Knowing the actual laws that you are supposed to be enforcing I d say is a vital prerequisite of policing. To reduce the amount of time officers get to learn these laws is dare I say it criminal. That's why you get people getting off Scot free for doing something dodgy, because they have been charged under the wrong act. An example is the guy a few years ago who was found not guilty of committing a traffic offence because the officer charged him as driving a motor vehicle when he was on an electric scooter. Apparently it was a different classification of vehicle so the judge dismissed the case out of hand on a point of law. Due to the length of time between the offence and the case going to court, I believe they were unable to charge him under the correct act.
I have been stopped a couple of times for undertaking on the Motorway. I had one in particular who ranted and raved about how he was going to throw the book at me so when I asked him for what offence he got all confused and said "The offence of Undertaking" and then he said "Dangerous Driving" so I said something like "Fine, I look forward to having a day out in court when I plead not guilty!"
He was shocked when I gave him my reasoning for going not guilty and I then explained the law to him. He was unaware that undertaking had been removed from the statute books back in the 70's and undertaking on its own was insufficient to convict for dangerous or careless without other factors.
He was even less happy when I asked him why he was ignoring the centre lane hoggers which he had banged to rights for a careless driving offence under the subsection of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. He was not a happy chappy and I would have hated to be the next motorist pulled over after he left me
But that is the point. He was a traffic cop, and he was preaching law that does not exist or he did not understand and the public are on the receiving end assuming that he is the font of all knowledge. That type of traffic copper is now becoming few and far between. Many traffic cops have little understanding of traffic law these days.
Back in the day on the traffic law course, you were required to sit an exam every Friday. If you hot less than 80% you were given one further opportunity to get the mark up, if not then you did not bother returning the following Monday. You ended up going back to your force and 24 hours later you would be wearing a tall hat shaking door knobs at 2 in the morning. That was the difference.
And then this leads onto people being reported for the wrong offences.
For most traffic offences they are reported for summons.
To be charged you have to be arrested and that only happens in the most serious cases such as drink driving, Dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified etc. They are charged prior to being released or when they answer to their bail, but the custody Sgt is usually the one who types up the charge sheet and then they are bailed to appear before a court on a certain date. It is usually the Sgt who decides the charge and charges the higher offence on the basis that it can always be reduced to a lesser offence, so to use the Murder analogy, Murder can be reduced to Manslaughter or wounding with intent or GBH
You cannot charge GBH and then go for a Murder charge unless the defendant is re-arrested and charged again.
With reporting for summons, it is very difficult to report for the wrong offences because the defendant is normally reported for the obvious offences and then also reported for any other offences that may be disclosed. This leaves scope to add further offences if required and then the summonses are typed and sent out with all the offences listed. So it is very different to being charged which a lot of the public don't understand.
If you are charged, you have been arrested and are really in the doo dah. Summonsed, you are in the poo but not to the same extent as being arrested and charged.
Then the other issue comes about of getting the case before the courts and this is where the CPS often screw up.
Information has to be laid before the courts within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence. In other words the court has to be told that it is the crown's intention to prosecute the individual.
If that information is not laid within 6 months, then case gets thrown out. If information is laid, it can still be several months before the case is heard. Longest I had was 24 months because defendant kept asking for an adjournment for several reasons and the court kept granting the delay. But the reality is that a case must be heard within a reasonable time unless there are extenuating circumstances.
But, I have known the CPS lose files and therefore cases thrown out as a result.
There was one case where a team of 4 had been held in custody for armed robbery, CPS lost the file and could not find the duplicate file, the 4 scumbags walked.
It can be frustrating
I am rabbiting on, sorry. (again)
