BoxRec

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... 047265[url]

No charges brought for the attack?

Maybe the Old Bill are thinking 'street justice'

There wasn't enough evidence it was him and he denied doing it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody likes a hero

Yeh it will just be lack of evidence and the lad will have just been advised to 'no comment' all questions. Unless the police get some CCTV or witnesses then it'll probably never get anywhere.

Shame really as they will know it's him. Hope he gets the justice he deserves on the street.

I don't get it - I assume that the police didn't just arrest some random and that they had some reason to arrest this person in the first place ?

Also, I would have thought that Crolla could identify the person? (Unless he has chosen not too - which would be strange as he chose to get involved in the situation)

It's one thing knowing who has committed a crime and quite another being able to build enough evidence to be likely to result in a conviction.

When you get an adrenalin dump it's not easy to remember faces, our systems don't work like that, and when an incident concludes with you getting cracked with a lump of concrete it would become even more troublesome.

The lack of evidence must be frustrating as I imagine they'd love to prosecute in a case like this after the media attention it's received.

bripez wrote:I don't get it - I assume that the police didn't just arrest some random and that they had some reason to arrest this person in the first place ?

Also, I would have thought that Crolla could identify the person? (Unless he has chosen not too - which would be strange as he chose to get involved in the situation)

You need to have a strong case based on the evidence the investigating officers have gathered, if the suspect/s have denied it, and there's no witnesses, plus the possibility of the victims memory being unreliable for obvious reasons given what happened to him, you can't convince a jury of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Don't think you could get fingerprints off the concrete slab unfortunately.

If the glove dont fit you must acquit

maybe he didnt do it? maybe the whole "burgled house, boxing hero, street punk" story wasn't real?

bripez wrote:I don't get it - I assume that the police didn't just arrest some random and that they had some reason to arrest this person in the first place ?

Also, I would have thought that Crolla could identify the person? (Unless he has chosen not too - which would be strange as he chose to get involved in the situation)

The police have to show that they had a reasonable suspicion to arrest someone. It's not a particularly high test to satisfy and is largely subjective, which in this case could have constituted a member of the public anonymously ringing up the police and giving the suspect's name to the police.

To answer your question, it is sometimes the case that the police do arrest people for what appears to others as for no good reason. I have experience of people being arrested previously who were in no way involved in a crime but the police essentially arrested them on tenuous link wanting them to disclose 'intelligence' from the street about what was being said about who was responsible for a particular crime. The police also have a PR role here, which is to demonstrate to the public that they are making progress with the investigation and making arrests.

I'm amazed how many people assume that because the suspect was arrested and interviewed by police that he is responsible for this offence and has 'got lucky' with a lack of evidence. It's very possible that the suspect wasn't actually involved and didn't have any knowledge.

I don't know and I certainly won't make any ridiculous statements such as "I hope he gets his justice/comeuppance" because what we don't need is a another potentially innocent man getting unlawfully and unjustly assaulted.

Crolla's a nice guy but when you here storys like this you wish these bastard burglars had attempted this on someone like Michael Gomez,he'd destroy evidence just to dish out his own justice

Either him or big Duncan Ferguson

It always amuses me when people on topics such as these assume that the suspect is guilty, completly forgetting that our criminal justice system is supposed to work on the basis that a suspect is innocent until proven gulty. Which isnt just cliche. Innocent people do get arrested, lets not kid ourselves.

For someone in this topic to say that the suspect must have simply given a 'no comment' interview and somehow 'got lucky' with a lack of evidenc is a completely speculative and meaningless statement. It is also very possible that the suspect wasnt involved and gave a full comment interview and was duly released without charge...

An interesting point is if you have been arrested for an offence (for example; you argue with your missus, youre both drunk and she says you push her, but you didnt. She wants you out of the house and calls police. She makes an initial complaint but ultimately decides she doesnt support a prosecution and wants you home. You give an interview to police and deny the offence) and are released without charge (no further action). The police national computer will record your arrest and automatically state that no futher action was taken owing to insufficient evidence to secure a reasonable prospect of conviction. That phrase is actually loaded against the innocent suspect and implies that he did commit the offence but he 'got lucky' owing to a lack of evidence. There are possible adverse implications of this when the information is shared, such as being prohibited from working with child or vulnerable people etc.

The only way you can correct the record to show that you were 'innocent' is to write to your chief constable asking him to amend the record. Then you essentially have to provide evidence of your innocence, even though you could clearly have been wrongly arrested.

