Emily Moore Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573622/Child-sex-abuse-victim-15-spends-20-hours-police-cell-judge-orders-ARRESTED-evidence-court-case.html Not really but I suppose if you've been searching for weeks it's the best you could come up with. The victim in your case had made a complaint and the case brought as a result. After leaving court she wasn't arrested and forced to give testify. She was arrested probably for wasting police time or more likely for contempt of court. Either way I'm sure that agreeing to testify got the family off the hook. But that is hardly the same as a victim being forced to bring charges or testify in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Not really but I suppose if you've been searching for weeks it's the best you could come up with. The victim in your case had made a complaint and the case brought as a result. After leaving court she wasn't arrested and forced to give testify. She was arrested probably for wasting police time or more likely for contempt of court. Either way I'm sure that agreeing to testify got the family off the hook. But that is hardly the same as a victim being forced to bring charges or testify in court. A witness can be compelled to give evidence. A victim cannot. It's a fairly unequivocal statement, which isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It's a fairly unequivocal statement, which isn't true. It is true but that won't convince an idiot like you who has no knowledge but has learned how to use Google. You carry on wasting your life & let Google be your friend.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is true but that won't convince an idiot like you who has no knowledge but has learned how to use Google. You carry on wasting your life & let Google be your friend.. :hihi: I guess that's a fingers in your ears kind of response, no worries the evidence is there for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't want to spoil a really entertaining spat but the following is how the law operates. A victim and / or witness who make a criminal justice act statement alleging a crime or providing evidence supporting the case provides that knowing they may have to give evidence at court. If a charge is brought based upon the complaint of the victim and supported by witness evidence then they provide the evidence required not only to bring that charge but also to prove it. If an accused denies the charge and there is a trial the witnesses will be required to attend. If they do not or indicate an unwillingness to attend for whatever reason the prosecution would first try and discover why the witness doesn't want to attend. There are plenty of provisions now for witness evidence to be read in the absence of that person actually being at court (fear/illness/death). If the witness demonstrates a reluctance to attend the prosecution would seek a witness summons. If the witness fails to attend having been served with a summons the next step is to seek a witness warrant. Once obtained the warrant is for the arrest of witness who is then brought to court in custody. That is in some cases where the offence is very serious and there is a substantial public interest in securing the attendance of the witness whose evidence is important done prior to trial and witnesses have been kept in prison to make sure they attend. It's not ideal nor common but in my experience it is used in the grave cases tried at the crown court. The daily fail example does not tell us the outcome of the case - would it's screaming headline been any different if the judges order having secured the witnesses attendance and then the a ---------- Post added 05-03-2014 at 20:34 ---------- I don't want to spoil a really entertaining spat but the following is how the law operates. A victim and / or witness who make a criminal justice act statement alleging a crime or providing evidence supporting the case provides that knowing they may have to give evidence at court. If a charge is brought based upon the complaint of the victim and supported by witness evidence then they provide the evidence required not only to bring that charge but also to prove it. If an accused denies the charge and there is a trial the witnesses will be required to attend. If they do not or indicate an unwillingness to attend for whatever reason the prosecution would first try and discover why the witness doesn't want to attend. There are plenty of provisions now for witness evidence to be read in the absence of that person actually being at court (fear/illness/death). If the witness demonstrates a reluctance to attend the prosecution would seek a witness summons. If the witness fails to attend having been served with a summons the next step is to seek a witness warrant. Once obtained the warrant is for the arrest of witness who is then brought to court in custody. That is in some cases where the offence is very serious and there is a substantial public interest in securing the attendance of the witness whose evidence is important done prior to trial and witnesses have been kept in prison to make sure they attend. It's not ideal nor common but in my experience it is used in the grave cases tried at the crown court. The daily fail example does not tell us the outcome of the case - would it's screaming headline been any different if the judges order having secured the witnesses attendance and based on her evidence the accused was convicted and got 15 years ? You can't force a person to make a complaint - powerful and perhaps overbearing officers can push a reluctant victim into making a complaint and that can work two ways. The victim of serious domestic abuse finally makes a statement or the police push it too hard and get a complaint statement made where it might not be appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 You can't force a person to make a complaint - powerful and perhaps overbearing officers can push a reluctant victim into making a complaint and that can work two ways. I don't think anyone's disputing that, the issue I was clearly addressing was one of compelling a victim to give evidence, during the course of events that will be post complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 and I hope that I have assisted in understanding what can actually happen once a complaint has been made and a person charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I suppose this could be a backlash as a result of police, cps and courts not taking these cases seriously enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The Bradford case - having issued a warrant to secure the attendance of the victim - she gave evidence and the defendant was convicted of serious offences and is now serving seven years Please check the daily fail headline tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Chris Denning admits abusing boys http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28660122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.