Mandy Dooley

Mandy Dooley

Charge
1. POCA applies?
2. presumably - s15(1) Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 AB 25-302
3. sentence - fine and / or imprisonment up to 10
  1. case law R V Miller [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) CA - 3 x £20 - 2yrs down to 15 months for EGP
AR
1. presence at scene
  1. ID at scene
    1. CCTV
    2. stills
    3. money
    4. witness ID
    5. confession
      1. shown photographs (which photo)?
  2. 'confession'
2. MANDY passing notes
  1. confession
  2. money?
    1. fingerprints
  3. statement of woods
    1. arguing, could he be sure?
  4. still or cctv
    1. do they show the passing of the note?
3. that are counterfeit
  1. seized notes
    1. are they the actual notes?
MR
1. knowing or believing
  1. case law
  2. Defendant refutes this
    1. appears quite uncomplicated
  3. link to brother-in law
    1. dodgy motors? - PC Gary Woodall comments - need taking out BCE
      1. no further evidence - should be checked to see if antecendents of Tom show fraud - but even so would argue to exclude
        even if allowed would only show against Tom Watts not to the motivation of Mandy
      2. van not stolen
  4. use of £20 to buy small items - effectively money laundering
    1. nothing to suggest that Mandy was aware even if this is the case
Plea and consequences
1. guilty
  1. caution not to plead guilty if guilty but ultimately up to them
2. Not guilty
  1. no EGP discount
3. antecedents - need confirmation
  1. missing time in jail
  2. being drunk and disorderly G plea CD 12 month
  3. PC John Cribb ref to 6 months ago and 3 - 3.5 years?
  4. assisting an offender by acting with intention to impede arrest / prosecution G plea issues here
    1. rehab order - not sentenced for over 1 year? issue re time limits?
    2. get probation report? / court notes re revoke and vary
    3. who did she assist?
  5. 2 x breach of comm order
evidence
1. Identification
  1. who
    1. Martin Wood
      1. white, 5'6", dark hair, 30-35
      2. strong irish accent, thought it was Scottish - hearsay
        colleague said irish
      3. could ID her but hasn't
      4. Good ID - clear, unobstructed for 2.5 minutes from 3 ft away at times
    2. Paul Abraham
      1. no proper sighting at time
      2. tenuous link -later saw van - could have been anyone
      3. ID vague 'similar age & look' - fleeting
    3. PC John Cribb
      1. ID from stills
        must know her sufficiently well
      2. Late 20's
      3. chubby 5'5"
      4. Irish accent
      5. address - 3 morton road
      6. possibly unfair - would show her criminal record - how else would he recognise her More recently, however, the Court of Appeal in R. v Caldwell and Dixon145 noted that any widespread application of this power of exclusion would unfairly advantage those with criminal records, and suggested that the evidence should be admitted unless the prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. In carrying out this balancing exercise the court stressed the added value of recognition evidence over the jury attempting themselves to compare images on film with the appearance of the accused in the dock.
  2. what
    1. print of stills
    2. CCTV
    3. link to van??
  3. confession
    1. custody record
      1. legal advice?
      2. medical examination?
    2. caution?
    3. discrepancy between WPC Rouse interview and transcript made by WPC AMber Jarvis
    4. shown phptgraphs (which photographs?)
2. van
  1. seen on forecourt by P. Abraham noticed silver missing from rear window
    1. later seen at forecourt of garage, male - believed to be the same as the one from the CCTV - fleeting glance
      1. woman -similar age and look to the one on the CCTV
      2. reg WAN 678
        seen by PC Gary Woodall and seized with the authority of Insp Smithy
        authority to seize?
        any evidence?
3. CCTV CD-ROM PA 5
  1. where is it? does not appear to be in the record of property seized by PC Bottomley
    1. Where relevant evidence had been lost, the question was whether that disadvantage could be accommodated to ensure a fair trial, R. (on the application of Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates Court [2001] EWHC Admin 130, [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1293
4. print of stills PA 1-4 property store QQ12873/06
  1. quality of picture / print etc but is effectively hearsay evidence
  2. police should have produced these from the CCTV
  3. A4 size - enlarged?
5. counterfeit money QQ/2854/O6
  1. fingerprints?
  2. report from firm
  3. issue re seizing appear to have been kept by the assistant for some time
6. MARY WATTS -interview
  1. where is it?
  2. Mandy not aware
  3. mary was in the van
personal background
1. possible illness / drug or alcohol dependence
2. mental health issues
  1. refers to being supported by sister and brother-in law - appears uncomplicated in interview
3. age
4. address
5. child

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by hargreas almost 10 years ago