Nanny state or what!

liamlion wrote:It always amuses me when people on topics such as these assume that the suspect is guilty, completly forgetting that our criminal justice system is supposed to work on the basis that a suspect is innocent until proven gulty. Which isnt just cliche. Innocent people do get arrested, lets not kid ourselves.

For someone in this topic to say that the suspect must have simply given a 'no comment' interview and somehow 'got lucky' with a lack of evidenc is a completely speculative and meaningless statement. It is also very possible that the suspect wasnt involved and gave a full comment interview and was duly released without charge...

An interesting point is if you have been arrested for an offence (for example; you argue with your missus, youre both drunk and she says you push her, but you didnt. She wants you out of the house and calls police. She makes an initial complaint but ultimately decides she doesnt support a prosecution and wants you home. You give an interview to police and deny the offence) and are released without charge (no further action). The police national computer will record your arrest and automatically state that no futher action was taken owing to insufficient evidence to secure a reasonable prospect of conviction. That phrase is actually loaded against the innocent suspect and implies that he did commit the offence but he 'got lucky' owing to a lack of evidence. There are possible adverse implications of this when the information is shared, such as being prohibited from working with child or vulnerable people etc.

The only way you can correct the record to show that you were 'innocent' is to write to your chief constable asking him to amend the record. Then you essentially have to provide evidence of your innocence, even though you could clearly have been wrongly arrested.

Nanny state or what!

On these estates (I don't know how it works in Bournemouth) everyone knows via the Jungle Telegraph exactly who it is - there isn't hundreds of suspects to choose from, it is the same scrotes time and time again and in this case - I would say the probability of it being the right person they hauled in at being 98.9%.

TheCobra wrote:Yeh it will just be lack of evidence and the lad will have just been advised to 'no comment' all questions. Unless the police get some CCTV or witnesses then it'll probably never get anywhere.

Shame really as they will know it's him. Hope he gets the justice he deserves on the street.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

Someone did it so not everyone is innocent.

Innocent till proven guilty is in a legal sense, doesn't mean they don't know it was him, they just can't prove it in court.

palooka wrote:Someone did it so not everyone is innocent.

So that makes it okay for there to be a presumption of guilt then? You have to prove your innocence then? Good God...

There is a blancing act here; to ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly convicted and that the guilty are convicted. You don't just condemn everyone on the basis that someone did it.

Fat Git wrote:

liamlion wrote:It always amuses me when people on topics such as these assume that the suspect is guilty, completly forgetting that our criminal justice system is supposed to work on the basis that a suspect is innocent until proven gulty. Which isnt just cliche. Innocent people do get arrested, lets not kid ourselves.

For someone in this topic to say that the suspect must have simply given a 'no comment' interview and somehow 'got lucky' with a lack of evidenc is a completely speculative and meaningless statement. It is also very possible that the suspect wasnt involved and gave a full comment interview and was duly released without charge...

An interesting point is if you have been arrested for an offence (for example; you argue with your missus, youre both drunk and she says you push her, but you didnt. She wants you out of the house and calls police. She makes an initial complaint but ultimately decides she doesnt support a prosecution and wants you home. You give an interview to police and deny the offence) and are released without charge (no further action). The police national computer will record your arrest and automatically state that no futher action was taken owing to insufficient evidence to secure a reasonable prospect of conviction. That phrase is actually loaded against the innocent suspect and implies that he did commit the offence but he 'got lucky' owing to a lack of evidence. There are possible adverse implications of this when the information is shared, such as being prohibited from working with child or vulnerable people etc.

The only way you can correct the record to show that you were 'innocent' is to write to your chief constable asking him to amend the record. Then you essentially have to provide evidence of your innocence, even though you could clearly have been wrongly arrested.

Nanny state or what!

On these estates (I don't know how it works in Bournemouth) everyone knows via the Jungle Telegraph exactly who it is - there isn't hundreds of suspects to choose from, it is the same scrotes time and time again and in this case - I would say the probability of it being the right person they hauled in at being 98.9%.

Your stat of 98.9% is based on what scientific and objective study? Absolutely meaningless stat...

liamlion wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

liamlion wrote:It always amuses me when people on topics such as these assume that the suspect is guilty, completly forgetting that our criminal justice system is supposed to work on the basis that a suspect is innocent until proven gulty. Which isnt just cliche. Innocent people do get arrested, lets not kid ourselves.

For someone in this topic to say that the suspect must have simply given a 'no comment' interview and somehow 'got lucky' with a lack of evidenc is a completely speculative and meaningless statement. It is also very possible that the suspect wasnt involved and gave a full comment interview and was duly released without charge...

An interesting point is if you have been arrested for an offence (for example; you argue with your missus, youre both drunk and she says you push her, but you didnt. She wants you out of the house and calls police. She makes an initial complaint but ultimately decides she doesnt support a prosecution and wants you home. You give an interview to police and deny the offence) and are released without charge (no further action). The police national computer will record your arrest and automatically state that no futher action was taken owing to insufficient evidence to secure a reasonable prospect of conviction. That phrase is actually loaded against the innocent suspect and implies that he did commit the offence but he 'got lucky' owing to a lack of evidence. There are possible adverse implications of this when the information is shared, such as being prohibited from working with child or vulnerable people etc.

The only way you can correct the record to show that you were 'innocent' is to write to your chief constable asking him to amend the record. Then you essentially have to provide evidence of your innocence, even though you could clearly have been wrongly arrested.

Nanny state or what!

On these estates (I don't know how it works in Bournemouth) everyone knows via the Jungle Telegraph exactly who it is - there isn't hundreds of suspects to choose from, it is the same scrotes time and time again and in this case - I would say the probability of it being the right person they hauled in at being 98.9%.

Your stat of 98.9% is based on what scientific and objective study? Absolutely meaningless stat...

Based on the local jungle telegraph pointing him out - usually has that percentage of accuracy.

liamlion wrote:

palooka wrote:Someone did it so not everyone is innocent.

So that makes it okay for there to be a presumption of guilt then? You have to prove your innocence then? Good God...

There is a blancing act here; to ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly convicted and that the guilty are convicted. You don't just condemn everyone on the basis that someone did it.

Of course the police are presuming that anyone they arrest is guilty, it's up to the prosecution service to see if there's enough evidence and for a magistrate, judge or jury to presume innocence. The police presume everyone is guilty. Is that fair? No, it's not but if they presumed everyone they come across was innocent they'd not arrest anyone.

SNG wrote:Innocent till proven guilty is in a legal sense, doesn't mean they don't know it was him, they just can't prove it in court.

Until it can be proven then it's nothing more than a hunch. I've always felt quite strongly about so-called "street justice" as a friend of mine was left quite badly hurt after he was wrongly accused for a crime.

banjo wrote:

SNG wrote:Innocent till proven guilty is in a legal sense, doesn't mean they don't know it was him, they just can't prove it in court.

Until it can be proven then it's nothing more than a hunch. I've always felt quite strongly about so-called "street justice" as a friend of mine was left quite badly hurt after he was wrongly accused for a crime.

I'm not about street justice. I agree with you. I'm talking in the sense of innocent until proven guilty, the police knowing they have the right man is very different from being able to convict him.

palooka wrote:

liamlion wrote:

palooka wrote:Someone did it so not everyone is innocent.

So that makes it okay for there to be a presumption of guilt then? You have to prove your innocence then? Good God...

There is a blancing act here; to ensure that the innocent aren't wrongly convicted and that the guilty are convicted. You don't just condemn everyone on the basis that someone did it.

Of course the police are presuming that anyone they arrest is guilty, it's up to the prosecution service to see if there's enough evidence and for a magistrate, judge or jury to presume innocence. The police presume everyone is guilty. Is that fair? No, it's not but if they presumed everyone they come across was innocent they'd not arrest anyone.

You are 100% incorrect in your statement.

Firstly, the role of the police is to be an impartial investigator.

Often, the detention of a suspect will lead to a recorded interview under caution. The usual legal justification for the arrest and detention is to obtain and preserve evidence and not because the person is presumed guilty by the police. If the police receive a complaint of a criminal offence they are duty bound to investigate it.

The police gather evidence and put a case to the cps for a charging decision. If there is a reasonable prospect of conviction then the detainee will be charged.

In court the prosecution (cps) have to prove a defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The police, no doubt in certain circumstances do presume that a detainee is guilty from the outset but they wouldn't actually be carrying out their duties properly and they would do well to consider the case case of the Guildford Four and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which governs the Police's role and conduct in relation to detainees and investigations. An intelligent investigator would not form any preconceptions until he is faced with all of the evidence and can then make an informed decision