy and integrity.

  • Is the evidence credible?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.

I think I have proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

Next, I would like to consider The Public Interest Stage.

As you are aware this is a large section to cover so I will be as brief as I can highlighting failures at this stage.

In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

I struggle to identify any area of protecting the public interest in this case.

I have a good standing within the community and have a history of good character. To support this fact the occupations that I have held and still hold would require me to be of good character. I served as an Officer in the RAF, I am a fully qualified teacher and a paramedic.

4.12 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:

  1. How serious is the offence committed?

The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.

According to her statement I had supposedly spat at my ex. Well if this had happened I am sure she would have photographed it to support her claim (but there were no photographs as the event had never actually happened). I assume the idea of claiming to have spat at her would mean that there were no long-lasting bruises to call upon – it’s all very convenient.  Furthermore, I would like to suggest that the act of spitting is not really putting the public to any form of risk of further harm or damage.

  1. What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

Culpability is likely to be determined by the suspect’s level of involvement; the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned; whether they have previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail; or whilst subject to a court order; whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated; and the suspect’s age or maturity (see paragraph d) below for suspects under 18).

As stated I have no criminal record, I am of good character and my careers endorse this fact. Furthermore, I can argue that every human being is also capable of spitting, hense it’s an irrelevant argument.

  • The cost to the CPS prosecution service and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty (Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 12 a) to g), but cost is a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest).

I dread to think of the costs of this case. When no true and scrutable evidence was really supplied and was not really held in the interests of the public.

This now brings me to the second part of this email.

I currently have a complaint on-going against  Inspector XXXXXX. The complaint is to question why he has not pursued an arrest of my ex based on your principles of prosecution.

Following my acquittal, I raised a complaint to West Mercia Police stating that my complaint of domestic abuse had not been considered or investigated. The reply I had from Inspector XXXXXX was far from satisfactory and did not stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, the complaint is still within the processing stages.

However, based on your principles I would like to highlight why I consider to have a justifiable case for prosecution as opposed to the case you had upon myself.

Firstly, if we consider The Evidential Stage;

  • Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

At the time of my arrest I informed the police officer that I held diaries, emails and texts, witness statements and evidence from my work (XXXXX XXXXX Ambulance Service) highlighting the history of abuse I had endured at the hands of my ex-partner. At no point has this ever been called upon or requested. In effect I am able to supply evidence from a range of individual and professional witnesses.

I am sure that with my evidence it would be more likely to secure a prosecution that the case you had against me.

  • The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.

I would consider that based on the same principles you applied to my case you would find enough evidence to pursue a prosecution against my ex. As stated I have a range of statements from independent people to prove I was a victim of her abuse and other evidence of which could be supplied.

  •  When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors should ask themselves the following:

Can the evidence be used in court?

Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:

  1. the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and

It would be due to its range and depth

  1. the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.

I have far greater evidence than that used against me.

  • Is the evidence reliable?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.

I have medical evidence as could be supplied by my GP. I also hold evidence from my employer (XXXXXX XXXX  Ambulance Service) of whom I would argue would be independent and high with integrity. I also hold statements from a range of people from all manner of backgrounds that were aware of the abuse my ex subjected me to.

  • Is the evidence credible?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.

It is credible (see my answer above). It has been supplied from independent people with a range of views and history of my case.

I would now like to consider The Public Interest Stage

  • In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

This for me is an area of concern. I learnt that she has a history of abusing her partners. She had previously sought prosecutions against two of her exs for a range of various reasons. Furthermore, and this is my major concern, she works with young children at a local primary school. To put this into perspective, if I knew the past history and temperament of this member of staff I would not allow my children to attend such a school. I don’t think this is an unreasonable approach as the evidence I have is beyond reasonable doubt.

  •  It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.

 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:

  1. How serious is the offence committed?

The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.

When deciding the level of seriousness of the offence committed, prosecutors should include amongst the factors for consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm to the victim by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).

This clause raises a number of options.

Firstly, are you able to prosecute based on wasting everyone’s time on a none winnable case based on false evidence?

