Will - What I did on duty

1810 - Having been making our way from afar in slow(ish) time, we arrive at the van to find the passenger window smashed in and the driver detained on the pavement - even less happy than before but making sure to ask everyone if they are acting under their oath. I take great pleasure in arresting for obstruct police, fail to stop, driving with no insurance and theft of motor vehicle (based on his resistance, being uninsured and not being able to speak to the owner) and off we head in a Met taxi.

The van was almost certainly the property of the police at the stage that you seized it and so you might actually have a theft of the vehicle from the Metropolitan Police... The CPS might not go with it, but it's an interesting one to consider...!

Absolutely. There's caselaw that it certainly amounts to TWOC and if you can prove the intent then it could be theft.

I've not had the pleasure of meeting one of these characters yet, but from your account I think you handled it very well. You managed to get his details from him before he chose to escalate by driving off.

After the trial being adjourned in December we finally went through the ordeal of a retrial last week - prepare for a bit of a rant! The suspect was ultimately charged with driving with no insurance and failing to stop, and there were 4 of us warned to give evidence in court (yes this did feel a little excessive, but attempts to get a couple section 9'd were fruitless).

The suspect had better things to do than show up at court (didn't we all) and so it should have been a quick run through of our statements and an easy guilty verdict - really, there was nothing subjective about either offence. Needless to say, we still spent 3-4hrs waiting before being given the opportunity.

From the outset the prosecutor treated us with about as much hostility as you would expect from a defence lawyer, including frequently cutting us off mid-sentence. I've been to court a fair few times and know to keep answers concise, so her attitude made it a frustrating experience.

Once the trial was concluded the prosecutor emerged from the court room to declare, to our amazement, that the suspect been acquitted of all charges. Essentially, the equally-chirpy legal advisor had realised that none of the officer testimonies had explicitly mentioned the suspect name and date of birth in full, and as a result the Magistrates had decided on a non-guilty verdict. We were not able to re-enter to confirm these details, nor was it accepted that these details be read from all of our signed statements(!)

The icing on the cake is that the prosecutor had the audacity to blame it on all of us for not giving these details. Of course, she hadn't taken the trouble to ask the question during the trial, and she retreated meekly when this was put to her.

So in summary - a monumental waste of time and money, a suspect who is probably still driving around with no insurance, and who probably now has the right to contest the costs incurred of damaging and seizing his van.

The CPS have a letter of complaint sat in their inbox.