Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

It seems to me that there was some confusion at the time as to whether magistrates were entitled to refuse bail, for the type of misdemeanour Tumblety was charged with, at the remand hearing. I would ask if anyone can cite a single case were bail was denied at the remand hearing in respect of a misdemeanour offence.

Oscar Wilde's case is certainly an anomaly. However, it should be remembered that he was also denied bail at the committal hearing, which was in clear contravention of the Indictable Offences Act. Why then did the magistrate fail to apply the law in this case? Especially as by taking such an approach he would he placing himself in some peril, I.e he would be committing a misdemeanour himself!

David suggests, in his article, it was because the magistrate believed, in error, that Tumblety had been charged either with conspiracy to commit a felony (possibly amounting to a felony), or an attempt to commit a felony (buggery) which, whilst still a misdemeanour, would have fallen under one of the limited number of misdemeanours for which bail could be legitimately denied at the committal hearing.

Of course, the police could have indicated to the magistrate at Tumblety's remand hearing that more serious charges might be added to the indictment, I.e buggery (a felony), which could have resulted in a denial of bail. However, as I understand it that would have been a rare occurrence.

[GUT]

Monty

Do you still have unqualified Magistrates in UK?

I assumed that they were now all qualified lawyers.

[Monty]

Hi David,

As Adam Wood and I, in conjuction with the Met and City of London Police Orphans Fund, have spent the last nine months heavily working on a new book all about the Code ( due later this month plug plug), I dont think they'd appreciate me revealing any content.

However, there are two incidents, one occurring in the 1880s, the other in the 1920s, where a magistrate turned to the Code for guidance when drawing conclusion on a matter. One, granted, in connection to police action, and one connected to legal definition, and these are included in the book. So yeah, the Code was referred to regarding matters beyond police action.

Yes its guidence, however that guidence is based upon General Orders, and points of law. It was referred to by Clerks (who, in my experience, tend to be the legal font most Magistrates turn to during hearing proceedings), which kinda gives an indication it was more that a mere reference piece to be discarded if not agreed with, but actually held some consideration. Its 50 year longevity also shows its status with regards police procedure.

However, you are correct. The magistrate makes decisions based on law, not the Code, and whilst it may be referred to, if the law permits, magistrates can dictate bail action as he sees fit. So they are not bound by the Code, but rather the law. That said, the Code was commonly reffered to, simply because it was easy to use.

And that is my final post on the matter. My intention was not to provide ammunition for yourself, or Trevor, but rather give the reader as much information as possible in the hope it helps in the understanding. It holds no sway in a matter which is fluid.

I apologise for the grief.

Monty
☺


PS Are you seriously telling me that magistrates are familiar with law? Judges, yes, Stipes, yes....but magistrates? ;-)

[David Orsam]

Please don't David. It is a waste of server space.

Too late Phil. Your words were:

"And I note you avoid answering the bits that you don't want to tackle".

I have now demonstrated the falsity of that statement in the only way possible. As I told you, when I delete a passage from a post in a quote and don't respond to it, it's invariably because the point is so feeble and badly made that it's best ignored: in the same way that I deleted the rest of your post I am responding to now.

[David Orsam]

This is specially for Phil who thinks I have avoided his incisive remarks. Apologies for boring everyone else.

So..now it is Trevor's turn.

Dealt with. He has been chasing me and I actually forgot to mention that he also amended his book to incorporate his big Oscar Wilde point - in direct response to my postings on this message board - and my post in this thread was a direct and very reasonable response to that.

How this, and the sequence of events I outlined previously, can be interpreted by you as it being "Trevor's turn" [to have his arguments demolished, presumably] I have not the faintest idea.

I see.

Not very clearly.

I'm waiting for you to attack the 5/6 volumes of Mr. P.Begg.
A couple by Mr. S. P. Evans, one each by Mr. M. Fido, Mr. D.Farson, Mr. R. Odell, Mr.D. McCormick, and whilst you are at it..P. D.James' work may need thoroughly looking at...as well as every book ever written about the fictional, but very influential Mr. Sherlock Holmes.

Is this your big point that you think I avoided? It's actually a crazy point. I don't have time to read and research everything on this planet. I can only "attack" things that I have read, researched and believe are wrong. In the case of Trevor Marriott, I was interested by his attempt to prove that Tumblety was in prison due to the legal procedure in 1888 and wanted to research the point. In doing so, I found he had made a number of errors and posted my findings. What on earth is wrong with that?

