Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested

[CatRyan]

Once the police have charged you and determined the charge is too serious to be dealt with by themselves, it's handed over to the CPS. At that point you are correct in saying the CPS will determine whether they believe there is enough evidence to secure a conviction or not. You are also correct saying it might be the case that the CPS might accept a guilty plea for a lesser offence in order to secure a conviction and avoid a trail.

Or they may say you don't have enough for say attempted murder but have got enough to charge for GBH... or as is often the case Rape having a high requirement is often reduced to harassment.

 

[Why Gary Why]

That's what I said. CPS tell the police wether they can charge or not then police either charge or release.

No. The CPS don't tell the police anything and have no say in whether a suspect is charged or not. That is determined by the police. The police can arrest, charge and deal with a suspect without that suspect going anywhere near court or the CPS. The only time the COS get involved is once a suspect has been charged and passed off into the court system.

 

[percy]

Of course this is the case, his path will have been planned out for months/years, firstly pay the hush money then strip him of his royalty then arrest him, with periods in between to let it "die down" a bit. What happens subsequently is already decided.

100% this.

 

[CatRyan]

No. The CPS don't tell the police anything and have no say in whether a suspect is charged or not. That is determined by the police. The police can arrest, charge and deal with a suspect without that suspect going anywhere near court or the CPS. The only time the COS get involved is once a suspect has been charged and passed off into the court system.

It is good if the CPS can work with the police in a good relationship though to work towards more successful convictions right?

Of course there are frustrations on both sides, for the police putting in blood swear and tears to get everything on a bunch of nonces and then having CPS go for low charges and CPS in the same vein being frustrated that the police have tainted some evidence or not met the bar.

 

[Why Gary Why]

Or they may say you don't have enough for say attempted murder but have got enough to charge for GBH... or as is often the case Rape having a high requirement is often reduced to harassment.

Totally this. The CPS generally have a higher bar of evidence required than the police as they think that it's necessary to secure a conviction, which is their remit to be fair them. I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why they take the approach that a conviction for a lesser offence is better than no conviction at all.

 

[CatRyan]

Totally this. The CPS generally have a higher bar of evidence required than the police as they think that it's necessary to secure a conviction, which is their remit to be fair them. I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why they take the approach that a conviction for a lesser offence is better than no conviction at all.

Right, so it would be hoped that the CPS and the police develop a good relationship. I liked that French crime show where you saw how they ran it and their equivalent of the CPS is involved right from the start from what I've seen in 24hrs etc it seems the police crack on and then call CPS towards the end of their investigation and interrogation. I may be completely wrong but that is how it appears.

 

[Keawyeds]

Be funny if "K**t and the Gang" got to number one with "He's a sweaty nonce" this weekend.
Maybe they should release it as a charity single

 

[Georgewhitt]

Totally this. The CPS generally have a higher bar of evidence required than the police as they think that it's necessary to secure a conviction, which is their remit to be fair them. I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why they take the approach that a conviction for a lesser offence is better than no conviction at all.

My understanding is that the Police find evidence, build a case, and then pass it to the CPS and wait to see if they believe there is a solid basis for prosecution.

If the CPS say yes, then the suspect will be charged.

If the CPS say no, the police can still go ahead with charging and prosecuting, but rarely, if ever do.

 

[CatRyan]

My understanding is that the Police find evidence, build a case, and then pass it to the CPS and wait to see if they believe there is a solid basis for prosecution.

If the CPS say yes, then the suspect will be charged.

If the CPS say no, the police can still go ahead with charging and prosecuting, but rarely, if ever do.

Can the police prosecute if the CPS say no? Really? I thought it was kind of handed over to CPS and they prosecuted. There is communication prior to handover so the Police can get more specific detail that may be needed etc but I didn't think the police could prosecute.

 

[Georgewhitt]

Can the police prosecute if the CPS say no? Really? I thought it was kind of handed over to CPS and they prosecuted. There is communication prior to handover so the Police can get more specific detail that may be needed etc but I didn't think the police could prosecute.

