Police will always arrest if an accusation is made

[Casehardened]

For many who have found themselves in the position of being falsely accused the shock and shame of being arrested and questioned is difficult to cope with. It could well be that this is the first time this has ever happened to them.

It may be of some small comfort that the police’s own guidelines say that if an accusation is made, the suspect named by the accuser will be arrested and interviewed.(presumably regardless of any merit in the accusation or not!)

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q133.htm?letter=S

So it’s not a personal crusade by the police, they may not really even want to arrest, just that due to Harrier(sic) Harman’s crusade to increase the rape conviction rate, they are obliged to take action.

This website is actually quite useful, though of course it’s slanted towards the ‘victim’, as the database of FAQ’s can be searched for information. If a particular answer can’t be found you can ask the question, though of course they won’t deal with specific cases, only generalities.

[RFLH]

well you live up to your name!

You'll find that most people who want advice or request it, will receive it by pm.

This is an open forum and we know that the police aren't averse to looking, which is why its kept to generalities rather than going into great detail - any details may be edited.

A lot goes off behind the scenes by many, so it appears that help or advice isn't given.

Everyone who is a 'victim' posts on here, which is the whole point of the site!

[Rights Fighter]

Maybe the OP refers to the link he posted up rather than to these forums?

The link brings us to this information:

Any person reporting historic sexual abuse to the Police will be treated seriously and the matter will be investigated. However, the only assurance that can be given is that the matter will be thoroughly investigated and if the perpetrator is located they will be arrested and interviewed.

Beyond that no other predictions about the outcome of any case can ever be made and it is important that any person in such circumstances has realistic expectations. The passage of time, means that much of the evidence may have been lost, although corroboration of early reports, medical and social services records are examples of lines of enquiry that may be pursued. Once the suspect has been interviewed, the case papers will almost certainly be forwarded to the CPS who will have to look at:

• the legality;
• the public interest of mounting a prosecution;
• the prospect of a conviction;

before deciding to take the matter forward.

I think that the use of the word "perpetrator" suggests that the suspect is deemed guilty prior to investigation.

[Casehardened]

Oh dear RFHL, my first post and I've already upset someone

I actually meant that the 'Ask the Police' website was useful although slanted towards the 'victim', not this website.

Not meaning, of course, that this website is not useful, oops how did I dig myself in this hole

[Rights Fighter]

The problem is, although you say:

it’s not a personal crusade by the police, they may not really even want to arrest, just that due to Harrier(sic) Harman’s crusade to increase the rape conviction rate, they are obliged to take action.

.... some police will manipulate the evidence to improve the chances of a conviction/detection. I know that this is true due to the work I do in reviewing paperwork for appeals against conviction.

One guy was inside when his computer was examined and found to have child porn on it. His stepson admitted downloading it in the January of that year. In May of the year the police went to interview the inmate hoping to pin it on him DESPITE the fact that they already knew who the perpetrator was. This was done to strengthen the case against the inmate.

The handwritten notes by the copper were placed into what is known as the "unused bundle" AFTER trial. Unfortunately we can't prove that. Defence at trial say they never saw them. Crown said they were there.

One word against another - yet again.

[RFLH]

I'll let you off - just this once!

[Casehardened]

Quote Rights Fighter
<<<.... some police will manipulate the evidence to improve the chances of a conviction/detection. I know that this is true due to the work I do in reviewing paperwork for appeals against conviction.>>>



Yes the police's job is to obtain evidence for prosecutions/convictions rather than let the suspect off the hook.

The problem is that while the general public get annoyed if the police manipulate evidence to get a conviction in any other sort of case, with suspects accused of sexual offences it is more a case of 'good job, they deserve it'

[Rights Fighter]

Yes the police's job is to obtain evidence for prosecutions/convictions rather than let the suspect off the hook.

You make it sound like that the police on occasion let sex offenders off the hook. I suppose sometimes they do as mistakes can be made.

However, some police officers will investigate sex cases properly (leaving other alleged crimes out of this) and others will gather evidence to ensure a conviction but will not take into consideration anything that might assist the suspect, or follow that evidence up.

I've known some cases where the police have snaffled potential defence witnesses, telling them that they are now witnesses for the Crown and that they cannot talk to defence witnesses. These are then dropped on the first day of trial and too late for defence to make use of them.

I've known officers go back to the complainant having been given alibi evidence only for the complainant to make a new statement to change her evidence, citing "trauma" of the alleged assault.

I am currently dealing with a case where the complainant claims that something happened on holiday for several years on the trot. The suspect can prove that for certain years he did not holiday with that person so the indictment has widened the goalposts to encompass some years before the alleged offences and some after. This happens all the time.

[Casehardened]

It is indeed all very one-sided.

I would imagine that if a police officer were caught out in manipulating evidence to ensure a charge/conviction, no action would be taken against them except perhaps a half-hearted reprimand, such as "try not to get caught out next time"

[Rights Fighter]

Some coppers will do the job properly and this is reflected in the several NFA'd cases we've seen recently.