@misc{noauthor_criminal_2013,
	title = {Criminal {Private} {Prosecution} in {Action}: {A} {Working} {Example} - {Darlingtons} {Solicitors}},
	url = {http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-example},
	abstract = {t appears that the Police do not receive or agree their budget with the
Home Office, unless they satisfy what the Home Office require of them in
terms of tackling specific crime. So for example, if mugging on the
street, were not important to satisfy a Home Office statistic, one could
see an argument arising where the Police will not investigate such a
crime, because it adds nothing to statistics, and does not serve to
further a Police budget. What would happen to ‘mugging’ as a crime? It
might be deemed, a ‘non-crime’ for a myriad of reasons, and an
investigation may not be considered further. When did it become important
to justify to the public purse, any spending on Police investigations?
Were things running inefficiently, with no care as to expenditure, but in
these days of thrift, Police must be more answerable? Theft in the
Workplace: Theft by an employee in the workplace, is more serious than
just theft, because there is an element/ingredient of abuse of position,
breach of trust, and breach of confidence. Yet, in my current real case
which concluded earlier yesterday, the Police felt that since goods stolen
had been recovered in full, and that the suspect was likely not to have
any assets, and that the Company I was representing was substantial, and
had sufficient resources not to care too much about such an offence, that
the Police openly stated that they lacked sufficient resources to
investigate the complaint, further. Options: 1. A Civil case could have
been brought against the suspect, but Civil Court timetables are
notoriously lengthy to allow good time for preparation of evidence, etc…as
are costs, and Court time. 2. Do nothing. This was, nevertheless, an
option, but given it was public knowledge in this particular workplace,
that the Police were not with resources to take steps, there might be
anarchy, and mass looting and theft. 3. Bring Private Prosecution.
Bringing a Private Prosecution Information is laid before a Bench of
Magistrates, and if accepted, a Summons will be issued. Prior to the
Summons being issued, a one-off Court fee of £200 is paid, regardless of
the value of the claim (at least that has been my experience). The Court
serves the Summons, and there is a return date to attend. In the instant
case, the return date to Court was 3 weeks from service of the Summons.
The Defendant did not attend on the return date, and so I applied for a
warrant for the Defendant’s arrest, which I obtained. Some weeks later,
the Defendant was found, and a new date set. At the first hearing, the
Defendant pleaded guilty to stealing a number of items totalling just
under £2,000 by way of a retail value. The entire claim took 8 weeks to be
heard from the start of the Summons until a guilty plea. Legal costs were
in the region of £2,000 to £3,000 including the costs of investigation,
preparation of Witness Statements for the prosecution bundle, preparing
the bundle, and attendance 3 times at Court. Some 70\% of legal costs
incurred, are to be recovered. Those legal costs were partly Ordered to be
paid by the Defendant, with the remainder of funds to be paid from Central
Funds. Effects of Prosecution: A. The Defendant now has a criminal record
for stealing; B. The Defendant is unlikely, given his age, to re-offend;
C. A Zero-tolerance policy has been re-asserted in the work-place
confirming that irrespective as to whether or not the Police choose to
investigate a crime further, in all instances where there is sufficient
evidence, a Private Prosecution will be brought, and if found guilty, the
offender would face low prospects of being re-employed, would have a
criminal record, would of course lose their job. D. The deterrence of
bringing a private prosecution has been felt throughout the work-place.
The Fraud Triangle: In Criminology, one often refers to the fraud
triangle, which consists of 3 main factors namely: A need for something
they do not have, rationality to justify committing a fraud, and a an
opportunity to commit fraud. Before a Probation Officer at sentencing, the
Defendant admitted that he had felt frustrated not to have been promoted
as quickly as he felt he had promised. He said that promises made to him
for more money, had not been honoured, and in an ill-thought, immature,
and impulsive manner, he stole from his employee. He was very sorry. He
had admitted his guilty at the time. He had a small drugs problem, and
needed additional money. He had rationalised stealing because he felt he
was owed it. His perceived opportunity to commit the crime was apparent,
because he did not think he would be seen at the rear of the factory,
albeit that he was on CCTV walking with the stolen goods until he turned a
corner outside of the CCTV view. He was, however, seen by a neighbour who
reported the theft. Evidence: The evidence was overwhelmingly against the
Defendant to a criminal standard of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Legal representation: The Defendant was represented by a good Solicitor,
who upon reading the evidence stacked against the Defendant, then took
instructions and conveyed his intention to admit his guilt. Comparison to
Civil Court: A. No real stigma if you receive a County Court Judgment,
except of course it affects your credit rating for some 6 years; B. A
Defendant might re-offend, and there would be no central record of this,
because in a Civil Court, it would not be deemed a criminal offence; C. A
zero-tolerance policy could be re-asserted, but if the punishment is a
Civil Judgment, and the Defendant has no other financial means or assets,
the Judgment would be a Pyrrhic victory; D. There would be little
deterrence upon receipt of a Civil Judgment, for others in the work-place.
Judge’s comments: The Learned Judge observed the state of the Police being
in a frustrated position not to have the resources to investigate this
crime, as ‘Appalling’. Further thoughts? There is an overwhelming desire
for natural justice to run its course, namely, that justice must prevail
over and beyond any financial considerations, and that justice must be
seen to be done. Private Prosecution is a common-law right, preserved in
the Prosecution of Offences Act, to bring prosecution against firms or
individuals in a number of cases for a number of offences. Restrictions:
Many cases under certain legislation, require the permission of the
Department of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General. The Bribery
Act, for example, requires permission of the Attorney-General before a
criminal claim can be brought. Further considerations: The Crown
Prosecution Service has a right of veto, to take over any case in the
Criminal Courts, and either run it themselves, or to discontinue the same.
In their decision, they would need to re-consider the Full Code Test, as
well as a third test, that it would be in the public interest for them to
continue to prosecute the case, or to discontinue the same, as the case
may be. Sentence: Following a guilty plea, the Defendant was assessed by
the Probation Service, and brought before a District Judge for
consideration. The Court gave the Defendant 160 hours of Community Service
to be carried out over a 12 month period, and also ordered a contribution
towards prosecution costs within 28 days. Other mutterings: I am being
consulted to advise and investigate from individuals to Public Limited
Companies, with a view to bringing Criminal Private Prosecutions. The
Courts are aware of the Police position, and welcome private prosecutions
so long as they are not brought vexatiously or frivolously, having regard
to the Full Code test. drosen-1-sbProfessor David Rosen is a
Solicitor-Advocate, (Higher Rights, All Proceedings), Partner and head of
Litigation at Darlingtons Solicitors LLP. He is Vice-President, and
Strategic Director of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, United
Kingdom Chapter, a Certified Fraud Examiner, a working member of the Fraud
Advisory Panel, a member of the Society of Legal Scholars, and an
associate Professor of Law at Brunel University where he regularly
lectures each week on Fraud Examination, amongst other subjects},
	urldate = {2017-11-12},
	month = oct,
	year = {2013},
	note = {00000},
	keywords = {Sep 20 import}
}

{"_id":"uo8kCT2bxvXSi7msy","bibbaseid":"anonymous-criminalprivateprosecutioninactionaworkingexampledarlingtonssolicitors-2013","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-04-27T04:04:44.747Z","title":"Criminal Private Prosecution in Action: A Working Example - Darlingtons Solicitors","author_short":null,"year":2013,"bibtype":"misc","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/davidlloyd33","bibdata":{"bibtype":"misc","type":"misc","title":"Criminal Private Prosecution in Action: A Working Example - Darlingtons Solicitors","url":"http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-example","abstract":"t appears that the Police do not receive or agree their budget with the Home Office, unless they satisfy what the Home Office require of them in terms of tackling specific crime. So for example, if mugging on the street, were not important to satisfy a Home Office statistic, one could see an argument arising where the Police will not investigate such a crime, because it adds nothing to statistics, and does not serve to further a Police budget. What would happen to ‘mugging’ as a crime? It might be deemed, a ‘non-crime’ for a myriad of reasons, and an investigation may not be considered further. When did it become important to justify to the public purse, any spending on Police investigations? Were things running inefficiently, with no care as to expenditure, but in these days of thrift, Police must be more answerable? Theft in the Workplace: Theft by an employee in the workplace, is more serious than just theft, because there is an element/ingredient of abuse of position, breach of trust, and breach of confidence. Yet, in my current real case which concluded earlier yesterday, the Police felt that since goods stolen had been recovered in full, and that the suspect was likely not to have any assets, and that the Company I was representing was substantial, and had sufficient resources not to care too much about such an offence, that the Police openly stated that they lacked sufficient resources to investigate the complaint, further. Options: 1. A Civil case could have been brought against the suspect, but Civil Court timetables are notoriously lengthy to allow good time for preparation of evidence, etc…as are costs, and Court time. 2. Do nothing. This was, nevertheless, an option, but given it was public knowledge in this particular workplace, that the Police were not with resources to take steps, there might be anarchy, and mass looting and theft. 