HELP court summons received

[Viney]

DWDC&T on the way to work...normal day for me then

Hope you get it sorted fella. Nothing to add other than whats been said really. Popping that weelie past the nunnary and school wasnt such a good idea now was it

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Evidence against the prosecution which was in police posession was deliberately omitted from the evidence preented to the court in my case.

Surely it is for the defence to present evidence against the prosecution. The only responsibility is to make the evidence available to the defendant.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

No, they pushed a false version of events as hard as the could with achieving a prosecution the only goal.

Surely they presented their interpretation of events to gain a prosecution as they thought you were guilty. You weren't, of course, and the court found the fact of that.

Originally Posted by simesb

Surely it is for the defence to present evidence against the prosecution. The only responsibility is to make the evidence available to the defendant.



Surely they presented their interpretation of events to gain a prosecution as they thought you were guilty. You weren't, of course, and the court found the fact of that.

Contrary to popular belief the Police are not actually the prosection. We are evidence gatherers, we gather evidence, both prosection and defence, and put it before the Crown, who will disclose it to the defence, the crown and defence then decided what to do with it!

Or certainly that's the case up here!

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Contrary to popular belief the Police are not actually the prosection. We are evidence gatherers, we gather evidence, both prosection and defence, and put it before the Crown, who will disclose it to the defence, the crown and defence then decided what to do with it!

I know that, and I wasn't totally clear in what I said. My point was that the prosecution does not need to disclose evidence to a court that doesn't help their prosecution, but they can't hide it from the defence team.

Originally Posted by simesb

I know that, and I wasn't totally clear in what I said. My point was that the prosecution does not need to disclose evidence to a court that doesn't help their prosecution, but they can't hide it from the defence team.

Yeh, spot on. And they really can't hide it with Disclosure!

[embee]

As far as I'm aware, in England we have an adversarial system, the prosecution and defence are "adversaries", i.e. opponents or antagonists, or enemies even. Each is there to present and argue their version of the case and to "win", i.e. gain a verdict in their favour. The Court is not there specifically to determine the "truth" as in an "inquisitorial" system.

I'm surprised that yu didn't receive the prosecution evidence with the summons, the CPS would normally do this under the advance disclosure rules. So contact the CPS office and demand it. At least then you'll know what you're up against.

Originally Posted by davepreston

so while not reguarded as such in the legal statue a conviction is what leads to a penalty for a event which contravined the rules

From what I remember about the FPN the nice man gave me at Blair Atholl, it states quite categorically that it wasn't a conviction. So I think MBK is right here.

done that just for you ralph

After going round in circles for a while i was told in order to get evidence i would have to write a letter requesting it to the police who would the forward it to the cps who will decide whether i get disclosure or not :S. The woman on the phone made it sound as if they basically did not have to disclose the evidence to me.