With the Suckered! Trilogy, if you go back to the posts in February on this forum you will find Wolf telling me to "look at the actual sources" rather than trusting in what Palmer tells me and you will find Jonathan H urging me to locate and read the works by Palmer and Wolf. I did all this and, at the same time, read Simon's Smoke & Mirrors article then his book. Then I researched the point, then I wrote about it. Why you have a problem with this I don't know but it is certainly your problem, not mine.

I only have a limited amount of time but if you think there is something specific that I should look at, and it seems interesting, then I might do it. But obviously I cannot analyse every thing ever written on the subject of Jack the Ripper. Furthermore, you should note that the subjects I have researched really have nothing to do with Jack the Ripper, being about legal procedure in 1888 and police actions in America.

What is of more interest to me is your question which, like Wolf's obsessive theme, is focussed on personalities rather than arguments. I fully appreciate that you don't like the fact that I have criticised certain people on this forum ("the untouchables"?) but the way to counter this is to respond properly with serious points challenging my facts or arguments. Not this continual personal abuse that you throw at me, with or without "humour".

After all...All you are after is "THE TRUTH" (apparently......)

I can't add much more to the above except to say that I do not argue for the sake of it and I admit it when I'm wrong. I am only interested in the truth but your point that I should effectively establish the truth of everything ever written in the world is not only ridiculous but insane.

I suppose if we wait long enough you can categorically tell us all..who wait with yawns asunder. ..everything that ever happened in the history of crime since time began.

All you do here is make a silly point. I've only made posts on a few limited subjects on this forum. So it's just madness to suggest that I will be writing on everything in the history of crime. And you wonder why I didn't respond?

Gawd help Monty if he should happen to disagree with you.

The comment is wrong on so many levels. A debate by definition involves an argument to establish the truth of a particular matter. If I am wrong then I would expect Monty to disagree with me and explain to me why I am wrong. If I am right I would expect Monty to concede that to be the case. In this instance, it may be that Monty and I actually agree and it's just a question of clarifying the situation. I'm sure Monty is perfectly capable of answering for himself.

You've already asked the man for detailed explanations should his opinion be contrary to yours.

This is a factual inaccuracy on your part. I didn't ask him for "detailed explanations" at all. Please take care on what you attribute to other posters. I asked him to set out his reasoning and authority so that I can understand his point if it is contrary to mine. Hardly an unreasonable request.

Because then you will counter with another lengthy series of lengthy postings to put him in his place. As is..apparently..your bent on these boards.

It's amazing how you think you can predict the future. But the point is unfair. The reason I have responded to posters with sometimes long posts is because the points they have made are so poor (such as in this thread with Trevor Marriott) and need to be countered at length. If a poster says something sensible then it doesn't happen. I cannot help it if so many posters have been pushing nonsensical theories on this forum.

Errm. .It might just have escaped your notice David..but you are pushing the "look at me and what I know and I need confirmation that I am right from as many peers as possible by asking for their attention/attacking their work" line a tiny..weeny..tiddly..itsy witsy bit past the "oh God..not ANOTHER LONG LOAD of self believing perfection from the greatest one man historical crusader on the planet since the fall of the Roman Empire/ The Third Reich/anything in between..."

This is all just rubbish without any foundation or understanding of anything about me. And you wonder why I ignore it.

David..you are nearly 10 years younger than I. I bow to your enthusiasm. Your energy.

I don't care how old you are or what you think of my energy or enthusiasm.

Please do me a favour? [/

NEVER get interested in politics. Either that or do something worthwhile. .like solving Greece's financial problems.

And you wonder why I don't respond to this farrago of nonsense.

Then we can all applaud. Loudly. And you will be our hero. And we will bow. And give you the attention you so very clearly crave for your all encompassing brilliance.

Was this supposed to be the funny bit?

Roll on 2017. By this time next year David will have solved the Ripper case and we can all go home. Until then..don't hold your breath.

Comedy is not really your forte Phil.

And after all that I have answered every single point you made, wasting my time completely in writing all of it and wasting the time of every other poor poster who has come into this thread thinking they might read something about Trevor Marriott's book and all they found was an abusive post by you to me and then me having respond to every single tedious and badly made point.

Well done Phil.

[Phil Carter]

Please don't David. It is a waste of server space.

And don't even think you know HOW I think better than me. You simply don't. Period. So you are in err.

get it?


PHIL

[David Orsam]

All done with a tinge of irony and humour.

