CPS Out of Time?
I was arrested recently and bailed to return, one allegation being criminal damage on a date 18 MONTHS previous (and one other allegation which is pure fabrication and without evidence will go nowhere).
Having never spoken to me about it before, the police had apparently just received some evidence, by way of allegations in a letter, so had to pull me in quickly for questioning. Being low value damage I understand this is a summary offence which would be dealt with by magistrates.
Since then it has hit the news that the PC who shoved Ian Tomlinson at the G20 demo would escape charges for assault because of a strict six-month time limit for prosecution. I have checked this out and the Magistrates Act 1980 does indeed say that for a summary offence you must be charged (info laid) within 6 months of the date of offence.
So, what am I missing here, is this any different for a case of low value criminal damage? Otherwise it would appear then that the police are out of time to charge me. In which case why did they even arrest me in the matter if it could not proceed? (I was hardly questioned at all on the other allegation so I guess the police don’t give it much credence)
I may not be able to provide
I may not be able to provide an answer to this until Monday.
ThunderCriminal damage is
Thunder
Criminal damage is technically an either way offence. There are clear guidelines which indicate that low value cases are dealt with summarily in the magistarates Court. Low value usually applies where the damaged article is worth less than £5,000.
As such whilst it might be clear that your case would only ever be heard in the magistrates court it is not caught by the 6 month time limit. There are limited circumstances in which a low value case may be heard on indictiment in the crown court, one of which is if the damage was caused by Arson.
You might argue that there had been an abuse of process if the Police had been aware of your identity for the last 18 months and not done anything about it. In the case that the allegations had been made recently there is no abuse of process arguement.
Richard Paremain