3. Bring Private Prosecution. Bringing a Private Prosecution Information is laid before a Bench of Magistrates, and if accepted, a Summons will be issued. Prior to the Summons being issued, a one-off Court fee of £200 is paid, regardless of the value of the claim (at least that has been my experience). The Court serves the Summons, and there is a return date to attend. In the instant case, the return date to Court was 3 weeks from service of the Summons. The Defendant did not attend on the return date, and so I applied for a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest, which I obtained. Some weeks later, the Defendant was found, and a new date set. At the first hearing, the Defendant pleaded guilty to stealing a number of items totalling just under £2,000 by way of a retail value. The entire claim took 8 weeks to be heard from the start of the Summons until a guilty plea. Legal costs were in the region of £2,000 to £3,000 including the costs of investigation, preparation of Witness Statements for the prosecution bundle, preparing the bundle, and attendance 3 times at Court. Some 70% of legal costs incurred, are to be recovered. Those legal costs were partly Ordered to be paid by the Defendant, with the remainder of funds to be paid from Central Funds. Effects of Prosecution: A. The Defendant now has a criminal record for stealing; B. The Defendant is unlikely, given his age, to re-offend; C. A Zero-tolerance policy has been re-asserted in the work-place confirming that irrespective as to whether or not the Police choose to investigate a crime further, in all instances where there is sufficient evidence, a Private Prosecution will be brought, and if found guilty, the offender would face low prospects of being re-employed, would have a criminal record, would of course lose their job. D. The deterrence of bringing a private prosecution has been felt throughout the work-place. The Fraud Triangle: In Criminology, one often refers to the fraud triangle, which consists of 3 main factors namely: A need for something they do not have, rationality to justify committing a fraud, and a an opportunity to commit fraud. Before a Probation Officer at sentencing, the Defendant admitted that he had felt frustrated not to have been promoted as quickly as he felt he had promised. He said that promises made to him for more money, had not been honoured, and in an ill-thought, immature, and impulsive manner, he stole from his employee. He was very sorry. He had admitted his guilty at the time. He had a small drugs problem, and needed additional money. He had rationalised stealing because he felt he was owed it. His perceived opportunity to commit the crime was apparent, because he did not think he would be seen at the rear of the factory, albeit that he was on CCTV walking with the stolen goods until he turned a corner outside of the CCTV view. He was, however, seen by a neighbour who reported the theft. Evidence: The evidence was overwhelmingly against the Defendant to a criminal standard of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt. Legal representation: The Defendant was represented by a good Solicitor, who upon reading the evidence stacked against the Defendant, then took instructions and conveyed his intention to admit his guilt. Comparison to Civil Court: A. No real stigma if you receive a County Court Judgment, except of course it affects your credit rating for some 6 years; B. A Defendant might re-offend, and there would be no central record of this, because in a Civil Court, it would not be deemed a criminal offence; C. A zero-tolerance policy could be re-asserted, but if the punishment is a Civil Judgment, and the Defendant has no other financial means or assets, the Judgment would be a Pyrrhic victory; D. There would be little deterrence upon receipt of a Civil Judgment, for others in the work-place. Judge’s comments: The Learned Judge observed the state of the Police being in a frustrated position not to have the resources to investigate this crime, as ‘Appalling’. Further thoughts? There is an overwhelming desire for natural justice to run its course, namely, that justice must prevail over and beyond any financial considerations, and that justice must be seen to be done. Private Prosecution is a common-law right, preserved in the Prosecution of Offences Act, to bring prosecution against firms or individuals in a number of cases for a number of offences. Restrictions: Many cases under certain legislation, require the permission of the Department of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General. The Bribery Act, for example, requires permission of the Attorney-General before a criminal claim can be brought. Further considerations: The Crown Prosecution Service has a right of veto, to take over any case in the Criminal Courts, and either run it themselves, or to discontinue the same. In their decision, they would need to re-consider the Full Code Test, as well as a third test, that it would be in the public interest for them to continue to prosecute the case, or to discontinue the same, as the case may be. Sentence: Following a guilty plea, the Defendant was assessed by the Probation Service, and brought before a District Judge for consideration. The Court gave the Defendant 160 hours of Community Service to be carried out over a 12 month period, and also ordered a contribution towards prosecution costs within 28 days. Other mutterings: I am being consulted to advise and investigate from individuals to Public Limited Companies, with a view to bringing Criminal Private Prosecutions. The Courts are aware of the Police position, and welcome private prosecutions so long as they are not brought vexatiously or frivolously, having regard to the Full Code test. drosen-1-sbProfessor David Rosen is a Solicitor-Advocate, (Higher Rights, All Proceedings), Partner and head of Litigation at Darlingtons Solicitors LLP. He is Vice-President, and Strategic Director of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, United Kingdom Chapter, a Certified Fraud Examiner, a working member of the Fraud Advisory Panel, a member of the Society of Legal Scholars, and an associate Professor of Law at Brunel University where he regularly lectures each week on Fraud Examination, amongst other subjects","urldate":"2017-11-12","month":"October","year":"2013","note":"00000","keywords":"Sep 20 import","bibtex":"@misc{noauthor_criminal_2013,\n\ttitle = {Criminal {Private} {Prosecution} in {Action}: {A} {Working} {Example} - {Darlingtons} {Solicitors}},\n\turl = {http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-example},\n\tabstract = {t appears that the Police do not receive or agree their budget with the\nHome Office, unless they satisfy what the Home Office require of them in\nterms of tackling specific crime. So for example, if mugging on the\nstreet, were not important to satisfy a Home Office statistic, one could\nsee an argument arising where the Police will not investigate such a\ncrime, because it adds nothing to statistics, and does not serve to\nfurther a Police budget. What would happen to ‘mugging’ as a crime? It\nmight be deemed, a ‘non-crime’ for a myriad of reasons, and an\ninvestigation may not be considered further. When did it become important\nto justify to the public purse, any spending on Police investigations?\nWere things running inefficiently, with no care as to expenditure, but in\nthese days of thrift, Police must be more answerable? Theft in the\nWorkplace: Theft by an employee in the workplace, is more serious than\njust theft, because there is an element/ingredient of abuse of position,\nbreach of trust, and breach of confidence. Yet, in my current real case\nwhich concluded earlier yesterday, the Police felt that since goods stolen\nhad been recovered in full, and that the suspect was likely not to have\nany assets, and that the Company I was representing was substantial, and\nhad sufficient resources not to care too much about such an offence, that\nthe Police openly stated that they lacked sufficient resources to\ninvestigate the complaint, further. Options: 1. A Civil case could have\nbeen brought against the suspect, but Civil Court timetables are\nnotoriously lengthy to allow good time for preparation of evidence, etc…as\nare costs, and Court time. 2. Do nothing. This was, nevertheless, an\noption, but given it was public knowledge in this particular workplace,\nthat the Police were not with resources to take steps, there might be\nanarchy, and mass looting and theft. 3. Bring Private Prosecution.\nBringing a Private Prosecution Information is laid before a Bench of\nMagistrates, and if accepted, a Summons will be issued. Prior to the\nSummons being issued, a one-off Court fee of £200 is paid, regardless of\nthe value of the claim (at least that has been my experience). The Court\nserves the Summons, and there is a return date to attend. In the instant\ncase, the return date to Court was 3 weeks from service of the Summons.\nThe Defendant did not attend on the return date, and so I applied for a\nwarrant for the Defendant’s arrest, which I obtained. Some weeks later,\nthe Defendant was found, and a new date set. At the first hearing, the\nDefendant pleaded guilty to stealing a number of items totalling just\nunder £2,000 by way of a retail value. The entire claim took 8 weeks to be\nheard from the start of the Summons until a guilty plea. Legal costs were\nin the region of £2,000 to £3,000 including the costs of investigation,\npreparation of Witness Statements for the prosecution bundle, preparing\nthe bundle, and attendance 3 times at Court. Some 70\\% of legal costs\nincurred, are to be recovered. Those legal costs were partly Ordered to be\npaid by the Defendant, with the remainder of funds to be paid from Central\nFunds. Effects of Prosecution: A. The Defendant now has a criminal record\nfor stealing; B. The Defendant is unlikely, given his age, to re-offend;\nC. A Zero-tolerance policy has been re-asserted in the work-place\nconfirming that irrespective as to whether or not the Police choose to\ninvestigate a crime further, in all instances where there is sufficient\nevidence, a Private Prosecution will be brought, and if found guilty, the\noffender would face low prospects of being re-employed, would have a\ncriminal record, would of course lose their job. D. The deterrence of\nbringing a private prosecution has been felt throughout the work-place.\nThe Fraud Triangle: In Criminology, one often refers to the fraud\ntriangle, which consists of 3 main factors namely: A need for something\nthey do not have, rationality to justify committing a fraud, and a an\nopportunity to commit fraud. Before a Probation Officer at sentencing, the\nDefendant admitted that he had felt frustrated not to have been promoted\nas quickly as he felt he had promised. He said that promises made to him\nfor more money, had not been honoured, and in an ill-thought, immature,\nand impulsive manner, he stole from his employee. He was very sorry. He\nhad admitted his guilty at the time. He had a small drugs problem, and\nneeded additional money. He had rationalised stealing because he felt he\nwas owed it. His perceived opportunity to commit the crime was apparent,\nbecause he did not think he would be seen at the rear of the factory,\nalbeit that he was on CCTV walking with the stolen goods until he turned a\ncorner outside of the CCTV view. He was, however, seen by a neighbour who\nreported the theft. Evidence: The evidence was overwhelmingly against the\nDefendant to a criminal standard of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt.\nLegal representation: The Defendant was represented by a good Solicitor,\nwho upon reading the evidence stacked against the Defendant, then took\ninstructions and conveyed his intention to admit his guilt. Comparison to\nCivil Court: A. No real stigma if you receive a County Court Judgment,\nexcept of course it affects your credit rating for some 6 years; B. A\nDefendant might re-offend, and there would be no central record of this,\nbecause in a Civil Court, it would not be deemed a criminal offence; C. A\nzero-tolerance policy could be re-asserted, but if the punishment is a\nCivil Judgment, and the Defendant has no other financial means or assets,\nthe Judgment would be a Pyrrhic victory; D. There would be little\ndeterrence upon receipt of a Civil Judgment, for others in the work-place.\nJudge’s comments: The Learned Judge observed the state of the Police being\nin a frustrated position not to have the resources to investigate this\ncrime, as ‘Appalling’. Further thoughts? There is an overwhelming desire\nfor natural justice to run its course, namely, that justice must prevail\nover and beyond any financial considerations, and that justice must be\nseen to be done. Private Prosecution is a common-law right, preserved in\nthe Prosecution of Offences Act, to bring prosecution against firms or\nindividuals in a number of cases for a number of offences. Restrictions:\nMany cases under certain legislation, require the permission of the\nDepartment of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General. The Bribery\nAct, for example, requires permission of the Attorney-General before a\ncriminal claim can be brought. Further considerations: The Crown\nProsecution Service has a right of veto, to take over any case in the\nCriminal Courts, and either run it themselves, or to discontinue the same.\nIn their decision, they would need to re-consider the Full Code Test, as\nwell as a third test, that it would be in the public interest for them to\ncontinue to prosecute the case, or to discontinue the same, as the case\nmay be. Sentence: Following a guilty plea, the Defendant was assessed by\nthe Probation Service, and brought before a District Judge for\nconsideration. The Court gave the Defendant 160 hours of Community Service\nto be carried out over a 12 month period, and also ordered a contribution\ntowards prosecution costs within 28 days. Other mutterings: I am being\nconsulted to advise and investigate from individuals to Public Limited\nCompanies, with a view to bringing Criminal Private Prosecutions. The\nCourts are aware of the Police position, and welcome private prosecutions\nso long as they are not brought vexatiously or frivolously, having regard\nto the Full Code test. drosen-1-sbProfessor David Rosen is a\nSolicitor-Advocate, (Higher Rights, All Proceedings), Partner and head of\nLitigation at Darlingtons Solicitors LLP. He is Vice-President, and\nStrategic Director of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, United\nKingdom Chapter, a Certified Fraud Examiner, a working member of the Fraud\nAdvisory Panel, a member of the Society of Legal Scholars, and an\nassociate Professor of Law at Brunel University where he regularly\nlectures each week on Fraud Examination, amongst other subjects},\n\turldate = {2017-11-12},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tnote = {00000},\n\tkeywords = {Sep 20 import}\n}\n\n","key":"noauthor_criminal_2013","id":"noauthor_criminal_2013","bibbaseid":"anonymous-criminalprivateprosecutioninactionaworkingexampledarlingtonssolicitors-2013","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/criminal-private-prosecution-in-action-a-working-example"},"keyword":["Sep 20 import"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["criminal","private","prosecution","action","working","example","darlingtons","solicitors"],"keywords":["sep 20 import"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["pWG6kkFjeQheTxKbs"]}