Objective or Subjective Charging?
None will cheer as loudly as our beleaguered police forces at the news that the decision to charge on a wide number of offences is to be removed from the slippery hands of the CPS and put back into the ample maw of the custody sergeant.
Where the Crown Prosecution Service was endlessly in thrall to the wonders of ‘targets’ and the economic ‘possibilities’ of a successful prosecution, your average custody sergeant, faced with the hissing spitting, vomiting, cussing pride of his local council state took in a wide range of considerations.
Would the mindless scrota in front of him be inconvenienced by yet another appearance at the local magistrates’ court? Would the magistrates at last get the picture that this was a serial offender? Would PC Dobbins morale be raised by another notch on his belt in return for having been kicked near unconscious outside MacDonalds whilst arresting young Scrota? Would the young employee of MacDonalds feel more confident calling 999 next time Scrota and his mates appeared and tried to urinate in the French fries?
These are all perfectly valid outcomes of the forces of law and order, albeit subjective. Ones that were removed in 2003 from the control of the custody sergeant and handed to the CPS. The CPS after weeks of deliberation, concerning only the possibility of a conviction, and caring nothing for the wider concerns of the community would invariably decide that it was ‘not in the public interest’ – or at least their narrow, economically driven, vision of the public interest.
So a big hurrah for Theresa May, putting the power back where it should be? Maybe not.
One of the cases which the CPS did decide was in the public interest to charge, was that of Paul Chambers, the ‘Twitter’ hoax bomb caller, which Jack of Kent has covered extensively. Paul was charged under Section 127(1)(A) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003. Those little sub sections are important, for:
“In contrast with section 127(2)(a) and its predecessor subsections, which require proof of an unlawful purpose and a degree of knowledge, section 127(1)(a) provides no explicit guidance on the state of mind which must be proved against a defendant to establish an offence against the subsection.
Jack of Kent was of the opinion that the CPS understood this section to be strict liability – in other words that they would not need to prove any intention that the message was perceived as ‘menacing’.
In the event, the District Judge, by some remarkably obtuse reasoning which dismissed the defendant’s own statement as to what was going on inside his mind, decided that his intentions were menacing. Paul now has a £1,000 fine and a criminal record.
The CPS are showing a definite liking for Section 127 of the Communications Act, for there is another case bubbling away in the nether regions of England. That of Sarah Crickmer.
Sarah has been charged under Section 127(2)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003 with sending a false message by ‘public electronic communication network’ to ‘cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety’ on November 26th last year. There is no doubt that the CPS will have to prove intent this time.
Sarah is not a bored village layabout calling the fire brigade ‘for a laugh’. She is a freelance journalist. An experienced freelance journalist with a fine pedigree. Daughter-in-law of the legendary Clive Crickmer, and wife to Gareth Crickmer.
It is alleged that she falsely called out the mountain rescue team in Skiddaw during the devastating floods of last year in order to establish whether the volunteer rescue services had the ability to cover on-hill emergencies at a time mountain teams were at full stretch dealing with the floods.
She had already upset the local police by failing to adhere to a ‘do not disturb’ request put out by the Police in respect of the family of PC Bill Baker who was swept away during the devastating flooding while trying to save lives by directing motorists off a bridge which collapsed. Sarah knocked on his wife’s door and asked if she was prepared to give an interview. Something his wife was happy to give The Daily Telegraph.
The fact that she had done so appeared to be known by several of the police who have had cause to interview her during the past six months waiting for a decision from the CPS. They referred to it frequently. PC Bill Baker was a popular man.
It was not until last week that she was told whether she was to be charged or not – in the end they gave her exactly two hours to arrive at Workington Police Station or risk arrest – she lives in Newcastle on the other side of the country.
She managed to make the appointment and was duly charged and told she would have to appear on June 4th. She doesn’t have a solicitor appointed to act for her yet. She has gone away until next Monday. Even her husband can’t contact her.
Which may have an unfortunate side effect, for in conversation with West Allendale Magistrates Court today, I learned that the Police had, quote, ‘wrongly bailed her’.
West Allendale have her listed for May 21st, this Friday. If she doesn’t appear she will have broken her bail conditions and be subject to arrest. She doesn’t know that. I hope she is reading this.
Far be it from me to suggest that Workington Police are making life as difficult as possible for someone who has got up their noses – or that giving the decision to charge back to the local police is anything but good news. There are, however, some advantages to the ability to charge being retained in the hands of people far away taking an objective view. Sarah was charged on orders from the CPS – but her case is a gentle reminder that giving the ability to charge back to custody officers could result in subjective decisions to extract revenge.
What think you?
-
1
May 19, 2010 at 13:01 -
I think that IF we didn’t have a politicised CPS and Police ‘Service’, it would not matter which body had the power to lay charges. As we have both bodies apparently utterly disconnected from reality, and both obsessed with box-ticking and personal vendettas, it matters not one jot which one has the power, the outcome will always be the same; injustice, either in the form of prosecuting people for ridiculous ‘crimes’ or not prosecuting people when in reality they would have been hanged just 50 years ago.
-
2
May 19, 2010 at 13:11 -
Justice was done when the ample hands of Sgt Custody was in charge. In a very, very few cases, it went wobbly and appeals went through.
Mr Chambers would’ve had a cuff to the bonce and told to stop being a silly c**t.
See Life on Mars for details.
I know, I was that Plod, in those times. Plod had training, you know. Not a friggin’ degree.
-
3
May 19, 2010 at 13:13
-
-
4
May 19, 2010 at 13:25 -
If by any chance the CPS later come to believe that a police charging decision is wrong. will they simply not drop the case or amend the charge?
In any event it will not be either the Police nor the CPS that convicts, but a Court and based on the evidence. (Assuming that the decision is to proceed, and not by way of a Caution).
[Reminder to Uncle Marvo – generally “appeals” only follow a conviction which would tend to imply that the charging decision had at least some merit; appeals sometimes succeed even within the CPS-led framework].
I doubt that the proposed changes will make a huge difference.
-
5
May 19, 2010 at 14:31 -
Allerdale, not Allendale…
And anyone calling out the mountain rescue deliberately wrongly should be charged, just as if calling out any other emergency service. If she wanted to know if they were overstreched, she should have asked (in a pub, when they got down – they’re happy to chat normally). As mountain rescue is voluntary-funded, they tend to be honest about questions.
-
6
May 19, 2010 at 14:32 -
P.S. Although the police messing up procedure to settle a grudge (if this is what has been done) is not acceptable.
-
7
May 19, 2010 at 15:07 -
“Far be it from me to suggest that Workington Police are making life as difficult as possible for someone who has got up their noses…”
No matter to whom you give thecoower to charge, there has to be oversight and above all, there has to be consequences to getting it wrong, whether deliberately or accidentally. Only that is likely to bring about any changes.
-
8
May 19, 2010 at 15:09 -
Stupid iPhone keyboard! That should read ‘the power to charge’…
-
9
May 19, 2010 at 15:31 -
Would a local Custody Sergeant have charged a school teacher with Actual Bodily Harm for hitting the thumb of a disruptive pupil with A Pritt Stick? Resulting in a superficial injury.
After a very expensive trial, she has been found Not Guilty. I wonder how much that cost?
-
10
May 19, 2010 at 15:40 -
The closer the decision on charging and subsequent prosecution is to the folk affected by the offence the better the system will be. Similarly the closer overall strategy decisions are to the folk they affect the better that will make life as well.
Conditional approval (one or maybe two cheers) to Nick Clegg and Theresa May for their separate announcements on returning power to local authorities/citizens. The more of this the better IMHO.
But let’s see if they carry it through and change actually happens before they get the full three cheers. The Establishment inLondon has a long history of making sure power only moves one way.
-
11
May 19, 2010 at 16:30 -
FWIW
1. “Where the Crown Prosecution Service was endlessly in thrall to the wonders of ‘targets’ and the economic ‘possibilities’ of a successful prosecution, your average custody sergeant,…”
All cops have targets, & lots of ‘em.
2. “It is alleged that she falsely called out the mountain rescue team in Skiddaw during the devastating floods of last year in order to establish whether the volunteer rescue services had the ability to cover on-hill emergencies at a time mountain teams were at full stretch dealing with the floods.
So it’s OK for someone to sent the Fire Service on wild goose chases on 5th Nov when everyone knows they’re on full stretch?
3. “She … failing to adhere to a ‘do not disturb’ request … in respect of the family of PC Bill Baker who was swept away during the devastating flooding while trying to save lives by directing motorists off a bridge which collapsed. Sarah knocked on his wife’s door and asked if she was prepared to give an interview. Something his wife was happy to give The Daily Telegraph.”
His wife could make what decisions she likes.
IMHO ….Throw the book at her.
2.
-
12
May 19, 2010 at 16:49 -
How dare ANYONE even begin to think that a charge against a JOURNALIST could EVER be justified?
Their intent would ALWAYS be that of the Fearless Seeker After Truth.
-
13
May 19, 2010 at 17:24 -
Either way there are going to be abuses of power. However looking at the bigger picture I think that there would be fewer problems where the police charged rather than the CPS. You might get the odd case of police being pissed off with someone but in return you get a lot more sensible charging of the many hundreds of minor criminals. What should come with that power is reponsibility. If something was found to be wrong and deliberate there should be disciplinary action. And to ensure that action was taken, there should be publicity.
-
14
May 19, 2010 at 21:09 -
As someone in one of the Lake District Mountain Rescue Teams and someone heavily involved in the flooding last November, I struggle to believe that anyone could condone the actions of Ms Crickmer.
We are volunteers – who give up our time freely and will cheerily help anyone in trouble when asked, we try to not be judgemental about those who go out ill prepared. – although many people outside of MR suggest that we should “charge” or chastise people for not taking responsibillity for their actions.We also have families who worry every time we are called out.
The conditions were exceptional last November and a call at 5.30 was potentially putting team members on the hill at dusk, with the prospect of a potentially long night. As well as diverting resources from the emergency response, this was an extra worry for families whilst water lapped around their houses or was held back by a dry stone wall. This may sound melodramatic – but unless you were there you really will struggle to appreciate what happened over that couple of days.I agree with the general point that there are too many fiddly little laws or over regulation, but it saddens me to think anyone could consider Ms Crickmer as the victim in this. Be probing, be hard hitting, seek out the true story, but do not put peoples lives at risk.
“Sarah is not a bored village layabout calling the fire brigade ‘for a laugh’. She is a freelance journalist. An experienced freelance journalist with a fine pedigree.” No, she is not some layabout, she is worse, she appeared to demonstrate a callous disregard for the lives of Mountain Rescue volunteers. She would not have been in this position if she had in anyway shown this “pedigree”.
-
15
May 20, 2010 at 08:13 -
A well crafted response, MountainRescuer.
(Strange name : how many mountains have you rescued ?)
But seriously, folks … The leader of a mountain-rescue team or a chief fire officer might well deploy a team on exercise in the middle of such a crisis, just as the C.O. might bring his ship to action stations (general quarters) in the midst of an engine-room fire for the purpose of testing her battle readiness ; no journalist ever has the right to call out any emergency service for the purpose of conducting that test : it amounts to interfering with the operation of the service.
One with the right and authority to initiate such action has service-wide information not available to journalists ; moreover, knowing that the deployment he has started is an exercise, he is in a position to intervene and cancel it, should that prove necessary, something he could not do without that knowledge.
The procedural faults of the police in dealing with this particular case are another matter : two rongs don’t make a wright.
ΠΞ
-
-
16
May 19, 2010 at 21:30 -
I feel Joe Public (above) may be right. Anna, choose your fights wisely. Mind you, it is a pointer as to what we are to expect from whoever it is that decides whether to charge or not.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }