Reform the Bail Act 1976

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

Restoration of presumtion of innocence, common sense, discretion and proportionality

The presumption of innocence should be restored as a fundamental plank of British justice. There has been an alarming trend in recent years for this to be eroded. We increasingly see regulations and law being introduced which create absolute offences where someone is going to be found guilty because they cannot prove their innocence. There should be substantial proof of guilt before anyone is charged or fined for an offence. For the most part, such cases are currently relatively minor (but potentially important for those involved) ones, but there does seem to be an increasing tendency for the presumption of innocence to be lost or effectively set aside for more serious offences.

Common sense, discretion and proportionality should be restored to the criminal justice system. Policemen and magistrates particularly should be encouraged to stop adopting a tick-box approach to justice, and should use their common sense to ensure fairness fo treatment in the light of the specific circumstances instread of being hamstrung by unbending rules.   

 

Why is this idea important?

The presumption of innocence should be restored as a fundamental plank of British justice. There has been an alarming trend in recent years for this to be eroded. We increasingly see regulations and law being introduced which create absolute offences where someone is going to be found guilty because they cannot prove their innocence. There should be substantial proof of guilt before anyone is charged or fined for an offence. For the most part, such cases are currently relatively minor (but potentially important for those involved) ones, but there does seem to be an increasing tendency for the presumption of innocence to be lost or effectively set aside for more serious offences.

Common sense, discretion and proportionality should be restored to the criminal justice system. Policemen and magistrates particularly should be encouraged to stop adopting a tick-box approach to justice, and should use their common sense to ensure fairness fo treatment in the light of the specific circumstances instread of being hamstrung by unbending rules.   

 

Police DNA Database

If you get arrested by the police for whatever reason,once your booked in they take your photo, fingerprints and DNA sample. Then later on its proven and your cleared of the conviction and let go with out charge.  The police should take your DNA sample off there database..

    [e.g.]  They have my DNA I wasnt charged, years on and I apply for a Job that requires a CRB check,  because of my DNA on there database that could indicate that I have been in trouble with the police and convicted of a crime then I loose the chance of that job all for wrongly kept information being held on there database.

Keep the DNA samples of convicted criminals remove the DNA samples of innocent people

Why is this idea important?

If you get arrested by the police for whatever reason,once your booked in they take your photo, fingerprints and DNA sample. Then later on its proven and your cleared of the conviction and let go with out charge.  The police should take your DNA sample off there database..

    [e.g.]  They have my DNA I wasnt charged, years on and I apply for a Job that requires a CRB check,  because of my DNA on there database that could indicate that I have been in trouble with the police and convicted of a crime then I loose the chance of that job all for wrongly kept information being held on there database.

Keep the DNA samples of convicted criminals remove the DNA samples of innocent people

The Department of Education from keeping records on innocent people under the Protection of Children Act (Poca list)

There is, quite rightly, serious concern about the police keeping DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people.

However, did you also know that the Department of Education have a policy of keeping records on people who have come under suspicion regarding children ie violence/sexual and have been proven to be totally innocent. The 'Poca list'  (Protection of Children Act) is checked as part of a CRB check.

They are keeping records for 10 years on people suspected of misconduct even if proven later to be totally innocent.

There internal policy states –

'This category includes allegations relating to misconduct or pupil mismanagement of children and including allegations of theft, or misuse of school property, harassment of an adult and other less serious non sexual offences or behaviours'.

They are keeping such records even when a person has been shown to be totally innocent and not charged with any offence.

They do so just in case some similar allegation takes place in the future.

Like the keeping of DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people such a practice by the Department of Education is a disgusting and a breach of civil liberties.

 

Why is this idea important?

There is, quite rightly, serious concern about the police keeping DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people.

However, did you also know that the Department of Education have a policy of keeping records on people who have come under suspicion regarding children ie violence/sexual and have been proven to be totally innocent. The 'Poca list'  (Protection of Children Act) is checked as part of a CRB check.

They are keeping records for 10 years on people suspected of misconduct even if proven later to be totally innocent.

There internal policy states –

'This category includes allegations relating to misconduct or pupil mismanagement of children and including allegations of theft, or misuse of school property, harassment of an adult and other less serious non sexual offences or behaviours'.

They are keeping such records even when a person has been shown to be totally innocent and not charged with any offence.

They do so just in case some similar allegation takes place in the future.

Like the keeping of DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people such a practice by the Department of Education is a disgusting and a breach of civil liberties.

 

Restore Human Rights to those declared innocent by judge only

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Repeal all laws that were introduced to “send a message”

Many laws have been introduced in recent years in order to "send a message" to certain members of society that a particular form of behaviour, or worse, holding certain beliefs, is considered unacceptable by "right thinking" people. All such laws should be repealed unless it can be shown that they have resulted in a significant number of convictions.

Why is this idea important?

Many laws have been introduced in recent years in order to "send a message" to certain members of society that a particular form of behaviour, or worse, holding certain beliefs, is considered unacceptable by "right thinking" people. All such laws should be repealed unless it can be shown that they have resulted in a significant number of convictions.