Oh yeah, hilarious Phil, particularly "oh God..not ANOTHER LONG LOAD of self believing perfection from the greatest one man historical crusader on the planet since the fall of the Roman Empire/ The Third Reich/anything in between..." - just throw in the Nazis in there, and of course they were a laugh a minute.

I assure you that I have not been abusive. Had I been. ..you would certainly have known the difference. But then again...You are never wrong in your analytical assessments. .eh?

I don't think I am wrong in this instance Phil.

P's. .at least my posts are very infrequent.

Infrequent, and never adding anything to the debate at hand in my experience.

And I note you avoid answering the bits that you don't want to tackle. Under the excuse no doubt..that they are off topic..irrelevant. ..misunderstood, etc etc etc. Heard it all before..sorry.

If I don't respond to a point made in one of your posts, it's actually always because I don't feel any need to because the point has been so obviously badly made - and there is not enough time in the world to answer everything. There is nothing I have ever avoided on this board. And for you Phil, I will go back and respond to all your nonsense now.

[Phil Carter]

I'm not sure if you've been following events on this message board, Phil, but my debate on this subject with Trevor (if one can call it a "debate" with posts the quality of Trevor's) started back in February and then continued well into April after my posts on Tumblety's bail and the Central Criminal Court Calender (over in the Suspects/Tumblety forum). This was long before my Suckered! trilogy was posted in May.

So eager was Trevor to continue this debate that, despite the relevant thread having been suspended in April, he continued the argument in my thread "Tumblety in Holloway", in breach of forum rules, when he brought up the case of Oscar Wilde. He then relied on the case of Oscar Wilde in the revised edition of his book specifically to attempt to counter the arguments I had made in this forum.

The Holloway prison thread, incidentally, was begun by me in April after Trevor refused to believe me when I said that prisoners on remand and committal, such as Tumblety, were sent to Holloway prison in 1888. His exact words were "You cant even prove he was sent to Holloway as you state" - Cracking the Calendar Code Thread #13). I did, of course, prove it in the Holloway Prison thread, as even the other Doubting Thomas, a.k.a. Simon Wood, accepted.

Anyway, Trevor next appeared of his own free will in my "The Suckered! Trilogy" thread to continue the argument (after I had told Simon Wood that a forthcoming article in Ripperlogist would include new evidence to support my argument on Tumblety's bail):

On 1 June, Trevor posted:

"I am not going to hi Jack this thread but I am simply going to say that you argument that the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed on Nov 7th was blown out of the water by the case of OscarWilde
Case which silenced you, but it seems you still won't accept it I look forward to reading the article" (#103 in Suckered! thread)

Later the same day he said:

"Your silence on the material matters in hand could have been broken by replying by saying "Yes Trevor you are right, Tumblety could not have got bail on Nov 7th, and that it was not automatic that bail was granted following committal, as the Oscar Wilde case clearly shows" (#119 in Suckered! thread)

Then more on the same day:

"I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys." (#122 in Suckered! thread)

In response, I told him:

"With all this tremendous advance publicity, and people waiting with bated breath for my article, I do hope Ripperologist decide to publish it. Assuming they do, Trevor, I look forward to discussing the point with you again then, if you are able to emerge from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself in this thread" (#134 in Suckered! thread)

Trevor's foolishly misguided response was:

"Well to the victor the spoils" (#134)

As you will see from the above, Phil, I told Trevor that I looked forward to discussing the point with him again which I have done in this thread. You might have noticed that he hasn't mentioned Oscar Wilde in this thread for some time. Far from me "turning on" Trevor, he has continually wanted to argue with me in my threads and I have been responding to him. Having said that, I have now reached a point where his posts have become so irrational, and he is so impossible to communicate with on a sensible level, that I am not prepared to waste my time on him any longer.

But hey Phil don't let facts get in the way of your unwaveringly abusive posts towards me.

Hello David..

I am trying to give you a very very quiet hint that may require pause for reflection.

All done with a tinge of irony and humour. I assure you that I have not been abusive. Had I been. ..you would certainly have known the difference. But then again...You are never wrong in your analytical assessments. .eh?

No win situation.


Phil

P's. .at least my posts are very infrequent. And I note you avoid answering the bits that you don't want to tackle. Under the excuse no doubt..that they are off topic..irrelevant. ..misunderstood, etc etc etc. Heard it all before..sorry.

[David Orsam]

So..now it is Trevor's turn.

