Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Lied to the police in a witness statement to protect my boyfriend..? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    This.



    I love how dramatic TSR posters are with matters of breaking the law.
    Thank you. Fact is, lawmakers are supposed to be a good representation of society. But they're not. Majority of them are quite old, white, rich, heterosexual. Jesus Christ, it wasn't that long ago when it was legal to rape your own wife. I don't agree with a lot of laws. We have all broken the law at least once, intentionally or unintentionally. I, many times. And guess what? NOTHING happened to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    I'm dismissing others who are instilling pointless fear into the OP by telling her to expect to be locked up. It's a bit harsh on the OP. If I had no clue what was going on and read these responses, I would be more worried than I was at first instance. They probably came here to put their mind at rest.
    But saying: "assaults aren't prosecuted and neither are most ABHs", as you did earlier, and based on (presumably) some work experience/vacation schemes/friends involved in criminal proceedings, is just as irresponsible as saying that the OP will be dragged straight to a prison cell.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    OP, I am kind of disappointed with the reaction you have got from the post, not to mention that probably the majority of these people do not study law, have never studied law, along with practical experience in working with law firms and the CPS itself.

    You will not 'rot in jail' and you certainly do not deserve that. You know by now you shouldn't have lied and from this, you have probably learnt your lesson and won't do it again in the future. By posting this, it shows that you are regretful of the entire situation. You even waited with this man until the ambulance came. Many people would have taken off at the run and left him there alone. I hope you aren't taking any of these posts seriously as it will cause you nothing but irrational and useless fear. It was probably a mistake to post this on TSR in the first, as many members like to pretend they're an expert in the field just because they have googled 'what's the law on lying to the police'. There is a lot more to the practice of law to the law in theory.

    In future, if you ever get into a situation like this (which I know you won't) don't ask for advice over TSR as some people will stop at nothing to scare you. Instead, obtain legal advice. Legal advice is free of charge and completely confidential. Literally anything you tell them (even involving murder or if you committed the murder yourself) will not be passed on to any other person, whatsoever.
    Perfectly said. I find it flummoxing how so many on here think they are sufficiently knowledgable to advise (and scaremonger) an actual person regarding an issue of the law. I think sometimes they forget that the OP is a real person and what they flippantly said could have caused her a lot of worry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Perfectly said. I find it flummoxing how so many on here think they are sufficiently knowledgable to advise (and scaremonger) an actual person regarding an issue of the law. I think sometimes they forget that the OP is a real person and what they flippantly said could have caused her a lot of worry.
    Hence why you go to a solicitor or a legal advice clinic, and not TSR. Also, you are suggesting that the truth should be withheld to avoid the OP from experiencing "worry"?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Ergh get over yourself. I think Ahava is a lot more qualified to talk about this than you.
    So you think her advice to lie again to the police if they call again, having spotted that she concealed that she knows the attacker, is better than my advice that she shouldn't? I think that says more about you than it does about me and my knowledge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    But saying: "assaults aren't prosecuted and neither are most ABHs", as you did earlier, and based on (presumably) some work experience/vacation schemes/friends involved in criminal proceedings, is just as irresponsible as saying that the OP will be dragged straight to a prison cell.
    Why? Most assaults aren't prosecuted. Thats the damn truth.

    Look, I'm not giving you anymore to dignify you or going to waste my time when I really do not need to justify myself to someone I don't know and never will. Feel free to carry on quoting me without any response, like you have been doing, but you're not making much sense anymore.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    Thank you. Fact is, lawmakers are supposed to be a good representation of society. But they're not. Majority of them are quite old, white, rich, heterosexual. Jesus Christ, it wasn't that long ago when it was legal to rape your own wife. I don't agree with a lot of laws. We have all broken the law at least once, intentionally or unintentionally. I, many times. And guess what? NOTHING happened to me.
    Yeah exactly. They're assuming that the law is the complete be all and end all. If we all take that stance of blind acceptance the law would never improve. Why they think that because you have experience in the law you aren't allowed a realistic/ practical and critical view on it is beyond me. I think they just haven't much experience in the world of work and still have the 'head prefect' type attitude.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    Why? Most assaults aren't prosecuted. Thats the damn truth.
    When the police have CCTV images and witness evidence? Ok...

    There is a material difference between the police not seeking permission from the CPS to charge in a matter, perhaps due to lack of evidence gained through enquiries, and the CPS refusing to charge regardless of evidence held by the police. You are not making clear which you are referring to. As you keep quoting your experience with the CPS, you have suggested it is the latter. I am genuinely interest, but if you do not wish to reply then that's you prerogative.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Hence why you go to a solicitor or a legal advice clinic, and not TSR. Also, you are suggesting that the truth should be withheld to avoid the OP from experiencing "worry"?