Just my understanding Cat.

Not saying I'm right.

A yes or no from CPS gives a strong indication of whether a prosecution will succeed.

I'm sure someone more knowledgable on here will give me a forceful straightener if I'm wrang.

 

[CatRyan]

Just my understanding Cat.

Not saying I'm right.

A yes or no from CPS gives a strong indication of whether a prosecution will succeed.

Yeah, they tell the police if they have met the requirements for prosecution... sometimes there are very clear requirements so it can be pretty straightforward. They can't of course guarantee success but they can tell the police what won't even get off the ground and what is too weak to proceed with.

 

[Why Gary Why]

It is good if the CPS can work with the police in a good relationship though to work towards more successful convictions right?

Of course there are frustrations on both sides, for the police putting in blood swear and tears to get everything on a bunch of nonces and then having CPS go for low charges and CPS in the same vein being frustrated that the police have tainted some evidence or not met the bar.

You'd like to think that the CPS and the police can work well together and I think I'm the main they do but there are also places.where the relationship seems a bit strained. There's a decent study done recently regarding case progression in the court system which touches upon some aspects.of.conflict between the two organisations. Worth a read if this sort of thing doesn't bore you to death.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Georgewhitt]

You'd like to think that the CPS and the police can work well together and I think I'm the main they do but there are also places.where the relationship seems a bit strained. There's a decent study done recently regarding case progression in the court system which touches upon some aspects.of.conflict between the two organisations. Worth a read if this sort of thing doesn't bore you to death.

You must be logged on to see external links

Clicked on the link to have a read. Clicked out.

I'll take your word for it marra

 

[CatRyan]

You'd like to think that the CPS and the police can work well together and I think I'm the main they do but there are also places.where the relationship seems a bit strained. There's a decent study done recently regarding case progression in the court system which touches upon some aspects.of.conflict between the two organisations. Worth a read if this sort of thing doesn't bore you to death.

You must be logged on to see external links

I saw a documentary on the special team for looking at that time, a long time ago now, at internet crimes, so lots of CP etc. There was a massive amount of frustration from the dedicated police team towards CPS for a lack of consistency in sentencing and requirements. There is also the frustration that belongs to the legislation that the CPS is not responsible for.

 

[Why Gary Why]

My understanding is that the Police find evidence, build a case, and then pass it to the CPS and wait to see if they believe there is a solid basis for prosecution.

If the CPS say yes, then the suspect will be charged.

If the CPS say no, the police can still go ahead with charging and prosecuting, but rarely, if ever do.

Nah, it's purely a decision for the police if they want to charge a suspect or not. To be fair to them, they're only going to charge if they think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction. The CPS might not agree with that conclusion and decide not to go ahead with a court prosecution or ask for more evidence but that has nothing to do with the initial charging situation.

 

[Georgewhitt]

Nah, it's purely a decision for the police if they want to charge a suspect or not. To be fair to them, they're only going to charge if they think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction. The CPS might not agree with that conclusion and decide not to go ahead with a court prosecution or ask for more evidence but that has nothing to do with the initial charging situation.

If you read my post, I think you'll find that's what I said marra.

 

[John Steed]

I'm a life long anti royalist and I haven't watched any coronation. However I agree with you that's absurd to say that anyone should feel bad about enjoying the coronation.

However you said "The Sun reported that the future king paid personally towards the loan to Andrew. This was denied which better news sources reported. There is no evidence that Charles paid anything.". My point is that just because there is no evidence publicly that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. The rational thing is to wait for the evidence and to avoid speculation.

Whatever the outcome of this it will have absolutely no impact on my life one way or the other.

The only reason I mentioned the sun was because the person I replied to had brought up this £1.5m that Charles has supposedly paid. As a reason for people to feel a bit silly about the coronation now.
When I said no evidence I was talking about evidence that is in the public domain. There isn't any, Charles denied paying towards the payoff and that's all we know. It's irrelevant if the police know different as the public don't know so have nothing to feel silly about to do with that.
Thinking about it why would the police have evidence that the king did chip in to pay the girl off? As it was a family thing the police will have had nothing to do with who paid what. I'd guess the sun will say they got their info from a royal aide and can't reveal their source. This is easily denied by the family, so there is no proof. I doubt the queen would need Charles to chip in anyway. She wasn't exactly short of a few quid.

