Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Beaker last won the day on April 13

Beaker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Sound

About Beaker

  • Rank
    Learning Curve
  • Birthday 14/01/77

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Police Force

Recent Profile Visitors

158 profile views
  1. My arms hurt from a case of ED, my brain is frazzled from looking after kids with a DV, and my temper was slightly frayed with a drunk trying to get a reaction. However 11 hours flew by, and it seems cakes go down well. Take cakes, the regs like cakes.
  2. He annoyed me because he had 3 other guys in the car all just wanting to go home, and we'd had beer because he said he would drive. Instead we had to walk to the edge of Croston to another guy's house, and crashed on the floor until morning. It was annoying, and to this day he STILL thinks the IN10 wasn't justified.
  3. I'm familiar with their arguments, they do make a kind of twisted sense once they've justified their logic inntheir heads. I find there is a lot of crossover between FOTL, Potheads and MRAs. Might just be my perception there though.
  4. My friend likes to make FOTL arguments, he gets all annoyed when we abuse him for it. When he was being an arse he started on the 'I do not consent' stuff, and the nice Gent from Merseyside Constabulary just smiled and pointed out nobody does consent to be being arrested. We had to find our own way home from Southport to Preston as a result of his tool behaviour.
  5. No fear there, we've been told "Don't be a coat hanger". With the warning if we are we'll be doing patrols with the trainer to make sure we do what we're supposed to!
  6. Thanks for all the suggestions, very useful. First duty is Saturday, figure working a Bank Holiday Saturday night in a coastal resort should be a suitable baptism.
  7. I was somewhat shocked at the grounds we need to justify Stop and Search. I've been searched for walking around at silly hours when I was younger (Insomnia is a wonderful thing), and never thought much of it. I always figured it was the police doing what they're paid for.
  8. Yeah, thats what I was getting at. I've got a head full everything from Criminal Damage to Stop and Search atm. I have trouble keeping track of so much info crammed over 2 days without it bleeding over.
  9. Indeed I misread it, mainly because I've been so busy before my exams. You don't have to prove dishonesty, because the taking of the vehicle is proof enough. Clothworthy is the test case here, and they established that he wasn't guilty because it was customary for employees to drive the cars, therefore he has a reason to believe he was ok to drive the car. So the defence would appear to rely on other factors, and can't stand purely on "I thought I could". I'll read Clotworthy in full later as it's one of our recommended readings anyway. So yeah I was wrong as Ghosh doesn't apply, but it appears the belief can't just be "I thought I could" without other factors being brought in to play.
  10. So taking a car without asking isn't dishonest? Woot! FREE FERRARI FOR ME TOMORROW! Or, his defence rests on his belief that he was allowed to take the car. He has 2 states of mind here 1 - He's honestly thinks this is fine, or 2- he knows it is wrong but does it anyway. He pleads he thought it would be fine take it, so they have to apply Ghosh to test the honesty/dishonesty of his statement. It's both subjective AND objective at the same time. That might be what is confusing you, and yes it does apply because they need to prove dishonesty on his part.
  11. The test for theft (Including TWOC) is R v GHOSH. * Whether according to the standards of reasonable and honest people, what the appellant did was dishonest, and * If so, whether the person must have realised that what they were doing was dishonest by those standards. So no, a charge of TWOC still applies. He can try to plead he thought he could take the car, but if he fails that test he's guilty.
  12. So a fake belief that he doesn't actually have is a defence? Because that is what you're insinuating. I use "honestly held" belief in the assumption that a defendant believes something to be true without any dispute. Just because you don't like the wording doesn't change what I'm saying.
  13. You keep accusing us of "writing our own laws", when in fact we're stating an opinion, either based on reading of the law, or personal experience, or both. would "George is a nice bloke, he likes me, I took his expensive TV because I'm sure he'd let me have it" a reasonable thing to think? The honestly held belief defence works on would a normal person think that it was ok? In a theft offence that is the test, and you have to also consider many other factors. The law it literal in some respects, but you also need to interpret what they mean in many cases. The CPS would love this one, as it would be highly unlikely a mags would agree with it.
  14. And on balance of probability the mags is going to consider his age, if he has a licence, his mental state etc. If he's of sound mind, has no licence (taking his age in to account he won't), knows he won't be insured, and has tried to poor defence he's likely to get a top end punishment. People lie to coppers, it's one of the main things my Grandfather often told me (Was a D/Supt, and retired as a Chief Super), and when there is doubt you let the court sort it out. Also we're talking the reality of the situation, not the theoretical. He's still getting charged for TWOC, No licence and no insurance.
  15. You seem to have a misunderstanding in that a defence will still need to go before a magistrate. The magistrate then decides on balance of probability if the defence is sound. If he/she doesn't think it does the kid gets a criminal record. A statutory defence doesn't mean you can just say "I thought it would be fine", there is an honestly held belief defence available for a lot of offences, but it doesn't mean you automatically don't get charged and brought before the mags.