This is a technical Law question about court procedures and filings and bringing lawful prosecutions within time frames set by legislation.
Ok, but my question is can they "Lay" information against someone, (i.e issue a court summons) without making an arrest or having charged someone within the 6 month time period? Lets assume it is an investigation for damage of property say.
Are you sure? i am getting conflicting information on this. You are telling me the CPS can lay information to a court against someone for summary offences without having heard the other persons account, without having being cautioned, arrested or charged or ever having spoken to them regarding the allegation within the 6 months? Remember the allegation is for property damage in this example.
How do we find out if information has been laid against someone? Without having to wait for the court to reach out first (if someone wants piece of mind say). Can the solicitor check with the court?
And also, who decides whether the information is worth laying? I.e Do the CPS review the evidence first then decide if want to prosecute then they would lay the information, if they felt they had enough evidence for conviction?
I am confused about the way things work. If someone is charged and they intend to prosecute, it is done on the say so of the cps no? A summons is kind of like being charged? So why would a summons ever be done without cps advice? (although i understand you say that it is not common for that to happen)
once information is laid do they then stop investigating the allegation, as in stop knocking on the door or does that continue all the way up until the court date?
is it fair to say that if no warrant is issued for an arrest then it would be abnormal for them to lay summons. Would the correct protocol not be to arrest if can. i,e bare in mind the offence which we are hypothetically keeping in mind.
Can you pls tell me what would be normal cause of action in such a case. If investigating property damage would it not be normal practise to arrest if can with warrant before any information is laid. What i mean is information being laid against someone without an arrest for their warrant in such a case would be unorthodox?
sorry you have too many typos in your last response. Did you wrtie It would be or wouldn't be...pls can you retype your answer
Lets stick to what would usually happen most of the time. What i am trying to say is this:
If property damage is an offence which usually warrants an arrest (as you alluded to above), if no arrest is ever made then it is unlikely they would skip that step and just lay information to the courts. Why would they not arrest if that is what they usually do before laying for this type of offence. So if there is no arrest is it safe to assume they are just investigating and the likely hood of a surprise letter through the post is small, since otherwise they would have made an arrest, right?
Yes, but as you said normally this type offence would be dealt with in the way of an arrest and "if time is not an issue" (they have been investigation for many months), then one would most of the time expect them to make an arrest and charge someone for this kind of offence, correct?
Yes not necessarily and i understand they "could" summons but you said usually this type offence would not be one which they would do that for, correct? You artoe above:
They wouldn't normally do that for a charge of this kind but they coukd and if timing is an issue then they would.
i am getting confused... when you wrote above:
"They wouldn't normally do that for a charge of this kind but they coukd and if timing is an issue then they would."
You were implying that the normal cause of action would be an arrest for such an offence correct? Please note i am not asking you what are all the things they could do under the realm of possibility. I am asking what would be normal protocol or the usual most likely scenario. The caveats of other things is understood.
ok thnk you. I feel you are giving me all possible outcomes when i am merely asking for the most probable one. If i was to ask you this question in a different way say.
Example: A minor assault is also a summary offence. Now if the police had a suspect in mind for months, would you attach a 50/50 probability on them arresting (assuming they could and timing was not an issue) versus them not arresting and just laying a summons. Are you saying it is a 50/50 shot, so it is random whether they decide to make an arrest or avoid making an arrest all together and skip straight to laying information. The two things surely cannot have a 50% chance. Usual process (higher probability) must surely be assigned to an arrest for common assault.
ok thank you. On more thing.. I assume the same criteria/ threshold in examining evidence is used for when issuing a summons as is used when charging someone?