    I'm saying be careful what you say. Because you are completely over-estimating yourself by saying what you posted is the 'truth'. When in actuality you just posted a link to a site showing more serious offences and no cases that were remotely similar. It's a little conceited to think what you said is the 'truth'.


    The best advice on here is to tell the OP to seek legal advice. You're just scaremongering, for what purpose I don't know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Perfectly said. I find it flummoxing how so many on here think they are sufficiently knowledgable to advise (and scaremonger) an actual person regarding an issue of the law. I think sometimes they forget that the OP is a real person and what they flippantly said could have caused her a lot of worry.
    I know right. Having access to google to find guidelines and law does not mean you are able to give good advice. For example, the law states that if you are found in possession of cannabis, you could very well receive a 5 year prison sentence... Have you actually ever heard of someone being sent down for having a bit of weed on them? How ridiculous. When found in possession of cannabis, the police can't actually do nothing more but confiscate it and give you a warning. Yet, if I just went off the government website, I would be telling people found in possession to buckle up for their 5 year sentence. Again, law in theory not the same as law in practice.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    I know right. Having access to google to find guidelines and law does not mean you are able to give good advice. For example, the law states that if you are found in possession of cannabis, you could very well receive a 5 year prison sentence... Have you actually ever heard of someone being sent down for having a bit of weed on them? How ridiculous. When found in possession of cannabis, the police can't actually do nothing more but confiscate it and give you a warning. Yet, if I just went off the government website, I would be telling people found in possession to buckle up for their 5 year sentence. Again, law in theory not the same as law in practice.

    I was thinking the exact same thing regarding cannabis!
    It reminds me of those threads in the health section where people describe certain physical symptoms and based on a google search people respond with the most dramatic serious illnesses. Definitely better off avoiding TSR for advice regarding these sorts of things.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I watched an episode of Law and Order: UK once - so I'm the most qualified here.

    What I reckon will happen is that the OP will develop feelings for the officer in the case. This will lead to tense interview scenes - low light and lingering eye contact. The officer in the case's superior will notice that something is up but will not say anything - que pensive looks into the middle distance.

    OP will go to court - there will be brutal cross examination. The officer in the case will have a crises of conscience and burst into the court shouting "She didn't do it!" and "I love her!" The OP and the officer will elope to Santorini - a destination selected mainly because the OP mistakenly, but understandably, thought it was the setting for Captain Corelli's Mandolin. They live happily ever after.

    The superior officer is questioned about his knowledge - but you'll have to wait until next season to see what happens.

    So everyone on this thread is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    I know right. Having access to google to find guidelines and law does not mean you are able to give good advice. For example, the law states that if you are found in possession of cannabis, you could very well receive a 5 year prison sentence... Have you actually ever heard of someone being sent down for having a bit of weed on them? How ridiculous. When found in possession of cannabis, the police can't actually do nothing more but confiscate it and give you a warning.
    Why don't you quote us the guideline correctly? And the actual range?

    And, by your logic, any offence can just be subject to a police warning. What do you think the chances are of receiving a mere warning, unless the evidence is very poor, in an indictable-only offence such as perverting the course of justice?

    Yet, if I just went off the government website, I would be telling people found in possession to buckle up for their 5 year sentence. Again, law in theory not the same as law in practice.
    You wouldn't if you had an understanding of the sentencing guidelines.

    I don't wish to argue with you over the law, it's a rather dull topic on a Wednesday evening. Perhaps it's best just to agree that she should seek proper legal advice?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    When the police have CCTV images and witness evidence? Ok...

    There is a material difference between the police not seeking permission from the CPS to charge in a matter, perhaps due to lack of evidence gained through enquiries, and the CPS refusing to charge regardless of evidence held by the police. You are not making clear which you are referring to. As you keep quoting your experience with the CPS, you have suggested it is the latter. I am genuinely interest, but if you do not wish to reply then that's you prerogative.
    To be honest, you're not coming across as having genuine respectful interest since you have shot me down for my age (?) and my education (?). Didn't really understand that...

    Anyway, if you are of genuine interest, I'll respect that. I'm kind of lost? I don't even know if you are referring to general crime or what OP has posted in particular. I'll go with the OP's situation, since I don't think they'll be appreciating their thread being taken over by a criticism of the law at large when they are looking for help. I doubt in this case the police would even bother taking it to the CPS as OP said themselves it was not a serious fight. I'm doubting serious injuries were caused. The witness statements they have is the OP and their friend, who lied. The CCTV can be interpreted as anything. You can't tell someones relationship from some CCTV footage. However, if the CPS take this case I'm still doubting they'd waste their time over a drunken scuffle. I've had much worse happen to me and the police couldn't even be bothered to come and talk face to face to me. Many people will have experienced the same.