Secondly, my ex has a track record of abuse against me and other men. Surely this must be within the realms of public interest?

Thirdly, I hold evidence of abuse against myself.

Fourthly, I always assumed it was illegal to request a witness to lie on their behalf and under oath. As in this case where she got her daughter to make a false allegation to support her mother’s statement.

  1. What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

Culpability is likely to be determined by the suspect’s level of involvement; the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned; whether they have previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail; or whilst subject to a court order; whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated; and the suspect’s age or maturity (see paragraph d) below for suspects under 18).

Prosecutors should also have regard when considering culpability as to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from any significant mental or physical ill health as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether it is likely to be repeated and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.

I would consider that she had planned the 999 call for some time. Especially when she claimed to have been a victim several weeks before the call. Also some thought and consideration would have gone into the thought of what she wanted to claim.

As stated she has a track record of making these allegations (of which have always been dismissed). Hence I consider her actions to be premeditated and planned against myself. With this operation alone I would argue that she is still considered to be a risk to all males who come into contact with her.

  1. What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?

The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The greater the vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.

Due to what I had experienced I now suffer with PTSD, anxiety and depression which has been directly linked to the stresses I have recently endured by my ex, the arrest and the subsequent pursuit of some form of equal justice. To-date, I have still not returned to work.

This has also re-enforced the view that male victims of domestic abuse are ignored by the authorities and as a result don’t bother to report such crimes. I would, therefore, assume that this is a case that is essential to the protection of the public.

Prosecutors must also have regard to whether the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics. The presence of any such motivation or hostility will mean that it is more likely that prosecution is required.

Based on my ex’s history and they way she has brought her daughters up, it would appear that she is a man hater. She has openly talked about how all men are ‘bastards’. Thus she is specifically motivated against males. This is further enforced by her track record of trying to prosecute other men.

In deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.

As previously stated, I now suffer with PTSD, anxiety and depression of which my GP directly contribute to the stresses I have recently endured by my ex, the arrest and the subsequent pursuit of some form of equal justice. To-date, I have still not returned to work.

This has also re-enforced the view that male victims of domestic abuse are ignored by the authorities and as a result don’t bother to report such crimes. I would, therefore, assume that this is a case that is essential to the protection of the public.

My confidence with the police and the legal system has now developed into a view of total distrust and failure. The one and only time I had ever requested help from the police they failed me on a number of occasions. Furthermore, there are no viable male refuges of which I could have moved to.

  1. What is the impact on the community?

The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. In considering this question, prosecutors should have regard to how community is an inclusive term and is not restricted to communities defined by location.

As stated she has targeted males to make false accusations and has manipulated her own daughters to hold men in low esteem.

I hope that these points raised will help you to reconsider my original complaint. Although I am aware that you have no powers over the police I am sure you can see (by your own measurements) that I was treated unfairly and heavy-handedly. I also include the CPS within that specific claim.

I trust that you will look again at my complaint.

I look forward to hearing from you again in due course.

 

Kind regards

 

3 Replies to “Code of Practice”

  1. Wholly God Oh’ Mighty! I an not believe the fight that is still continuing, and what you have to do to prove your story is legit. Man, my heart goes out to you. Here in the states, I doubt that this would have dragged out for this amount of time, but then again… I don’t hear of that many cases that are brought up in the news, at least not local news.
    This is deplorable!! I’m so sorry it has gone on to this extent.

  2. Hello Beckie
    I trust you are well.
    I now think it is a point of principle. Under other circumstances I probably would have moved on from it and put it down to experience. But in this case the principle is the lack of decency and equality in law.
    Although I was acquitted there are many other out there or others yet to experience this in due time that need to be heard and protected from the immorality of it all.
    I consider the legal system in this country to be an utter arse that is run by incompetent and short sighted people who are not fit for purpose.
    I was, like so many others, brought up to believe that if you live a decent life you can be expected to be protected by a law that has taken centuries to develop and evolve. Yet, you barely need to scratch below the surface to see the ugly truth for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *