£20,000 for banana theft trial

[Von Smallhausen]

Why not blame the arresting officer for taking someone into custody (using up police time and resources, i.e. money) over a piece of fruit? Enforcing the law is not and should not be subject to a value for money test.

Someone contacts the police and states that a theft has occurred, even for 25p, and that complainant is adamant they want to make a complaint.

The cop might twist under their breath but at the end of the day to ignore such an allegation renders the cop to disciplinary action for dereliction of duty.

A contested theft, ie no admission of guilt always goes to the CPS for a decision as does any contested allegation of crime. The police do not and cannot charge a contested allegation except in limited circumstances such as minor public order ( Section 5 POA / Drunk & Disorderly ). Theft does not come under those exceptions.

Who not blame the police you ask ? Simply because they are not at fault.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

The growing power of magistrates is one of the leading courses of injustice in this country. They are police friendly and, in too many cases, the volume of cases they need to get through means that speed is preferred over justice.

Police friendly ? Not in my experience and on the contrary I have sometimes found them to be quite anti-police.

As for growing power I would disagree. The power that Magistrates have is very limited compared to a Crown Court judge and they are still limited to handing down a maximum sentence of 6 months .... which they rarely do.

Of course until the end of such appeal he still would have the stigma of a criminal record.

Which is the way the system works. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. On conclusion of a successful appeal the recored of the alleged crime is wiped.

It is in the interest of justice and people's belief in the judicial process, both of which are strongly in the public interest.

But still lacks common sense. It should be heard at Magistrates Court but under the authority of a senior legal official as I suggested above.

 

[semi-pro waster]

and he was innocent

Well, he was found not guilty - it doesn't mean he didn't do it.

However while the sums may seem ridiculous the principle itself is not and I'm not sure we can put too high a price on that of justice.

 

[Tom0]

WHEN ERIC EATS A BANANA..

 

[Jokester]

I'm a bit lost here as to why he was prosecuted in the first place, aren't first time shoplifters normally just cautioned and sent on there way or is that an urban myth.

I don't think we're being told the full story.

 

[Missing.String]

I'm a bit lost here as to why he was prosecuted in the first place, aren't first time shoplifters normally just cautioned and sent on there way or is that an urban myth.

I don't think we're being told the full story.

You think there was an orange involved as well?

 

[apeZ]

Sickening

 

[Meridian]

I'm a bit lost here as to why he was prosecuted in the first place, aren't first time shoplifters normally just cautioned and sent on there way or is that an urban myth.

I don't think we're being told the full story.

My understanding from one reading of the story is that the man concerned was drunk and took the banana off a closed stall. He was stopped by a security guard and at that point offered to pay. This was refused (it usually is) and he was charged. He elected to go for Crown Court rather tham magistrates as the office is triable either way.

I should point out the old rule: if you are innocent, go with the magistrates. If you are guilty, go with Crown Court.


M

 

[Meridian]

...and I should ask: for all those people who think this should never have gone to court - what is the maximum you think should not be prosecuted? £1? £5? I ask because shop-lifters everywhere will want to know.


M

 

[asim18]

Baaaa na na na naaaaaa na na na naaa na na na na na na

 

[fini]

Police friendly ? Not in my experience and on the contrary I have sometimes found them to be quite anti-police.

It may just be that we have seen different magistrates, or because we're coming from different places in founding our opinion on this - so I'll say that this probably is relatively subjective and agree that everyone's opinions are just as valid as the other.

As for growing power I would disagree. The power that Magistrates have is very limited compared to a Crown Court judge and they are still limited to handing down a maximum sentence of 6 months .... which they rarely do.

I'll have to disagree here. Their powers have and are growing. If you look back over the last 15 odd years you'll see their remit and powers have grown hugely. More cases are now triable either-way and the maximum fine magistrates can imposed is more than double what it once was. In addition magistrates also have ABOS in their arsenal now. I can't see how it can be disputed that magistrates powers are, and have been, growing.

Which is the way the system works. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. On conclusion of a successful appeal the recored of the alleged crime is wiped.

Well of course it's a matter of opinion, but of course it must be preferable that the correct verdict is found. Is it not preferable to pay a little bit more (i.e. for a Crown court trial) and receive a safe verdict than go to the magistrates for a verdict that will be appealed?

But still lacks common sense. It should be heard at Magistrates Court but under the authority of a senior legal official as I suggested above.

Why does it lack common sense? Are you saying that no theft should be seen in the Crown court or are you supporting the idea that has arisen of setting a minimum value of goods stolen before it can go to Crown? If the latter, could you explain how you would have that work?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Why does it lack common sense? Are you saying that no theft should be seen in the Crown court or are you supporting the idea that has arisen of setting a minimum value of goods stolen before it can go to Crown? If the latter, could you explain how you would have that work?

Where did I say or even suggest that no theft should be heard in the Crown Court ? I am sure the Millenium Dome robbers would love to have been tried in a Magistrates court with a six months maximum sentence.

What I am saying is that a disputed 25p theft should not see the light of day in Crown Court. Under the current system it can be and I suggest a tweak in the law should be considered.

There is no reason whatsoever why that case could not have been held in a Magistrates court.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I'm a bit lost here as to why he was prosecuted in the first place, aren't first time shoplifters normally just cautioned and sent on there way or is that an urban myth

I don't think we're being told the full story.

A caution is the usual outcome for a first time shoplifter but only if an admission is made during interview. If they deny the offence then a caution is not an option to dispose of the case.

 

[Biohazard]

On that same vane, I have helped quite a few people from a life of crime by help, support and a multi-agency approach.

Can you clarify your multi-agency approach?

Never once have I seen an OGD program that actually achieves much.

 

[Energize]

The cps are disgraceful in the way they waste time and money and prosecute innocent people. Only recently did they try to prosecute someone for writing a fictional story on the internet which was thrown out, and they tried someone for murder for killing someone who broken into their house with a gun threatening to kill them, utter madness.

Another cause of money being wasted is the disparity in sentencing between crown courts and magistrates courts. Because crown courts can give out much longer sentences than magistrates courts it causes people to plead not guilty so they can choose to be heard in a magistrates court and avoid the unjust sentencing of the crown court, like 3 years for posession of extreme (victimless) porn, vs 6 months for the magistrates court.

 

[cheets64]

I think £20k should have been spent on a Bananaman movie.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Another cause of money being wasted is the disparity in sentencing between crown courts and magistrates courts. Because crown courts can give out much longer sentences than magistrates courts it causes people to plead not guilty so they can choose to be heard in a magistrates court and avoid the unjust sentencing of the crown court, like 3 years for posession of extreme (victimless) porn, vs 6 months for the magistrates court.

??

If someone was charged with an indictable only offence it could only be tried in a Crown Court and even with a not guilty plea it would still be heard in a Crown Court.

You can not choose to be tried in a Magistrates court with more serious cases.

I have never heard of murder, robbery or rape to ever have been tried in a Magistrates court at the request of the suspect.

 

[fini]

What I am saying is that a disputed 25p theft should not see the light of day in Crown Court. Under the current system it can be and I suggest a tweak in the law should be considered..

Where then would you set the line? How much would you have stolen before a defendant has the choice to be tried by his/her peers?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Where then would you set the line? How much would you have stolen before a defendant has the choice to be tried by his/her peers?

Ooooh, at least 30p.

 

[fini]

It's a serious question though. You're saying that the law should be changed so that 25p thefts are not triable either-way. I think it's fair to ask where you think the line should be - even if it was discretionary there would still need to be some sort of guidance.