Indiana Jones

Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Indiana Jones last won the day on April 20

Indiana Jones had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

383 First Class

About Indiana Jones

  • Rank
    Regular User

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Specified
  1. It is. I'd suggest it is unusual. Not unheard of. But unusual.
  2. I wasn't aware that was the benchmark.
  3. And it only took a year and a half to get there.
  4. As I recall, the consent of the DPP is required for private prosecutions in E&W.
  5. Hold on, when has her mum come into it? Can we just have a scenario in full without little extra bits being dropped in as-and-when? It's turning into an Agatha Christie novel.
  6. Right, so now it IS her 17th birthday. Okay.
  7. So you're saying that dad has somehow managed to purchase (pay for) car insurance for a 16 year old without a licence?
  8. So we could get to a position where the Met Fed offered its services to other forces and you'd have a choice of you joined the national, your own, or another forces? Essentially shopping around for the best deal for your dollar.
  9. They're not driving on blues, just normal A to B, in a police car - so police insurance would apply wouldn't it? They are effectively normal CFRs who happen to be in a police vehicle. The standard CFR rules apply so they would need to be within 8 minutes of the job as a normal, non-response, driver. In terms of billing SCAS, would you be looking to raise an invoice for 8 minutes (max) of diesel burnt per job or have you another fee in mind?
  10. So it's not a significant statement as such. You're not interviewing them. In terms of Intel, it's valid if correctly marked.
  11. Sorry, are the kids suspects?
  12. The subject had been done many times on here. It's all nonsense. Just ignore and get on with the job.
  13. Yeah that's annoying isn't it. It's a legal concept, it's not defined in statute. Quid pro quo, can you supply the 'definition' that a strict liability offence is as you gave it earlier?
  14. So, there are several resources online that attempt to define the concept of strict liability. A simple search on Google under the phrase Strict Liability English Law speaks about a lack of mens rea for one or more elements of the offence. Butterworth's Police Law ( 8th edition) by Jack English who was CC of Northumbria Police, and Richard Card, Prof of Law at De Montford Uni, gives the following : In the case of some offences, the courts have held that a person can be convicted despite the fact that he was blamelessly inadvertent, ie had no type of mens rea, as to a particular element of the actus reus (or sometimes even though he had no type of mens rea as to any element of the actus reus). These offences are known as offences of 'strict liability'. In terms of what you said re the offence having no defence, that is not the same thing. There could be a defence of, eg, infancy, automatism, intoxication or duress.
  15. That's not what I said. You're coming across as a bit ranty this week. Take a deep breath.