hHELP - maybe charged with a crime I did not commit

[CT]

In amongst all the barrack room lawyers on here, John has had the same advice from a serving copper and one retired CID officer.... this is all based on tainted identification evidence and it isn't going anywhere! I think John is probably making more of this than the cops are if the truth be told, but he's understandably stressed perhaps. I'd be laughing my socks off quite honestly in the same situation.

If and when John gets interviewed as a defendant in this case, either by arrest or otherwise, he'll be entitled to see the duty solicitor free of charge and to consult with him prior to any police interview as well as have him present during the interview. Until that happens he has no need to be speaking to solicitors or worrying unduly.

FITP - mate - anything said to the police is never defamation of character - otherwise they'd never be able to do their job - it's in confidence and the cops aren't going to publicly broadcast it. If Sainsburys staff start telling all the customers John's a thief that would be a different matter - but John is in fact the only person broadcasting this incident via this thread.

 

[big soft moose]

. Until that happens he has no need to be speaking to solicitors or worrying unduly.

.

thats true - but given that he is stressed and worrying unduly , speaking to a solicitor (on a 30 minuite free deal, or whatever) will help put his mind at rest that there case is without foundation far more so than a bunch of people on a forum saying the same thing

 

[odd jim]

thats true - but given that he is stressed and worrying unduly , speaking to a solicitor (on a 30 minuite free deal, or whatever) will help put his mind at rest that there case is without foundation far more so than a bunch of people on a forum saying the same thing

I see what you are saying here, but a solicitor on a 30 minute consultation without seeing any of the evidence in the case won't be able to advise him!

 

[big soft moose]

I see what you are saying here, but a solicitor on a 30 minute consultation without seeing any of the evidence in the case won't be able to advise him!

no - but no one here has seen any of the evidence and theres plenty of advice, both good and bad flying arround. - a solicitor will be able to advise him on the general legalities like who can press charges (ie the police not sainsburys), the standard of proof in law, the procedure if he is arrested etc - Also being able to take pro active action is better than sitting arround waiting for the sky to fall and imagining the worse

 

[CT]

Say that at this point in time you are representing yourself, so as your own legal representative, would like to see the tape.

It doesn't work like that. Once anyone is summoned or charged and bailed to appear at court, then the defendant or his legal representative get sent copies of all statements and exhibits under the Advanced Disclosure Rules. It's at this stage they'd either get a copy of the tape or be entitled to a viewing of it.

 

[CT]

It doesn't need a lot of working out what's happened here - they've either seen the car drive away from the pump- clocked it's a silver Vectra - the driver is wearing a baseball cap similar to John's and they've put 2 and 2 together and come with 5. We all know how much notice staff are taking of who's at the pumps other than (eventually) switching the power on. The first time they probably took any notice was in a panic as the car was driven off without payment.

The other possibility is that they never got a good look at the driver at all and they'e run the CCTV tape and 'identified' John. The only way that will work is if the tape is played in court and it's patently obvious that it is John without any doubt whatsoever. If the copper is saying it's 90% like John then that's nowhere near good enough.

Then we have John with a receipt for petrol from elsewhere within about an hour . How much petrol does his frickin tank hold and how much reasonable doubt do you have to introduce before this whole thing starts to look absurd. It's a different car anyway!

If the copper said he HAS to charge on the word of the witnesses then he's a clown. There has to be an intelligent assessment of the strength of the evidence and the likelihood of a conviction before you commit a case to court. Crown Prosecution service would drop this whole thing like a red hot brick and never authorise a prosecution on these circumstances.

 

[Lynton]

No - if the solicitor is free on a 30 minuite consultation speak to them first - dont call your motor legal unless you have to (like if you get arrested) because it might be "free" but its also a claim and it will put your premium up significantly (no claims protection doesnt usually apply to motor legal claims)

and theres no need to shout

A claim in the motor legal part of your insurance is NOT a claim on your motor insurance. As is glass etc.... it does NOT affect your claims history or NCB.