Hope you are proud of yourself. Cheering on a family that protected a nonce. Poor lass who ended up topping herself. Shame on you.

Shame on you for your ridiculous straw man. Incapable of discussion without this pathetic bullshit. Show me where I've cheered anybofy on? You can't because I haven't. I just pointed out the stupidity of your earlier comment. As you can't comeback with anything, because you know I'm right, you resort to this shite. A typical member of the Facebook Twitter generation hate being called out for their daftness then get all nasty. Quite laughable really.

 

[Skylon]

The only reason I mentioned the sun was because the person I replied to had brought up this £1.5m that Charles has supposedly paid. As a reason for people to feel a bit silly about the coronation now.
When I said no evidence I was talking about evidence that is in the public domain. There isn't any, Charles denied paying towards the payoff and that's all we know. It's irrelevant if the police know different as the public don't know so have nothing to feel silly about to do with that.
Thinking about it why would the police have evidence that the king did chip in to pay the girl off? As it was a family thing the police will have had nothing to do with who paid what. I'd guess the sun will say they got their info from a royal aide and can't reveal their source. This is easily denied by the family, so there is no proof. I doubt the queen would need Charles to chip in anyway. She wasn't exactly short of a few quid.

Shame on you for your ridiculous straw man. Incapable of discussion without this pathetic bullshit. Show me where I've cheered anybofy on? You can't because I haven't. I just pointed out the stupidity of your earlier comment. As you can't comeback with anything, because you know I'm right, you resort to this shite. A typical member of the Facebook Twitter generation hate being called out for their daftness then get all nasty. Quite laughable really.

You keep drinking the kool aid!

The only reason I mentioned the sun was because the person I replied to had brought up this £1.5m that Charles has supposedly paid. As a reason for people to feel a bit silly about the coronation now.
When I said no evidence I was talking about evidence that is in the public domain. There isn't any, Charles denied paying towards the payoff and that's all we know. It's irrelevant if the police know different as the public don't know so have nothing to feel silly about to do with that.
Thinking about it why would the police have evidence that the king did chip in to pay the girl off? As it was a family thing the police will have had nothing to do with who paid what. I'd guess the sun will say they got their info from a royal aide and can't reveal their source. This is easily denied by the family, so there is no proof. I doubt the queen would need Charles to chip in anyway. She wasn't exactly short of a few quid.

Shame on you for your ridiculous straw man. Incapable of discussion without this pathetic bullshit. Show me where I've cheered anybofy on? You can't because I haven't. I just pointed out the stupidity of your earlier comment. As you can't comeback with anything, because you know I'm right, you resort to this shite. A typical member of the Facebook Twitter generation hate being called out for their daftness then get all nasty. Quite laughable really.

You pointed out absolutely nothing. Blaming it all on Queenie now! Charles has been paying the sweaty nonce out of his own( well,ours really),pocket

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[John Steed]

You keep drinking the kool aid!

You pointed out absolutely nothing. Blaming it all on Queenie now! Charles has been paying the sweaty nonce out of his own( well,ours really),pocket

You must be logged on to see external links

I'm not blaming anyone it's you who's doing all the blaming. If I pointed nothing out put up a link to Charles paying towards the girls payoff. That was your big reason for those who cheered the coronation to feel silly now.
Charles is now doing all he can to get Andrew out of the royal family and for him to become a commoner. Obviously he's still going to be family as he's the kings brother and there is nothing Charles can do about that. But he won't be royal family.

 

[arthursboy]

Surely what he’s charged with now will be a tool that’s being used to look at all his fiddling ?
Laptops, phones etc etc, no doubt he will be hated by his staff so plenty to stick the boot in.
His wife comes across as a thick greedy accomplice, who will surely join him at some point.