So Mad!

[skalexander]

Originally Posted by Heather1957

Has this changed? I haven't been directly involved with such matters since 2006 so maybe legislation has changed. I stand to be corrected as stated cases and changes in the Law happen quite a lot.

As for the police being useless, it can be very difficult to proceed when there are no independent witnesses, they certainly are unlikely to look at proceeding through the courts based on what I have read, the CPS wouldn't support it.

Hopefully 'having a word' is the best that can be done in these circumstances.

I am also aware that criminal and civil action can be taken at the same time, my point was that you could take civil action if you felt any potential criminal proceedings were unlikely.

If you look at this without any personal involvement you can see that any conviction based on uncorroborated evidence was always very unlikely.

Affray.

(1)A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

(2)Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5)Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing affray.

(7)A person guilty of affray is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

See more...

That is the act as it is, and has been since inception, but, respectfully, you're misreading it - subsection (2) is not saying there has to be two people, but rather that IF there are two people, their conduct must be taken together when considering the offence. To all intents and purposes, (1) and (2) could be entirely separate sections on affray.

I know I'm looking at it through a red mist, and I accept that affray may not be made out, but there's definitely enough for a provoking behaviour. I don't accept that convictions are unlikely where it's simply one person's word against another's - a huge number of cases come forward under these circumstances. But actually I would be happy if the Police took my Mum seriously and treated a shaken lady who is a victim of crime with a bit of compassion rather than like a piece of ****. If they can't do this, they're in the wrong job.

[Mr Tom Morrow]

Originally Posted by skalexander

That is the act as it is, and has been since inception, but, respectfully, you're misreading it - subsection (2) is not saying there has to be two people, but rather that IF there are two people, their conduct must be taken together when considering the offence. To all intents and purposes, (1) and (2) could be entirely separate sections on affray.

I know I'm looking at it through a red mist, and I accept that affray may not be made out, but there's definitely enough for a provoking behaviour. I don't accept that convictions are unlikely where it's simply one person's word against another's - a huge number of cases come forward under these circumstances. But actually I would be happy if the Police took my Mum seriously and treated a shaken lady who is a victim of crime with a bit of compassion rather than like a piece of ****. If they can't do this, they're in the wrong job.

See more...

Agreed
Affray can be 1 person and even if the Police do not pursue matters they must give a rationale and reason why and not just dismiss matters out of hand or push it to a civil pathway to progress to some type of conclusion.

[Heather1957]

We'll agree to disagree about the offence as if this hasn't been changed then it has to be 2 people involved that is the whole point of Affray when it says conduct taken together means they don't have to be doing the same thing.

I am looking at this from a police point of view and stand by my comments. If this man is interviewed and makes allegations that your mother was abusive towards him or the dogs were aggressive to him, or that nothing happened where is the evidence that your mother is telling the truth and not him?

I am talking practical policing and this is why I understand their decision in fact I think it is good they are prepared to speak to the man.

Also do you know what the house owner has written into their deeds with regard their right to access and authority to prevent trespass?

Anyway, I love to test my memory and glad it all hasn't escaped me. Hopefully after a nights sleep everyone would have calmed down.

Personally I wouldn't use this route again it sounds like it is a nice walk but not imperative.

Maybe just what I would do - each to their own though.

[skalexander]

Originally Posted by Heather1957

We'll agree to disagree about the offence as if this hasn't been changed then it has to be 2 people involved that is the whole point of Affray when it says conduct taken together means they don't have to be doing the same thing.

I am looking at this from a police point of view and stand by my comments. If this man is interviewed and makes allegations that your mother was abusive towards him or the dogs were aggressive to him, or that nothing happened where is the evidence that your mother is telling the truth and not him?

I am talking practical policing and this is why I understand their decision in fact I think it is good they are prepared to speak to the man.

Also do you know what the house owner has written into their deeds with regard their right to access and authority to prevent trespass?

Anyway, I love to test my memory and glad it all hasn't escaped me. Hopefully after a nights sleep everyone would have calmed down.

Personally I wouldn't use this route again it sounds like it is a nice walk but not imperative.

Maybe just what I would do - each to their own though.

See more...

We will indeed have to agree to disagree, cos otherwise my colleague of 16 years call has done a very poor job when he's allowed clients to plead to affray without a co-accused!

You can't prevent trespass on land against someone who has the landowner's permission to use it - that's just bonkers. I don't even think you can prevent trespass on land which you only have a right of way over in any event.

We will see what the Police do, but I'm thus far disgusted with their attitude towards my Mum - there are ways of explaining that a conviction will be difficult or unlikely, without treating them like this.

[Cherrypie]

The guy sounds like a proper idiot, although you are all undoubtedly in the right i agree with the pp, keep away, he sounds like a loose cannon and it's really not worth risking it for the sake of a walk xxx

[Heather1957]

Just to clarify I NEVER said there has to be a co defendant to be tried for affray, but as I said we'll agree to disagree (now)

Hopefully the matter will be resolved soon although I very much doubt everyone will be satisfied.

[Lisa29]

What a horrible, immature person. Would love to see his face when he gets the letter from your office.

[listrywe2012]

What a nasty man - shame the land owner can't do some repairs to the road by enlarging any potholes (to small pond sizes) ready for filling in - then like many councils taking at least a couple of years to do this. Then no-one including his parents could drive to their house 😉
Probably wouldn't happen but would love to see his face.
I know very petty and likely not allowed but it would be lovely if occasionally bullies got their just desserts.

[Twin mummy]

What a bully. I hope the Police do call and that the letter has the desired effect. I hate bullies.

[catsandtrees]

Originally Posted by skalexander

We will indeed have to agree to disagree, cos otherwise my colleague of 16 years call has done a very poor job when he's allowed clients to plead to affray without a co-accused!

You can't prevent trespass on land against someone who has the landowner's permission to use it - that's just bonkers. I don't even think you can prevent trespass on land which you only have a right of way over in any event.

We will see what the Police do, but I'm thus far disgusted with their attitude towards my Mum - there are ways of explaining that a conviction will be difficult or unlikely, without treating them like this.

See more...

It better be just 1 person as I have charged loads of people on their own for Affray!