Wrongful arrest?

[Jukie]

As a voluntary attender, you should have been advised of your rights to free and independent legal advice before the interview started and asked if you wanted a solicitor present. You should also have been cautioned before the interview started.

On informing the DC you didn't have a solicitor, you should have been offered a duty solicitor. Not having a solicitor does not make an arrest necessary.

Police officers have to be careful when using "prompt & effective" as the only necessity to arrest, especially so long after the alleged incident. The custody sgt will normally expect further information as to why the arrest was necessary.

 

[EClassy]

I will make one further comment on the subject as I don't want to encourage the usual 12 page thread when the two already posted should suffice for you.

There is a necessity test for arrest. I attended as a volunteer. If he had reasonable suspicion, He should/would have arrested me on first contact.

I trust your research has directed you to Code G of the Codes of Practice, which governs Police powers of arrest.

A lawful arrest requires two elements:

A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence AND reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary'.

What that means is that an arrest isn't always necessary.

There are nine reasons which are considered 'necessary criteria' before an arrest takes place.

I don't intend to list them as they are easy to find on the internet.

Before you waste any more money on a solicitor do a bit more research on the internet and be open and honest with yourself about the actions of the Police.

If you feel aggrieved about their actions then write to the Chief Constable asking for an explanation. If you write to the IPCC they will only pass the matter back to the original Police Force because the matter / incident is not of a serious nature.

If you want my honest opinion I would put it down to one of life's experiences and move on. Like i've said you need to direct your efforts in removing your tenant rather than causing unnecessary paper work / enquires for an already overstretched profession.

Good luck what ever you decide.

Now it's time for a beer.

Thanks I appreciate your help

Once I'd put down to life's experience, Twice looks like is a pattern. Please read the case of Mark Richardson v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police then you may have a better idea of how the police should behave in these type of situations.

My case is even worse as the officer had no intention to arrest on arrival otherwise he would have at first contact. The officer arrested me much later on when I requested to have a solicitor present.

I am already in court and hopefully I should get an eviction order soon. I understand your support for the police but you cant simply say I should not take up a case of wrongdoing just because the police are overstretched.

This overstretched claims are used all the time but I don't know where they find the capacity to investigate a claim of burglary against a landlord by a tenant who is well known to them due to the number of times they have been called to the property because of his behaviour?

 

[stevieb15]

I've briefly glanced at this post but not read the detail.
If you have a problem the best and cheapest, both in terms of cash and worry, is to dig your hand on your pocket, pull out some notes and hire a solicitor.
Not legal aid which the rest of us pay for, you sort it out and pay for it yourself.
You're a businessman you should already have a solicitor who will give you sound advice.
0

 

[EClassy]

As a voluntary attender, you should have been advised of your rights to free and independent legal advice before the interview started and asked if you wanted a solicitor present. You should also have been cautioned before the interview started.

I wasnt cautioned and never told of rights to free legal advice. he probably never got a chance to caution me because immediately he said he wanted my side of the story, I asked for a solicitor not even because I was aware I was entitled to this but because of my distrust of the police.

On informing the DC you didn't have a solicitor, you should have been offered a duty solicitor. Not having a solicitor does not make an arrest necessary.

This is exactly what the duty solicitor told me when I told him what led to my arrest. He shook his head and said no no,no

Police officers have to be careful when using "prompt & effective" as the only necessity to arrest, especially so long after the alleged incident. The custody sgt will normally expect further information as to why the arrest was necessary.

On my custody record it just gives the well used reason ''for prompt and effective investigation blah balh blah''

 

[EClassy]

I've briefly glanced at this post but not read the detail.
If you have a problem the best and cheapest, both in terms of cash and worry, is to dig your hand on your pocket, pull out some notes and hire a solicitor.
Not legal aid which the rest of us pay for, you sort it out and pay for it yourself.
You're a businessman you should already have a solicitor who will give you sound advice.
0

Any reason why I shouldn't use legal aid if i am entitled to it? You drive 4 Mercedes cars, next time you see your GP, make sure you pay the going private/BUPA rate.

 

[Meldrew2]

I sincerely hope that it all works out well for you.

As do we all

 

[Jukie]

I wasnt cautioned and never told of rights to free legal advice. he probably never got a chance to caution me because immediately he said he wanted my side of the story, I asked for a solicitor not even because I was aware I was entitled to this but because of my distrust of the police.

This is exactly what the duty solicitor told me when I told him what led to my arrest. He shook his head and said no no,no


On my custody record it just gives the well used reason ''for prompt and effective investigation blah balh blah''

Then the officer did NOT comply with PACE. Never mind he didn't get the chance. It's a necessity at the start of every interview.

