JM1 Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Hi buds, Just wanting some advice if anyone's been through anything similar. A few months ago my mum received a visit from the police saying her car had supposedly been spotted by 2 cops the previous night being driven erratically. She asked me to come round to hers and they then accused me driving the car even though I had been in my own flat 10 miles away with 3 of my friends the whole night. The two officers then took me into another room and threatened with giving my mum the charge instead of me if I didn't own up. Obviously I didn't as it wasn't me (or wasn't my mums car more likely since its only my mum that lives at hers). Since then no-one has been charged but the police contacted me a month or so later to say it would be getting forwarded onto the procurator fiscal. I came home today to find a notice through my door from the police and after contacting them, they said it was cos they tried to deliver me a summons (or similar). Anyone got any advice of what to do here? Do I have to go and pay a lawyer to represent me? This is the most ridiculous thing that's ever happened to me and I'm not 100% sure on what to do. As I said before, no-one has been actually charged yet it looks like I'm going to have to go to court over something I 100% didn't do and have witnesses who were with me the whole time I was supposed to have been in my mums car. Any help would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Blair Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 First appointment with a lawyer is usually free, additional representation would be covered by legal aid if you meet the criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Your first question to the police would be something like ; "What evidence do you have ?" . From what you have said I don't see how you have a case to answer . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Contact the PF and ask what you are being accused of/charged with. I would do this as opposed to challenging the police directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Grass up your crazy Stig fan of a mother. Time her sort were stuck away for a spell in the jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1 Posted August 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Cheers for the advice guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, JM1 said: Cheers for the advice guys. You know faraway saint always talks sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Okay, departing from my stance on not discussing stuff linked to my employment here, but from the info you've given this sounds ridiculous. So:The police will pass all of the 'evidence' they have gathered on to the PF. The PF would only pursue a case if they felt they could prove, with corroboration, both 1. that a crime has taken place, and 2. the identity of the person who was carrying out the activity that they believe constitutes a crime. As the police are asking you to admit the action, otherwise they are threatening taking action against your mother, this means that the 'witnesses' i.e. the police officers present, do not have clarity or consensus over who it was. As such, at present their evidence is uncorroborated. I cannot see how such a case can proceed without such an admission. The problem might come if they were to prosecute you, that you would then have to lodge a special defence of alibi, and show with evidence that you were in fact somewhere else. There's more to this of course, but that's in short what might happen.To be honest though, it all sounds a bit vague, so wouldn't surprise me if they decided not to proceed to a trial and took no further action.As said above though, you should try to establish from the COPFS exactly what the charges, if any, actually are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 5 hours ago, zurich_allan said: Okay, departing from my stance on not discussing stuff linked to my employment here, but from the info you've given this sounds ridiculous. So: The police will pass all of the 'evidence' they have gathered on to the PF. The PF would only pursue a case if they felt they could prove, with corroboration, both 1. that a crime has taken place, and 2. the identity of the person who was carrying out the activity that they believe constitutes a crime. As the police are asking you to admit the action, otherwise they are threatening taking action against your mother, this means that the 'witnesses' i.e. the police officers present, do not have clarity or consensus over who it was. As such, at present their evidence is uncorroborated. I cannot see how such a case can proceed without such an admission. The problem might come if they were to prosecute you, that you would then have to lodge a special defence of alibi, and show with evidence that you were in fact somewhere else. There's more to this of course, but that's in short what might happen. To be honest though, it all sounds a bit vague, so wouldn't surprise me if they decided not to proceed to a trial and took no further action. As said above though, you should try to establish from the COPFS exactly what the charges, if any, actually are. This is all very fine IF his version is close to the truth. You know as well as anyone people tell you what they like to see as the truth. All sounds a bit dubious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, faraway saint said: This is all very fine IF his version is close to the truth. You know as well as anyone people tell you what they like to see as the truth. All sounds a bit dubious to me. Do you mean in the same way as O.J and Oscars versions seemed too outrages to be true? Edited August 5, 2016 by linwood buddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, linwood buddie said: Do you mean in the same way as O.J and Oscars versions seemed to outrages