Insufficient Evidence

The Police have to present evidence from an investigation to the Crown Prosecution Service. We receive a report of a crime, we attend and investigate the circumstances leading up to and subsequent to the crime being committed. Due to our superior investigative skills, well resourced and staffed Police stations, excellent co-operation with other departments and management who leave us alone to do our jobs (no, honestly, it really is just like The Bill. Well, perhaps not...) anyway, however we get there, we have a suspect for this crime.

We gather evidence from the scene, be it CCTV, witness statements or forensic evidence. We look at the wider aspects of the crime and think of possible defences that our suspect might have. We then try and either prove or disprove these defences, perhaps by interviewing other people or maybe by trying to trace the suspect's movements.

Our suspect will be interviewed and asked for an account of their whereabouts and possible involvement with this crime. If they give such an account, then that too will be investigated. We're not necessarily interviewing the person to prove their guilt. We're just gathering more evidence. And, once we've done all the above, we submit a file to the CPS and they decide whether or not to pursue the investigation through to a prosecution.

A fairly simple, managable and accountable method of bringing justice to victims of crime? Not always...

I investigated a report of the theft of a car, a green Vauxhall. The owner had driven to the local leisure centre and was using the gym. His car keys were in his tracksuit pocket, and his tracksuit was in the gym with him, but lying in the corner near the water fountain. Only one other person was in the gym, and this person left within five minutes of the car owner entering. The owner described this person only as being male, in his late teens and with fair hair. I took the man's statement.

I spoke to the member of staff on duty at the desk. He remembered seeing a local bad 'un enter the leisure centre, but without paying any money at the desk. He knew the male by name, as they had gone to school together. Before he had the chance to go and check what he was up to, the member of staff saw this same male leave the leisure centre, go to the car park, enter a green car and drive away. He was only in the leisure centre for 10 to 15 minutes. I took his statement and, as well as naming the male, I took a description. The suspect was described as being in his late teens and with fair hair. I then viewed the CCTV, which showed a person matching the description entering the leisure centre and leaving shortly afterwards, walking to the green car and driving away. Unfortunately, the quality wasn't good enough to show the persons' identity, but it did corroborate what the two witnesses had told me.

Right, I had my suspect. Now, to arrest him... I went to his house and, before knocking on his door, did a little drive around the area just on the very remote possibility that he had driven the stolen car home, some five or so miles from the leisure centre. Less than 300 yards from his house was parked..... the stolen green Vauxhall.

I had the vehicle recovered for examination by forensic experts. The suspect wasn't at home though (no doubt doing some of that charity work I spoke about in my last blog) so I didn't get the chance to arrest him for a couple of days. When he was arrested, I searched his room and found some clothing matching that which I had seen in the CCTV. So I seized that too. All good evidence.

The forensic examination was to show no physical evidence in the car, but a partial handprint on the frame of the car close to the driver's door. This matched my suspect.

In interview, the suspect completely denied the offence. His story was:
- the victim of the theft must have left his keys somewhere else.
- the witness who worked at the leisure centre had a grudge against him and so was lying.
- the CCTV didn't identify him and lots of his friends had the same or similar clothing.
- it was a coincidence that the car was found so close to his house. But he had heard that there were some car theives who lived near him. No names though, obviously.
- he did remember looking into a green car which he didn't recognise. As a bit of a car enthusiast he does this often, but never steals from the cars. This must be where the handprint came from.
- he gave no further information regarding where he was during the time the theft was committed.

So, with quiet confidence, I completed a file for the CPS and submitted it for review, fully expecting the male suspect to be charge.

The decision came back to NFA (No Further Action) the file due to there being no probable likelihood of a successful prosecution. And for a few seconds I looked around me expecting a mate to slap me on the back, say "only joking" and pass me the real decision. But it wasn't a joke. And I was the lucky chap who got to inform the victim that he wouldn't be getting justice after all.

It makes me wonder sometimes what level of proof the CPS really need. I mean, I know that the Court can only convict on "beyond reasonable doubt" but perhaps we take this too far sometimes. Do we actually have to catch people in the act with eighteen independant witnesses and a TV camera crew on hand? I've had simple shop-lifting jobs NFA'd by the CPS due to lack of CCTV evidence. But what does that mean for the small businessman who can't afford CCTV? Don't bother reporting any thefts until you've forked out a couple of grand for cameras...

I don't know, it's for people more intelligent than me to decide. All I know is that my suspect left the station with the biggest, smuggest grin on his face.