God I wish people knew what they were talking about before spouting off on forums! :shrug:

 

[big soft moose]

God I wish people knew what they were talking about before spouting off on forums! :shrug:

as you patently dont you could start by looking in a mirror - you are quite right that it isnt part of the same policy as your main motor insurance policy - that was kind of my point in saying that no claims protection on the main policy doesnt apply to a motor legal claim.

the point is that if you claim on any type of insurance policy whether thats house, pet, car, motor legal , womble or whatever (that doesnt have a protected no claims discount) the premium for that part of the policy package will be higher next time you come to renew (thats how insurance works - by managing risk - the longer you go without a claim the less it costs) - Glass is no different - I had two windscreens in a year 2 years ago (thats replacements not chip repairs) and when i came to renew my premium had gone up , when i asked why they said it was because i'd had two windscreen replacements so my assessed risk of having another one was was higher than standard

so QED you shouldnt claim on any policy unless you have to so suggesting that someone claim on a motor legal poliocy because its 'free' rather than taking an actually free session was misguided at best and irresponsible at worst.

 

[big soft moose]

It doesn't need a lot of working out what's happened here - they've either seen the car drive away from the pump- clocked it's a silver Vectra - the driver is wearing a baseball cap similar to John's and they've put 2 and 2 together and come with 5. We all know how much notice staff are taking of who's at the pumps other than (eventually) switching the power on. The first time they probably took any notice was in a panic as the car was driven off without payment.

The other possibility is that they never got a good look at the driver at all and they'e run the CCTV tape and 'identified' John. The only way that will work is if the tape is played in court and it's patently obvious that it is John without any doubt whatsoever. If the copper is saying it's 90% like John then that's nowhere near good enough.

Then we have John with a receipt for petrol from elsewhere within about an hour . How much petrol does his frickin tank hold and how much reasonable doubt do you have to introduce before this whole thing starts to look absurd. It's a different car anyway!

If the copper said he HAS to charge on the word of the witnesses then he's a clown. There has to be an intelligent assessment of the strength of the evidence and the likelihood of a conviction before you commit a case to court. Crown Prosecution service would drop this whole thing like a red hot brick and never authorise a prosecution on these circumstances.

I totally agree - although in scotland due to their slightly different system its the Procurator Fiscal who makes the decision on whether to prosecute. - but that aside you are right there's no way this would go to trial as there is simply insufficient evidence for a charge let alone a prosecution

just think how many actual criminals wouldnt get away with it if the sole evidence of a witness saying " well i'm fairly sure it was him guv, he had a baseball cap and everything " was really sufficient .

 

[whiteflyer]

I would not worry too much.

IF the forecourt staff state it WAS me in their opinion , I CAN be charged

That's not true at all, it doesn't not matter a hoot what the forecourt staff think, it's only if the Police or Procurator Fiscal Service think there is enough evidence that you would be charged.




EDIT: My slow typing as resulted in me just stating what has been said in a post above

 

[Yardbent]

...... Just my sense of humour.. hence the winky smilie thing at the end of the post.

public apology

sorry about the ''idiot' remarks

too much to drink

too much stress....

john

 

[Yardbent]

If it was me, once the nonsense is over I'd be seeing a lawyer regarding a defamation of character claim against Sainsbury's.

I'm sure the papers would love the story too.

Btw, you're entitled to one free legal aid consultation with a solicitor, so use it

thanks
went to bed but up at 2am...............

if I AM charged I thought about this, and I will goto Citizens Advice

john

 

[Gremlin]

No advice John just a big :hug2: and hope this gets sorted soon xx

 

[Rockshifter]

Hi John
Just read this.
You sent me an email on 23rd april at 18:36 - May help.
Hope you get things sorted.
I've PM you.

 

[Lynton]

as you patently dont you could start by looking in a mirror - you are quite right that it isnt part of the same policy as your main motor insurance policy - that was kind of my point in saying that no claims protection on the main policy doesnt apply to a motor legal claim.

the point is that if you claim on any type of insurance policy whether thats house, pet, car, motor legal , womble or whatever (that doesnt have a protected no claims discount) the premium for that part of the policy package will be higher next time you come to renew (thats how insurance works - by managing risk - the longer you go without a claim the less it costs) - Glass is no different - I had two windscreens in a year 2 years ago (thats replacements not chip repairs) and when i came to renew my premium had gone up , when i asked why they said it was because i'd had two windscreen replacements so my assessed risk of having another one was was higher than standard

so QED you shouldnt claim on any policy unless you have to so suggesting that someone claim on a motor legal poliocy because its 'free' rather than taking an actually free session was misguided at best and irresponsible at worst.