I'm not sure if you've been following events on this message board, Phil, but my debate on this subject with Trevor (if one can call it a "debate" with posts the quality of Trevor's) started back in February and then continued well into April after my posts on Tumblety's bail and the Central Criminal Court Calender (over in the Suspects/Tumblety forum). This was long before my Suckered! trilogy was posted in May.

So eager was Trevor to continue this debate that, despite the relevant thread having been suspended in April, he continued the argument in my thread "Tumblety in Holloway", in breach of forum rules, when he brought up the case of Oscar Wilde. He then relied on the case of Oscar Wilde in the revised edition of his book specifically to attempt to counter the arguments I had made in this forum.

The Holloway prison thread, incidentally, was begun by me in April after Trevor refused to believe me when I said that prisoners on remand and committal, such as Tumblety, were sent to Holloway prison in 1888. His exact words were "You cant even prove he was sent to Holloway as you state" - Cracking the Calendar Code Thread #13). I did, of course, prove it in the Holloway Prison thread, as even the other Doubting Thomas, a.k.a. Simon Wood, accepted.

Anyway, Trevor next appeared of his own free will in my "The Suckered! Trilogy" thread to continue the argument (after I had told Simon Wood that a forthcoming article in Ripperlogist would include new evidence to support my argument on Tumblety's bail):

On 1 June, Trevor posted:

"I am not going to hi Jack this thread but I am simply going to say that you argument that the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed on Nov 7th was blown out of the water by the case of OscarWilde
Case which silenced you, but it seems you still won't accept it I look forward to reading the article" (#103 in Suckered! thread)

Later the same day he said:

"Your silence on the material matters in hand could have been broken by replying by saying "Yes Trevor you are right, Tumblety could not have got bail on Nov 7th, and that it was not automatic that bail was granted following committal, as the Oscar Wilde case clearly shows" (#119 in Suckered! thread)

Then more on the same day:

"I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys." (#122 in Suckered! thread)

In response, I told him:

"With all this tremendous advance publicity, and people waiting with bated breath for my article, I do hope Ripperologist decide to publish it. Assuming they do, Trevor, I look forward to discussing the point with you again then, if you are able to emerge from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself in this thread" (#134 in Suckered! thread)

Trevor's foolishly misguided response was:

"Well to the victor the spoils" (#134)

As you will see from the above, Phil, I told Trevor that I looked forward to discussing the point with him again which I have done in this thread. You might have noticed that he hasn't mentioned Oscar Wilde in this thread for some time. Far from me "turning on" Trevor, he has continually wanted to argue with me in my threads and I have been responding to him. Having said that, I have now reached a point where his posts have become so irrational, and he is so impossible to communicate with on a sensible level, that I am not prepared to waste my time on him any longer.

But hey Phil don't let facts get in the way of your unwaveringly abusive posts towards me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Who on earth is Ivor Edwards?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Tumblety did not want to arrive back in America with people thinking he was a screaming queen, which, in 1888, was less socially acceptable than admitting to being the Whitechapel murderer.

Sooo, Anderson, Andrews, and Littlechild got sucked into a fake Tumblety story? Riigghhht.

Tumblety was constantly in the papers for naughty acts with boys, even in England, and since his lawyers got him out each time, all he did was deny. No biggie. He could have done it again, since this was not going to court.

Simon, you're trying to guess what Tumblety would do. Why not just go by the evidence. It works better. Oh yes, you need to change your book, too.

Tumblety reveled in the wholly false accusation of being JtR.

So why would he want to go and spoil it all by giving himself a cast-iron alibi?

Prove it. Oh yes, you can't - no evidence, just conjecture and guess. But, of course we have evidence to the contrary. Sorry Simon, count them, one, two, three Scotland Yard officials making reference to Tumblety at a Ripper suspect AFTER the Kelly murder.

Yes, I realize you're an Ivor Edwards fan, but really. His article has been completely debunked.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Monty, I would be grateful if you could confirm that you agree with me (and I note with gratitude that you have gone on to say that I do have a point) because if you give Trevor Marriott even a glimmer of hope he will end up going straight down to the end of the garden path from which there is no hope of him ever returning.

(Obviously, if you disagree please provide the reasons and authority on which you base that disagreement.)

So..now it is Trevor's turn.

I see.

I'm waiting for you to attack the 5/6 volumes of Mr. P.Begg.
A couple by Mr. S. P. Evans, one each by Mr. M. Fido, Mr. D.Farson, Mr. R. Odell, Mr.D. McCormick, and whilst you are at it..P. D.James' work may need thoroughly looking at...as well as every book ever written about the fictional, but very influential Mr. Sherlock Holmes.

After all...All you are after is "THE TRUTH" (apparently......)

I suppose if we wait long enough you can categorically tell us all..who wait with yawns asunder. ..everything that ever happened in the history of crime since time began.

Gawd help Monty if he should happen to disagree with you. You've already asked the man for detailed explanations should his opinion be contrary to yours. Because then you will counter with another lengthy series of lengthy postings to put him in his place. As is..apparently..your bent on these boards.

Errm. .It might just have escaped your notice David..but you are pushing the "look at me and what I know and I need confirmation that I am right from as many peers as possible by asking for their attention/attacking their work" line a tiny..weeny..tiddly..itsy witsy bit past the "oh God..not ANOTHER LONG LOAD of self believing perfection from the greatest one man historical crusader on the planet since the fall of the Roman Empire/ The Third Reich/anything in between..."

David..you are nearly 10 years younger than I. I bow to your enthusiasm. Your energy. Please do me a favour?

NEVER get interested in politics. Either that or do something worthwhile. .like solving Greece's financial problems.

Then we can all applaud. Loudly. And you will be our hero. And we will bow. And give you the attention you so very clearly crave for your all encompassing brilliance.

Roll on 2017. By this time next year David will have solved the Ripper case and we can all go home. Until then..don't hold your breath.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Monty,

Without doubt, the Police Code was a useful "digest of the criminal law" which was recommended to be owned and read by magistrates but if you are suggesting that it had any application to magistrates - in other words, if you are suggesting that magistrates were governed by it - I would be very surprised.

In this respect, I would draw your attention to the following:

1. In the preface to the 1889 abridged edition dated October 1889, former Director of C.I.D., Metropolitan Police, expresses the hope that the edition will be "of the same value to my former comrades of every grade in English-speaking countries, as its predecessors are declared to have been." In other words, of value to his former comrades in the Metropolitan Police.

2. In the preface by James Monro, dated March 1889, the Commissioner states (bold added):

"The abridged code of Mr Howard Vincent...was originally designed by its author as a practical help to police officers in their legal education. It has now been before the public and in use amongst forces for several years."

3. The Code contains at the start an "address to police constables on their duties" by Justice Hawkins dated 5 June 1882 with advice such as "when on duty, allow nothing but your duty to occupy your thoughts" and "Speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...Never exaggerate, or in repeating a conversation or statement add a tone or colour to it". This is all obviously basic stuff directed at constables.

4. Three random examples in the Code from the letter "A" show that the Code itself is directed to constables:

"Activity - Activity on the performance of duty should be the first care of every constable, but it must at all times be tempered by judgment and due caution."

"Applications - All applications made by police on any subject should be transmitted through the Superintendent of the Division."

"Attention - When a police sergeant or constable is addressed by his Superintendent, Inspector, or other superior officer, he should invariably stand to attention, as also in the witness box, or when giving evidence before a Board of Inquiry. The same rule should be followed when a constable is addressed by a Judge or Magistrate, or an officer of the army or navy in uniform."

This goes on throughout and is fairly numpty stuff aimed at ensuring police constables know what they are doing and have a basic understanding of the law. Is that not right?

While magistrates would have an interest in the Police Code in terms of knowing how the police should behave, I do not believe for one second that they regarded themselves as bound by anything in it. To the extent that the Code set out the law, the magistrates would already be familiar with the relevant statutes. I mean, you are not telling me that a solicitor or barrister arguing before a magistrate would direct that magistrate to the Police Code in order to persuade a magistrate to come to a decision are you? They would obviously cite (and only cite) any relevant legislation and reported cases.

Then to come to the issue at hand. The section on Bail in the police code is all about Police Bail is it not? And Police Bail was not governed by the Indictable Offences Act right? So nothing in the section on Bail in the police code was applicable in any way to what a magistrate had to consider, right?

I can see that it might be relevant if a magistrate had to decide whether a police officer had correctly granted or refused police bail, but of no relevance whatsoever to the bail decision of a magistrate. As it only refers to police bail, I feel I must insist that the Police Code had no application to a magistrate's decision making on bail.

Monty, I would be grateful if you could confirm that you agree with me (and I note with gratitude that you have gone on to say that I do have a point) because if you give Trevor Marriott even a glimmer of hope he will end up going straight down to the end of the garden path from which there is no hope of him ever returning.

(Obviously, if you disagree please provide the reasons and authority on which you base that disagreement.)

Now you are picking on poor old Monty who was trying to help. Is there no one on here that you agree with on any point? You took on the 3 W`s (Wood,Wescott and Woolf) and suffered a defeat. then you turned your attentions in my direction and still lost.

What next is your aim? Perhaps try challenging the content of the bible, should be enough there to keep you quiet for a few years.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, David does have a point to be honest.

Just that both the Police, and Magistrates, have to operate within the legal frameworks. However, if mitigating circumstances dictate, the Magistrate can use their discretion on what course of action to undertake during the hearing. It is they who uphold the law in their court, not the police. Therefore they can decide on what bail action to undertake, again, as long as it is within the legal framework.

Monty

But what action is taken by a magistrate with regards to a bail application can only be after the prisoner or his solicitor has made a bail application, and most importantly after any objections to bail have been made by the police if they have any to make.

It is then that the magistrates powers of discretion comes into play. To bail or not to bail that is the question?

Best put Orsam right he seems to think that every one was granted bail, and the magistrates never used their discretionary powers, and that the police never objected to bail. Well Oscar Wilde was not granted bail at the police station nor at his remand hearing so we know they used their discretionary powers at least once !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Erm, not entirely true.

The Police Code, or rather The Police Code: General Manual of the Criminal Law for the British Empire was designed for use by everybody, including the police, barristers, judges, magistrates, general public, the whole shebang.

Hi Monty,

Without doubt, the Police Code was a useful "digest of the criminal law" which was recommended to be owned and read by magistrates but if you are suggesting that it had any application to magistrates - in other words, if you are suggesting that magistrates were governed by it - I would be very surprised.

In this respect, I would draw your attention to the following:

1. In the preface to the 1889 abridged edition dated October 1889, former Director of C.I.D., Metropolitan Police, expresses the hope that the edition will be "of the same value to my former comrades of every grade in English-speaking countries, as its predecessors are declared to have been." In other words, of value to his former comrades in the Metropolitan Police.

2. In the preface by James Monro, dated March 1889, the Commissioner states (bold added):

"The abridged code of Mr Howard Vincent...was originally designed by its author as a practical help to police officers in their legal education. It has now been before the public and in use amongst forces for several years."

3. The Code contains at the start an "address to police constables on their duties" by Justice Hawkins dated 5 June 1882 with advice such as "when on duty, allow nothing but your duty to occupy your thoughts" and "Speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...Never exaggerate, or in repeating a conversation or statement add a tone or colour to it". This is all obviously basic stuff directed at constables.

4. Three random examples in the Code from the letter "A" show that the Code itself is directed to constables:

"Activity - Activity on the performance of duty should be the first care of every constable, but it must at all times be tempered by judgment and due caution."

"Applications - All applications made by police on any subject should be transmitted through the Superintendent of the Division."

"Attention - When a police sergeant or constable is addressed by his Superintendent, Inspector, or other superior officer, he should invariably stand to attention, as also in the witness box, or when giving evidence before a Board of Inquiry. The same rule should be followed when a constable is addressed by a Judge or Magistrate, or an officer of the army or navy in uniform."

This goes on throughout and is fairly numpty stuff aimed at ensuring police constables know what they are doing and have a basic understanding of the law. Is that not right?

While magistrates would have an interest in the Police Code in terms of knowing how the police should behave, I do not believe for one second that they regarded themselves as bound by anything in it. To the extent that the Code set out the law, the magistrates would already be familiar with the relevant statutes. I mean, you are not telling me that a solicitor or barrister arguing before a magistrate would direct that magistrate to the Police Code in order to persuade a magistrate to come to a decision are you? They would obviously cite (and only cite) any relevant legislation and reported cases.

Then to come to the issue at hand. The section on Bail in the police code is all about Police Bail is it not? And Police Bail was not governed by the Indictable Offences Act right? So nothing in the section on Bail in the police code was applicable in any way to what a magistrate had to consider, right?

I can see that it might be relevant if a magistrate had to decide whether a police officer had correctly granted or refused police bail, but of no relevance whatsoever to the bail decision of a magistrate. As it only refers to police bail, I feel I must insist that the Police Code had no application to a magistrate's decision making on bail.

Monty, I would be grateful if you could confirm that you agree with me (and I note with gratitude that you have gone on to say that I do have a point) because if you give Trevor Marriott even a glimmer of hope he will end up going straight down to the end of the garden path from which there is no hope of him ever returning.

(Obviously, if you disagree please provide the reasons and authority on which you base that disagreement.)