Repeal lost ball laws

"Mother held for five hours and DNA tested for refusing to give children their ball back to teach them a lesson

  Lorretta Cole refused to give it back when asked to and was held for questioning at a police station where she had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken"

We need to repeal  laws like this that persecute the innocent. If someone chucks a ball into your garden then they have forfeited ownership and it should be up to you what you do with it. In this case it seems the police were not interested in criminal damage by the perpetrators, they just seemed to want someone to victimise.
 

Why is this idea important?

"Mother held for five hours and DNA tested for refusing to give children their ball back to teach them a lesson

  Lorretta Cole refused to give it back when asked to and was held for questioning at a police station where she had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken"

We need to repeal  laws like this that persecute the innocent. If someone chucks a ball into your garden then they have forfeited ownership and it should be up to you what you do with it. In this case it seems the police were not interested in criminal damage by the perpetrators, they just seemed to want someone to victimise.
 

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by removing the Enhanced CRB and retaining the original Police Check – now known as Standard CRB

As a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the murder of two school girls by Ian Huntley, at the time employed as a school caretaker, the Government introduced ‘Enhanced CRB’ checks. Where the Standard CRB’ records any previous convictions, the enhanced version allows the police to record, under ‘any other information’ any non-factual comments, suspicions, unfounded allegations and indeed anything the police feel they wish to record. The person for whom this Enhanced CRB is completed has little, if any, course of reproach about what information is recorded. Even where someone stands trial and is found not guilty by a jury, such allegations are still recorded on the Enhanced CRB. The Police are even allowed to send a separate letter to the prospective employer, containing details that the person for whom the CRB is completed has no knowledge of.

Enhanced CRB checks should end immediately and we should retain the standard CRB check only.

Why is this idea important?

As a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the murder of two school girls by Ian Huntley, at the time employed as a school caretaker, the Government introduced ‘Enhanced CRB’ checks. Where the Standard CRB’ records any previous convictions, the enhanced version allows the police to record, under ‘any other information’ any non-factual comments, suspicions, unfounded allegations and indeed anything the police feel they wish to record. The person for whom this Enhanced CRB is completed has little, if any, course of reproach about what information is recorded. Even where someone stands trial and is found not guilty by a jury, such allegations are still recorded on the Enhanced CRB. The Police are even allowed to send a separate letter to the prospective employer, containing details that the person for whom the CRB is completed has no knowledge of.

Enhanced CRB checks should end immediately and we should retain the standard CRB check only.

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by extended the right to anonymity to those accused of rape or sexual assault, as it is to those making the allegation

Rape or other sexual assault against a woman, man or young person is something which rightly, society finds abhorrent. However, we continually see cases where the accused is found not guilty, or the case is dropped before any trial, because it has been established that the complainant had made up the allegation. Because of the way such offences are viewed our society, people wrongly or falsely accused lose their employment, home, family and the stigma of having been accused often makes it impossible for them to regain their normal life.

Why is this idea important?

Rape or other sexual assault against a woman, man or young person is something which rightly, society finds abhorrent. However, we continually see cases where the accused is found not guilty, or the case is dropped before any trial, because it has been established that the complainant had made up the allegation. Because of the way such offences are viewed our society, people wrongly or falsely accused lose their employment, home, family and the stigma of having been accused often makes it impossible for them to regain their normal life.

STOP POLICE TAKING DNA AND FINGER PRINTING OF INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR TARGETS AND BY DOING SO COLLECT EXTRA BONUSES FOR THEMSELVES

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Change the Police statement on arrest to remove prejudice

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

Why is this idea important?

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

Protect people from misuse of “soft evidence.”

So many jobs now require applicants to go through the "disclosure" procedure. It is one thing for someone to be rejected for a job on the basis of a solid criminal conviction, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, it is appalling that people are routinely refused employment on the grounds of nothing more than unproven and unsubstantiated allegations or rumours. This "soft evidence" should prompt the police to investigate further, but should not be passed on to employers so that they can callously discriminate against innocent people.

To quote from "Here is Wosdom":

"We have changed from a culture where you were considered innocent unless your guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and you had been convicted in a court of law of a specific crime, to one where there are now many degrees of innocence categorised by various levels of unproven suspicion."

Why is this idea important?

So many jobs now require applicants to go through the "disclosure" procedure. It is one thing for someone to be rejected for a job on the basis of a solid criminal conviction, proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, it is appalling that people are routinely refused employment on the grounds of nothing more than unproven and unsubstantiated allegations or rumours. This "soft evidence" should prompt the police to investigate further, but should not be passed on to employers so that they can callously discriminate against innocent people.

To quote from "Here is Wosdom":

"We have changed from a culture where you were considered innocent unless your guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and you had been convicted in a court of law of a specific crime, to one where there are now many degrees of innocence categorised by various levels of unproven suspicion."

Anonymity for those accused of rape or sexual assault until found guilty

Anyone, men and women alike, who are accused of rape or sexual assault should have the same right to anonymity as those who have been raped. If they are found guilty then their names should be released to the media.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone, men and women alike, who are accused of rape or sexual assault should have the same right to anonymity as those who have been raped. If they are found guilty then their names should be released to the media.