The story so far:
Someone was run over with his own car in 2003 whilst it was being stolen. Another person was caught driving it the next day. On returning it to the owner it was found to have drugs in it.
Clearly it cannot be proven that the person driving it actually stole it. However, the police state that the CPS indicate that it would be "abuse of process" to prosecute the driver for "handling stolen goods" (or more precisely driving stolen goods).
The response from the CPS is that they need the name of the defendant to be able to search up the case and give their reasoning.
The police, however, cannot give the name of the defendant because of Data Protection Regulations.
Seems like Catch 22.
The story is not over yet.
*CPS - Crown Prosecution Service.
Someone was run over with his own car in 2003 whilst it was being stolen. Another person was caught driving it the next day. On returning it to the owner it was found to have drugs in it.
Clearly it cannot be proven that the person driving it actually stole it. However, the police state that the CPS indicate that it would be "abuse of process" to prosecute the driver for "handling stolen goods" (or more precisely driving stolen goods).
The response from the CPS is that they need the name of the defendant to be able to search up the case and give their reasoning.
The police, however, cannot give the name of the defendant because of Data Protection Regulations.
Seems like Catch 22.
The story is not over yet.
*CPS - Crown Prosecution Service.
Comments