Re the custody record, that's all it would show, I think, as the system uses drop down menu choices. I could check for you if you like?

 

[Mr. B]

Then the officer did NOT comply with PACE. Never mind he didn't get the chance. It's a necessity at the start of every interview.

Re the custody record, that's all it would show, I think, as the system uses drop down menu choices. I could check for you if you like?

Very dangerous territory if you don't mind me saying, depending upon what your planning to check.

 

[Jukie]

Don't worry, I won't be putting my job in jeopardy!

 

[stevieb15]

Any reason why I shouldn't use legal aid if i am entitled to it? You drive 4 Mercedes cars, next time you see your GP, make sure you pay the going private/BUPA rate.

Yes on the basis you run your business for profit you should pay for your legal advice out of your gross profit like all your other costs.
It really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

 

[EClassy]

Yes on the basis you run your business for profit you should pay for your legal advice out of your gross profit like all your other costs.
It really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

Assumptions...they do make us look stupid at times.

 

[Dryce]

Yes on the basis you run your business for profit you should pay for your legal advice out of your gross profit like all your other costs.
It really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

I wonder if HMRC will accept it as a tax deductible expense? If so then your assertion that it is an aspect of the business holds some merit. If not then it doesn't - at least not in the eyes of HMG.

 

[EClassy]

I wonder if HMRC will accept it as a tax deductible expense? If so then your assertion that it is an aspect of the business holds some merit. If not then it doesn't - at least not in the eyes of HMG.

Funny thing is I let out my house not as business but because I bought a new house off plan in 07 just before the recession hit and by the time the new one was completed in 08 and I wanted to sell the old one, it was worth way less than the what I owed the bank so I decided against selling and still have to pay the bank thousands of pounds back. I Therefore decided to rent it out. Sadly it is still worth less than I owe but after this experience I am going to sell it and just suck up the loss.

I am what you may call an accidental landlord. I don't even know my tenants real name cause the name I have on his agreement is completely different to what he gave to the police.

 

[markjay]

A criminal lawyer claimed as tax deductable expenditure? I think this is tricky. Civil matters, yes, but criminal? Not sure.

 

[stevieb15]

Funny thing is I let out my house not as business but because I bought a new house off plan in 07 just before the recession hit and by the time the new one was completed in 08 and I wanted to sell the old one, it was worth way less than the what I owed the bank so I decided against selling and still have to pay the bank thousands of pounds back. I Therefore decided to rent it out. Sadly it is still worth less than I owe but after this experience I am going to sell it and just suck up the loss.

I am what you may call an accidental landlord. I don't even know my tenants real name cause the name I have on his agreement is completely different to what he gave to the police.

All problems of yours not mine or anyone else who contributes to the legal aid budget.
This kind of potential misuse, even if legitimate, is why our dependency based welfare budget is out of control.
What's the quip about 4x4 and BUPA all about?

 

[stevieb15]

A criminal lawyer claimed as tax deductable expenditure? I think this is tricky. Civil matters, yes, but criminal? Not sure.

It doesn't need to be deductible just something that's paid for out of profit gross.

 

[Dryce]

It doesn't need to be deductible just something that's paid for out of profit gross.

If the individual is a sole trader or partner then that implies that it is not a business expense. So it's not part of the business. It's part of their income from the business. So it's a personal expense.

 

[EClassy]

All problems of yours not mine or anyone else who contributes to the legal aid budget.
This kind of potential misuse, even if legitimate, is why our dependency based welfare budget is out of control.
What's the quip about 4x4 and BUPA all about?

So who should be entitled to legal aid? Mind you I have paid tax all my working life. Maybe it should be means tested (I think it is anyway)

You drive 4 Mercedes cars why should your illness be my problem? Next time you/family member visit the GP/use a hospital, make sure you pay full price as I think it a misuse of our medical resources that a person with 4 prestige cars and presumably substantial savings can get a doctor's consultation/prescription which would otherwise cost hundreds/thousands of £s for £7.50

 

[stevieb15]

Legal aid is not meant for landlords with multiple properties who've been accused of a criminal offence against their tenant, its for those who can't get justice because they can't afford representation.
By the tone of your latest post its way past your bedtime.

 

[stevieb15]

If the individual is a sole trader or partner then that implies that it is not a business expense. So it's not part of the business. It's part of their income from the business. So it's a personal expense.

This is plainly a business expense, he's renting the house out therefore he must be doing so for gain, as I said earlier it's doesn't have to be deductible, he can take the cost as a benefit and declare it on his P11d.