Not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but could it just have been to keep him isolated and prevent him from interfering with the investigation or contacting anyone while they were looking for evidence?
The fact they didn't formally question him sounds positive to me, possibly indicating they found nothing incriminating to question him about?
Lawyers are all twats Trev. Charge too much, some wear wigs and use too much outdated language. I think his arrest was likely to prevent any evidence being tampered with. HMRC are not sure of all the facts so lock everything down pending their investigation.
That's what occurred to me but Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. ... These police actions may trigger the constitutional requirement of probable cause. If that was the case and hence his arrest wouldn't you want to ask him something before you let him go even if it was "are you guilty?". Otherwise as he hasn't been bailed and just released could he not claim unlawful detention as no probable cause demonstrated by his not even being questioned following his arrest and before his release.
But can't probable cause be as little as investigating dealings with people who they know have committed criminal offences in a related area? I'm not sure and going purely by what I've seen on TV, so realise that is very poor source material, but imagine having any sort of link with criminal activities could be suspicious - even if you haven't done anything illegal yourself?
I have to laugh after the season I've endured with those bastards from America and ****ing sell outs.
That's what occurred to me but Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. ... These police actions may trigger the constitutional requirement of probable cause. If that was the case and hence his arrest wouldn't you want to ask him something before you let him go even if it was "are you guilty?". Otherwise as he hasn't been bailed and just released could he not claim unlawful detention as no probable cause demonstrated by his not even being questioned following his arrest and before his release.
↑ That's what occurred to me but Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. ... These police actions may trigger the constitutional requirement of probable cause. If that was the case and hence his arrest wouldn't you want to ask him something before you let him go even if it was "are you guilty?". Otherwise as he hasn't been bailed and just released could he not claim unlawful detention as no probable cause demonstrated by his not even being questioned following his arrest and before his release. Click to expand... This isn't a game Chippy, this isn't a game.
Looks like your board have gone the hard yards too, the cheating twats Maybe Nev and the Managing Director are the same guy?