too be true? Presactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 This is all very fine IF his version is close to the truth. You know as well as anyone people tell you what they like to see as the truth. All sounds a bit dubious to me. And if his version is the truth then it's good advice. Without the polis evidence you can only judge on the evidence given, fs, exactly what z_a did. Anything else is supposition. And sometimes the polis have been known to bend things a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 41 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said: And if his version is the truth then it's good advice. Without the polis evidence you can only judge on the evidence given, fs, exactly what z_a did. Anything else is supposition. And sometimes the polis have been known to bend things a bit... Evidence? What evidence? Oh, someones version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 There wouldn't be much point in asking advice on a shitey, made up story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Drew said: There wouldn't be much point in asking advice on a shitey, made up story. Indeed, because no one would, oh wait.....................there's no limit to what some people will/would say. Which reminds me, there was this time, I was wrongly accused of.................................(I'll come back with a cracker later) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Evidence? What evidence? Oh, someones version.[emoji38] It's evidence, fs. May or may not be what happened but it's still the best we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 If they come to your door ask them to leave, don't answer any questions, don't get involved in any dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 8 hours ago, davidg said: If they come to your door ask them to leave, don't answer any questions, don't get involved in any dialogue. Ok, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 Ok, thanks. I'm not sure that'll work with the Saudi religious police.Sent fae ma fone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 13 hours ago, Slartibartfast said: Wrongly accused? Whatever it was, I bet you were guilty. Unless you were being accused of being handsome or witty or intelligent or ... Madman thread.............................says it all really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 15 hours ago, Drew said: There wouldn't be much point in asking advice on a shitey, made up story. It could be one of those things where the OP thinks that if the police cant prove who was driving that they cant prosecute. He could then be hoping someone like ZA would confirm this was the case without the OP admitting the full story. Either way the original story sounds incomplete and TBH fishier than a room full of kippers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habbiesaint Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 No comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1 Posted August 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 It's the most ridiculous thing that's ever happened to me. I can understand why people don't believe it TBH. Taking me out into the corridor of my mums house and them telling me they saw me was surreal. Did ye aye??? Unbelievable stuff. Seriously thanks for all the advice. I'll be getting the summons through in the next few days but will be phoning through to the PF on Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1 Posted August 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 (edited) On 05/08/2016 at 0:20 PM, zurich_allan said: Okay, departing from my stance on not discussing stuff linked to my employment here, but from the info you've given this sounds ridiculous. So: The police will pass all of the 'evidence' they have gathered on to the PF. The PF would only pursue a case if they felt they could prove, with corroboration, both 1. that a crime has taken place, and 2. the identity of the person who was carrying out the activity that they believe constitutes a crime. As the police are asking you to admit the action, otherwise they are threatening taking action against your mother, this means that the 'witnesses' i.e. the police officers present, do not have clarity or consensus over who it was. As such, at present their evidence is uncorroborated. I cannot see how such a case can proceed without such an admission. The problem might come if they were to prosecute you, that you would then have to lodge a special defence of alibi, and show with evidence that you were in fact somewhere else. There's more to this of course, but that's in short what might happen. To be honest though, it all sounds a bit vague, so wouldn't surprise me if they decided not to proceed to a trial and took no further action. As said above though, you should try to establish from the COPFS exactly what the charges, if any, actually are. Thanks for taking the time out to answer. They told me the first night they had CCTV (so the night after the supposed incident) but that I couldn't see it. When they phoned a month or so later they said the same thing. Is it correct that I can't see that until court? I'd love to see it cos I know it's not me and highly unlikely someone stole my mums car, drove it about erratically and put it back. Genuinely both annoyed and so frustrated by this. Thankfully I have my 3 pals who were there with me that night and whatsapp messages arranging them to come round from earlier but do feel annoyed I have to go to court and the like over something I definitely didn't do. Edited August 6, 2016 by JM1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 17 hours ago, davidg said: If they come to your door ask them to leave, don't answer any questions, don't get involved in any dialogue. Indeed , without a warrant they can bolt . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.