Thanks ,but, I know how insurance works.

Also if legal expenses are provided by DAS legal services, as an add on to a motor policy, then using their services will NOT affect your NCB / renewal premium. Such insurance is completely different to glass cover etc on a motor policy as there is no cost to the provider of the main part of the insurance policy. (The £20 for your legal fees goes to a 3rd party supplier, so no risk to the main insurer - hence no increase, unlike glass repair / replacement where they incur costs.)

Yes I am dumbing it down a bit, as to go into too much detail is irrelevant.


Now would you like cream or ice cream with your slice of humble pie?

 

[Yardbent]

Hi John
Just read this.
You sent me an email on 23rd april at 18:36 - May help.
Hope you get things sorted.
I've PM you.

wonderful - that's narrowed the gap

waiting for the Police next move
then will contact Legal Aid
or
ask for a Solicitor if I am to be interviewed

thanks ALL for the advice...................

 

[AndrewA123]

John,

What a terrible mess, all of which is none of your doing.

Hope this is resolved and you're cleared of all suspicion very soon mate.



PS: will you still be using Sainsbury's for fuel after all of this ???

 

[Yardbent]

John,



PS: will you still be using Sainsbury's for fuel after all of this ???

will go to best price regardless as I use about £7000pa.....:thumbsdown:

seems no defamation of character is possible [thread ^^]

but will write a complaint - hell may even get a food voucher......

 

[CT]

If you go into Sainsburys John - don't get mentioning this incident to staff while enquires are ongoing.

 

[realspeed]

Think about bringing a civil case for harrassment and mis identification causing undue stress and worry. As others have said you need to see a lawyer , you may be able to make a substantial financial claim against Sainsbury's. Also demand a copy of the video they say is you, a defence lawyer is entitled to have a copy and I believe you may well be entitled to a copy as well .

Realspeed

 

[joker2006]

Good luck mate hope you get it all sorted.

I must admitted the thread did bring a smile to my face. Not your situation but the fact of all the confusion and some of the replies you were getting.

I no its easier said then about the worrying thing but I'm sure it will all right its self soon.

 

[String]

You are worried, because decent honest folk do....

Chavs and bilkers would just laugh.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a cat in hells chance of you being charged or convicted of this.

 

[Yardbent]

THANKS MODS ..esp Marcel

who suggested a cookie search as TP dont record PMs or logon times

did a Computer Search for 23/04/11 and got this
.

I 'know' I'm going on and on about this ..... your poor bujjers are all i have to bore..

proves i was on the computer at 5;49PM onwards ... for those new here ...I was in Cambuslang at 4.32......

now wait to find out the time of the 'offense'...................:bang:

feel MUCH better -- off to work

 

[Lynton]

THANKS MODS ..esp Marcel

who suggested a cookie search as TP dont record PMs or logon times

did a Computer Search for 23/04/11 and got this
.

I 'know' I'm going on and on about this ..... your poor bujjers are all i have to bore..

proves i was on the computer at 5;49PM onwards ... for those new here ...I was in Cambuslang at 4.32......

now wait to find out the time of the 'offense'...................:bang:

feel MUCH better -- off to work

Surely that just proves someone was on a computer at such a time?

 

[Yardbent]

Surely that just proves someone was on a computer at such a time?

but I live alone here...and that can be proved

going round in circles here again

i said to the PC I was driving in Cambuslang from 12-4;30 and he said

''no your car was being driven - you cannot prove you were in it ''....FFS

 

[ding76uk]

They have to prove without doubt that it was you in the petrol station at that time. If they cannot do that, which based on someone saying it looked like you is not enough, then you will not be charged. Sounds like the police are trying to get a conviction and are pushing you to admit so they can up their figures. They have nothing concrete and they know it.

 

[CT]

John the cops would have seen the tape before they came to see you. If they thought it was you on the tape they'd have felt your collar there and then.

These cock ups happen all the time and it's perfectly reasonable for the cops to come and see you under the circumstances, but even on a cursory glance at the facts this is a non runner, which is why the cops are tools to make remarks stressing you out more than is necessary over it.

Don't be surprised if you hear no more about this - cops can be very thoughtless about contacting people after the event has passed, especially when they're involved in other things.

 

[mattyb]

''no your car was being driven - you cannot prove you were in it ''....FFS

That sounds a bit backwards, I would think that innocent until proven guilty means you don't have to prove you were in it. They have to prove you weren't. Someone in Sainsburies who didn't see your face and only saw the same type of extremely common car (no offence) without either your plates or taxi plates doesn't sound like much proof to me :shrug:

Sounds like a horrible situation being made worse by those involved in it, best of luck.

 

[nilagin]

but I live alone here...and that can be proved

going round in circles here again

i said to the PC I was driving in Cambuslang from 12-4;30 and he said

''no your car was being driven - you cannot prove you were in it ''....FFS

I thought you said you'd bought fuel in Morrisons. There must be cctv footage to confirm, did you pay cash or by card?

 

[Yardbent]

I thought you said you'd bought fuel in Morrisons. There must be cctv footage to confirm, did you pay cash or by card?

thanks Neil but that's irrelevant

I have a cash receipt at 4.32PM

but the 'drive-away' happened in Strathaven

the copper said ''a little later''... thus in their eyes still time to drive to Strathaven

i now have a computer record of me accessing files at 5.49PM = 1 hour later

as said above ^^^ it's not proof but I expect a lawyer will use it to his advantage

 

[Yardbent]

anyway TIME TO SIT BACK AND WAIT

FEEL A LOT BETTER BEING ABLE TO SOUND OFF HERE TO YOU ALL....

BELIEVE ME, IT'S NOT A NICE PLACE TO BE IN

 

[Big Andy]

If you can get video footage of you filling your car it will show you wearing different clothes and this will help as it takes time to get home and change then back out in a different car and home again to get on your computer. It all adds up to make their case look pants.

 

[wack61]

Does your car have a satnav in it that was switched on, most if not all satnavs have gps logging, if it's enabled it gives a constant log of where the satnav is at any time, whilst it may not be any use in proving you were somewhere else it might jog your memory as to where you were at the time.

The thing that ****es me off is they've spent millions on covering the whole country in cameras but innocent people still get hassled

 

[Yardbent]

Does your car have a satnav in it that was switched on, most if not all satnavs have gps logging, if it's enabled it gives a constant log of where the satnav is at any time, whilst it may not be any use in proving you were somewhere else it might jog your memory as to where you were at the time.

The thing that ****es me off is they've spent millions on covering the whole country in cameras but innocent people still get hassled

a basic TomTom which does not have GPS

it was just a typical day ....afternoon shift, fill up, shopping on way home
[cook myself and usually buy fresh], beer and onto TP

sad I know.

 

[SarahLee]

I feel for you John - it's a really crappy situation to find yourself in.

I'm not going to offer any legal advice, all the important stuff's been said and I know nothing about Scottish law.

But anyone with half a brain can see that this is a load of nonsense, so try not to stress about it any more.
My prediction is that this is the last you'll ever hear about it.

 

[Lynton]

OK - basic English, on.....

You have nothing to be worried about whatsoever.....please be reassured I was playing Devil's advocate earlier with the computer print out, however, all it proves is that someone you know (including you) was on a computer at that time (there is nothing to tie you to that computer, or you to that printout...or you to anything really.....)

The "evidence" that plod / sainsburys have wouldn't make it to kangaroo court, let alone magistrates or crown or whatever it is you "porridge ferrets" up there north of Hadrian's foundations have for a judiciary system..... (I love the verdict of "not proven" - which to my eye says, we all know you did, you know you did, but we cannae prove it!).. but seriously John, don't fret about it..... if the plods thought you were involved your collar would have been tweaked by now..... I can only assume that they are following up all leads.....

 

[wontolla]

a basic TomTom which does not have GPS

it was just a typical day ....afternoon shift, fill up, shopping on way home
[cook myself and usually buy fresh], beer and onto TP

sad I know.

If it's a satnav, it has GPS, thats how they work. If you have it set to record track/journey/etc, then you should have a record of it. That is of course if you used it!

 

[joker2006]

I take you have been back to the garage since ??? As I think you said earlier its the cheapest fuel around

 

[Yardbent]

I take you have been back to the garage since ??? As I think you said earlier its the cheapest fuel around

no i have stayed well away until this is cleared up

why do you ask..?

 

[Doog]

Receipts from shopping?:shrug: