A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020
Mon/Fri 9am-8pm       Sat/Sun 2pm-8pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Refusal by persons unconnected to child to handove

  • rubytuesday
  • rubytuesday's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
4 years 9 months ago #472138 by rubytuesday
Please do let us know what a criminal solicitor advises you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #472140 by JN48
Like the person who did understand stated I''m guessing (and my own experience informs me here also) that the CPS Gatekeeper / Review lawyers would not want to prosecute as it''s not a comfortable fit for a cut and dried prosecution. That''s not to say it has no merit.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • maccy2
  • maccy2's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #472142 by maccy2
Prosecutions have to a) have a reasonable prospect of conviction b) be in the public interest. It is likely that neither would apply. The mother of the children might be feeling somewhat harassed and intimidated at the level of control you are seeking. Have the children been harmed? The advice that you have had so far, even though you do not wish to accept it, is very good.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #472145 by JN48
That''s close but not quite correct. The following is the case. For a case to be prosecuted it must satisfy both the evidential and public interest tests. Normally there must be the reasonable prospect of a conviction arising out of these two factors and to ensure the Courts time is not wasted . This is considered by CPS review lawyers after charge or report and CPS gatekeepers in the first instance. The Police are generally responsible for gathering enough evidence to demonstrate a Prima Facie case for this process to begin and either obtain a decision to charge from the CPS or report the matter to them. Of course if it''s a DV allegation against a male then generally that means no witnesses are required and almost everybody ends up in Court anyway consequent of the DV policy which appears to prosecute cases regardless of the strength of evidence which is often scant to say the least.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • hadenoughnow
  • hadenoughnow's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
4 years 9 months ago #472146 by hadenoughnow
Or you could go for a private prosecution and see what the courts have to say.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #472147 by JN48
The cost of a private prosecution would be astronomical as I am sure you know. In any case why should I have to do that when there is a law on statute and a Police Service and Prosecuting body funded by public taxation revenues that is supposed to do just that. Fear of failure by the authorities is the determining factor but that does not stop them elsewhere.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Hereshopin
  • Hereshopin's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #472171 by Hereshopin
The circumstances outlined here do not even come close to meeting the threshold test to consider a prosecution for abduction. So the evdential/public interest test CPS would apply is irrelevant. You sound like you feel you have been let down by the legal system but it is not there to satisfy you personally because you feel annoyed. The police investigate crime after all. To commit ANY crime, there has to be a criminal intent. Mens Rea. A guilty mind. Not doing what you want does not make these people criminals. It is not just about the wording of the statute. The law is not black and white. That''s why we have stated cases. The spirit of what was intended by Parlimaent is also relevant and anybody can see that the Child Abduction Act was not intended to meet circumstances you have outlined. You talk about taxpayers money. Well that''s why there is a gatekeeper system to ensure taxpayers money isn''t wasted taking nonsense to court!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11