Options
I had a criminal allegation made against me from someone at work!
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/14bfdb5b08286ebb3e9b6ec5921c2c1a.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 418 Forum Member
✭
I recieved a phone call today from a police officer from the transport police (i work for a railway company), apparantly on june the 26th i done something wich was against public order which could cause harrasment, alarm or distress.
The person alleging it is someone else from my company and is a female, the officer won't tell me anymore than that and wants to see me to ask some questions, i called a mate who is a lawyer and said do not speak to the police without legal representation so i called my unions lawyers who will be getting back in touch. The funny thing is i don't even work in a public environment, i work in a closed off room that the public aren't allowed into, oh well lets just see what happens.
p.s my manager has told me he is unaware of any grievences made against me
The person alleging it is someone else from my company and is a female, the officer won't tell me anymore than that and wants to see me to ask some questions, i called a mate who is a lawyer and said do not speak to the police without legal representation so i called my unions lawyers who will be getting back in touch. The funny thing is i don't even work in a public environment, i work in a closed off room that the public aren't allowed into, oh well lets just see what happens.
p.s my manager has told me he is unaware of any grievences made against me
0
Comments
You do ned a solicitor with you when you attend, and they will go through the procedures with you. They will also be made aware of the complaint before the interview.
Don't they have to tell the OP what it is first too?
I wouldn't be too happy going to something and not knowing what it is!
Sounds like a wind up.
They've told him an allegation regarding a public order offence has been made. More detail will be forthcoming at the time. The solicitor will be allowed a consultation before the interview, after being told the details.
It's not unusual for less serious things. It allows a bit of pre planning for the Officer, and the suspect.
It's better than just turning up and arresting him from that perspective.
You're not on 'the list' (
I would refuse to speak to anyone until you know the nature of the complaint in writing, and when you do, take a union rep with you.
He can take a solicitor at a pre arranged time. If he accepts your advice, the alternative is being arrested at the Officers convenience.
It is not uncommon to arrange such things.
Well then I'd refuse to answer any questions until the nature of the allegation was put to me, if they wanted to play hardball.
It's not uncommon to say nothing.
Are you saying he can't take a union rep ?
Anyone can refuse to answer questions. The purpose of the interview is to put the allegations to the suspect.
A union rep has no legal entitlement to sit in on an interview, but a solicitor has.
What's the problem with telling him up front, beforehand. Surely he has a right to know what the hell is going on, prior to being questioned, rather than attending, "in the dark".
Such a policy gives the questioner a distinct advantage, as they can more easily wrongfoot the person concerned.
Before the interview, the solicitor gets disclosure, then consults with the client.
The Officer cant discuss the details over the phone, because questions will be asked, and that is an interview, which has to be carried out in a formal way.
He's been told the basic details of when and where the complaint was made. It is a reasonable request for him to come in. He doesn't have to go in if he feels your way is the best, but the knock will still come.
If the Officer just turned up and arrested him, there is none of this stuff you ask for.
That's a start, but why not just tell the client as well.
Who said anything about the phone ? If you recall, I did say "in writing"
It's a reasonable request for him to come in once he knows all the detail. Just knowing the date of the alleged misdemeanour is not enough IMO. It's several months ago, and he may not have the first clue what it's all about.
What other interview do you attend and not have the first clue what it's about ?
Oh, another police practice that stinks then :eek:
Indeed, the complainant knows, the police know, and the police know who the complainant is.
The accused on the other hand, knows neither the complainant, nor the nature of the allegation. Even if his solicitor briefs him at the station, it doesn't give him much time to think.
My advice to him would be to stay silent until he knows what it's all about, and has a civilized amount of time to think about it, and consider his response. Under no circumstances should he allow himself to be bullied or hectored into answering questions he's not ready to respond to, by the police, prior to that.
Are you saying the Police shouldn't arrest people without writing to them first, outlining the evidence they have?
The interview will be under caution, and in most cases it is following arest. In this case, the Officer has tried to make it at a convenient time. I cant believe you are griping at that.
It's not like other interviews, so the same niceties dont apply.
The client is told. In interview, and recorded.
You cant have pre interview interviews. The whole point of the interview is to tell the suspect the full nature of the allegations against them, and to invite a response.
I can see it now. "There you go Mr Yorkshire Ripper. Take the full file of evidence home, and come back when you've had a chance to read everything we know, then we'll have a cosy chat over tea"!!
If you read the OP again, you'll realise why I consider that to be an inappropriate response to the point made.
No, I'm saying that in circumstances where prior arrest is not deemed necessary, they should have the decency to tell the person what it's all about, prior to attendance.
Why should that be a problem ? Sorry but I don't see it. Moreover, once again, who's talking about pre interview interviews. I have twice referred to a written notification.
In cases where the person is arrested first, it will usually be apparent to all, including the arrested person, what the issue actually is.
I understand your point.
I think the problem as I understand it is that the op doesn't know what he's done wrong/ can't remember if he has.
That wouldn't really have applied with the case you quote.
I had a similar situation myself where I was invited in to talk about something - a chat I was told - and felt stitched up. Nothing came of it but nobody contacted me for 3 months.
He can do that, but what do you think happens when people are arrested?
They are not given the full facts, and time before interview to become comfortable with everything.
The interview is when the allegations are put to the suspect. Thats how the law says it has to happen.
This interview is the same as one carried out following arrest, with all the same rights and entitlements. It's the way its always happened.
And what do you want in this written notification? No doubt if it didn't contain every scrap of evidence, you'd claim unknown stuff brought up in interview was a devious attempt to trap.
This is a routine way of investigating certain cases, and normally done to make it easier for everyone, but you can bet that once on here, it will be decided that it is unfair treatment by the Police again.
The simple thing is that the OP can take your advice, and refuse to co operate. What should the Police do then? Arrest, may I suggest.
How does that benefit the suspect?