    If you disagree, that's fine. But I find it unfair and strange how the police won't give some people the time of day for much worse crimes involving weapons and more serious injuries, and yet they're going to make a big case out of a drunken roll about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    I know right. Having access to google to find guidelines and law does not mean you are able to give good advice. For example, the law states that if you are found in possession of cannabis, you could very well receive a 5 year prison sentence... Have you actually ever heard of someone being sent down for having a bit of weed on them? How ridiculous. When found in possession of cannabis, the police can't actually do nothing more but confiscate it and give you a warning. Yet, if I just went off the government website, I would be telling people found in possession to buckle up for their 5 year sentence. Again, law in theory not the same as law in practice.
    But Cannibis warnings are a specific out of court disposal... and you only get two bites of the cherry (warning -> penalty notice) before you get arrested.

    More consideration has to be given when using out of court disposals for other crimes, especially forms of assault.

    But your general point is right - law in theory is different to law in practice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I was thinking the exact same thing regarding cannabis!
    It reminds me of those threads in the health section where people describe certain physical symptoms and based on a google search people respond with the most dramatic serious illnesses. Definitely better off avoiding TSR for advice regarding these sorts of things.
    Ugh. I think it's better off to avoid TSR, for anything, especially after tonight. After tonights attack I don't think I'll be logging in again anyway... My head hurts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    To be honest, you're not coming across as having genuine respectful interest since you have shot me down for my age (?) and my education (?). Didn't really understand that...
    Wasn't trying to shoot you down. I would also question the qualifications of a pupil barrister or trainee solicitor for making such sweeping statements - which you have to admit you made.

    But you speak your mind which is fair enough.

    Anyway, if you are of genuine interest, I'll respect that. I'm kind of lost? I don't even know if you are referring to general crime or what OP has posted in particular. I'll go with the OP's situation, since I don't think they'll be appreciating their thread being taken over by a criticism of the law at large when they are looking for help. I doubt in this case the police would even bother taking it to the CPS as OP said themselves it was not a serious fight. I'm doubting serious injuries were caused. The witness statements they have is the OP and their friend, who lied. The CCTV can be interpreted as anything. You can't tell someones relationship from some CCTV footage. However, if the CPS take this case I'm still doubting they'd waste their time over a drunken scuffle. I've had much worse happen to me and the police couldn't even be bothered to come and talk face to face to me. Many people will have experienced the same.
    As you suggest, this case will turn on the evidence, but I do not think the CPS will refuse to consent to charging if the police gather enough.

    If you disagree, that's fine. But I find it unfair and strange how the police won't give some people the time of day for much worse crimes involving weapons and more serious injuries, and yet they're going to make a big case out of a drunken roll about.
    Not sure what the solution is. Perhaps a unified police force, such as Police Scotland.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Why don't you quote us the guideline correctly? And the actual range?

    And, by your logic, any offence can just be subject to a police warning. What do you think the chances are of receiving a mere warning, unless the evidence is very poor, in an indictable-only offence such as perverting the course of justice?



    You wouldn't if you had an understanding of the sentencing guidelines.

    I don't wish to argue with you over the law, it's a rather dull topic on a Wednesday evening. Perhaps it's best just to agree that she should seek proper legal advice?
    Look, I'm not going to sit here and start quoting laws and guidelines like some absolute loser. Because I really, really do not care.

    I don't want to argue over law either because you have completely exhausted me. I don't wish to argue with someone who I'll never know, on a computer, like an absolute ****. I think I'm now braindead. But yes, above all, if OP can they should obtain legal advice if they feel they genuinely need to. And do what I did, don't come to TSR for advice, about anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Wasn't trying to shoot you down. I would also question the qualifications of a pupil barrister or trainee solicitor for making such sweeping statements - which you have to admit you made.

    But you speak your mind which is fair enough.



    As you suggest, this case will turn on the evidence, but I do not think the CPS will refuse to consent to charging if the police gather enough.



    Not sure what the solution is. Perhaps a unified police force, such as Police Scotland.
    Fair enough. If you, or the OP want to disagree with me then you have every right to. Advice is rarely a one size fits all kind of thing.

    I haven't heard of Police Scotland, but I'll have a look into it. Sounds quite interesting.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ahava)
    I haven't heard of Police Scotland, but I'll have a look into it. Sounds quite interesting.
    They have shops and schools too. Some of them up there even have shoes.

    (Although there's not enough trousers to go round.)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 26, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.