Complaints against officers

[Police Community + 1,311]

The idea of this section is for all officers studying for either of the OSPRE Part 1 exams to have somewhere to go - a kind of 'Virtual Study Group' - where issues can be discussed and answers given.

 

To asisst, Phil Waters, Cert Ed, who runs Time Training, will be on hand to answer specific questions and give advice. Phil is an ex Surrey Inspector from their Training School and was a training consultant for National Police Training.

 

Forum members might also find some of the assistance given in the OSPRE Part 1 pages on the main Police Oracle site helpful (http://www.policeoracle.com/careers/ospre_part_1.html)

 

We hope this part of the Forum helps all those going through the process - we've been there and know how much commitment it takes!

 

The Police Oracle team

[Melapa 6]

I'll start this off with a question, the case of R v Hinks, in that it was determined that there can be an appropriation of property in a gift being given, how could the money have been "dishonestly appropriated" if it was given feely as a gift?

[Traffic Rat + 287]

My question to Phil is this :

Do you consider than the quantity of material that now needs to be studied for the part 1 exam is vastly greater than that which would actually needed as an operational Sgt.

IE, Why do I need to know the ins & outs of Stated cases - such as R v Hicks, on the street, this is the sort of thing that can be wrangled with over the books later on, between arguments with the CPS etc.

Why do I need to know how long a Parenting Order lasts for?

Should there now be a review and a Core examination concentrating on the Basic's, as if I wish to be promoted it would be a Traffic Sgt's post I would be looking far, so do I really need to know the full workings of an ASBO or just limited basics.

Anti -Terror laws and Detention times, this material could be covered on a Custody Officers course instead of at exam time.

These are just a couple of examples of the top of my head.

[Bondgirl 1]

I'll start this off with a question' date=' the case of R v Hinks, in that it was determined that there can be an appropriation of property in a gift being given, how could the money have been "dishonestly appropriated" if it was given feely as a gift? [/quote']

 

 

 

I like this case as it creates a tension between civil and the criminal law. In other words, conduct which is not wrongful in a civil law sense may constitute a crime of theft.

 

R. v. Hinks

The defendant had acted dishonestly by systematically raiding the savings in a building society account of a vulnerable person who trusted her.

 

It all goes back to the interpretation of the word "appropriation" within the Theft act 1968.

 R. v. Lawrence (1971) shows that in prosecution for theft, it is unnecessary ro prove that the taking was without the owner's consent (a gift).

 

 

 

[1100waters 0]

This is a discussion that is as old as the hills.  There is no doubt that there are a lot of topics in the exam that could be removed, but the bottom line is that if you want to play that particular game, someone else sets the rules, and if you want to win....those are the rules you have to play with. You do have my sympathy, but if you want to play football and you keep picking the ball up and running with it you are not going to score many goals.  Sorry I can't be any more help.

 

   

[Melapa 6]

R. v. Hinks

The defendant had acted dishonestly by systematically raiding the savings in a building society account of a vulnerable person who trusted her.

 

 

[/quote']

The money given in R v Hinks was also a gift, and the person giving the gift was also aware of what a gift was although they had no concept of money, there is no problem with the appropriation in that she assumed the rights of an owner, however how was it dishonest?

[Bondgirl 1]

Mr Dolphin was of limited intelligence, and Miss Hinks was his main carer, ie. he depended on her.

Mr. Dolphin was described as being naive and trusting, although he was capable of making a gift and understanding the concept of ownership, he had no idea of the values of his assets or the ability to calculate their value.

Allowing the acceptance of a valid gift, given these circumstances is dishonest and wrong as it links the issue of mental incapacity to what ordinary and decent people would regard as dishonest.

If a donor is found mentally incapable there will be no valid contract and transfer or property, and Miss Hinks should be found guilty as her actions (accepting the gift) were dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.