You are reading a single comment by @nick_h. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Perhaps you have misheard something at court. You say the Magistrate noted the defendant was clearly guilty - therefore an offence occurred. The part about 'good reason' in relation to the arrest is a legislative point and relies on PACE where the necessity for arrest are detailed - these cannot be made up by the Police there are clearly stated in the legislation. If there was fault on the Police in relation to the actual arrest, it would be easily seen and recorded.
TGR
@nick_h.
Oops, I should have put 'IMO' before 'guilty'. The officer was never accused of those things. The barrister and defendant wanted to play everything down and not magnify the case by attacking the officer with stuff which would have been impossible to prove. It could have become a jury trial with lots of media attention. The barrister was outstanding and the magistrate was the type who is realistic about police evidence. He said the defendant was clearly guilty but unfortunate because he was of good character and there was no good reason for him to have been taken into police custody. Which was tantamount to saying that all the officers lied about the circumstances of the arrest. The sentence was Bound Over for a year, i.e. stay out of trouble and your conviction is erased.