A case against a suspected bike thief collapsed when it emerged police had botched up by selling the bike that was supposed to be presented as evidence against him.
At Carlisle Crown Court John Anderson, 29, was found not guilty of handling stolen goods on the direction of Judge Paul Batty QC, reports the News and Star.
Anderson had pleaded no guilty to the offence which was alleged to have been committed on April 29 2014.
He was accused of being in possession possession of a bike, bike frames and wheels belonging to the Ainfield Cycle Centre, Jacktrees Road, Cleator Moor.
The shop was broken into last year and goods valued at £2,500 were stolen by persons unknown.
Police subsequently recovered evidence relating to the case, including a bike, from a property in Cleator Moor.
But police inadvertently sold the bike at an auction, leading to an embarrassing climbdown by the prosecution.
Prosecutor Gerard Rogerson told the court: “On April 1 the Crown (Prosecution Service) notified Anderson, of Melbreak Avenue, Cleator Moor, that a full review of the file had taken place in the light of a highly unfortunate incident in which exhibits had inadvertently been sold by Cumbria police."
As a result, the prosecution decided to offer no evidence and the court had no choice but to find Anderson not quilty.
Judge Batty replied: “To say it is ‘unfortunate’ is an understatement. It is an astonishing state of affairs and I require a full written explanation from the officer in the case as to why this lamentable situation has arisen."
Shop owner Raymond Agnew was astonished when the bike he'd thought in custody as evidence was brought into his shop.
He told the Daily Mail: "I recognised the bike straight away and asked where he had bought it. He said he'd got it from an auction and a quick check of the frame confirmed it was the bike I'd last seen at the police station.
"I rang the police and the detective in charge of the case knew nothing about how the bike wasn't still in storage.
'It was mystifying but now the truth has come out I think it's beyond belief that it was auctioned off by the police - and no one seems to know why.
"Of course the really frustrating thing is that the trial against the man who was accused of handling the bikes collapsed because there was no longer any evidence against him.
"I'd like to know where the money was spent from the sale of the bike because it certainly hasn't come to me, I hope the police will at least donate it to charity.
"There hasn't been a proper explanation of why it happened but they did ring to apologise about it, which wasn't much consolation."
A Cumbria police spokesperson said: "Cumbria Constabulary can confirm that a bicycle was mistakenly sold at an auction that was due to be used as evidence in court. This was an honest mistake which has resulted in a court case being dropped. We have apologised to the victim for this mistake.
"We have also conducted an internal investigation into why this occurred and have reviewed our processes in order to make sure that this does not happen again."
Add new comment
16 comments
Shop owner shouldn't have let it leave the shop - it was his bike. Police had 0 right to sell it, therefore the auction was invalid.
So the CPS/Prosecutor Gerard Rogerson, notefied the accused John Anderson but FAILED to tell the victim. In fact if the new owner of the bike hadn't come into his shop would he have been told anything at all?
Honest mistake ……… yeah right. I always thought the police were bent now this confirms it.
So... if the Police have sold on stolen goods, is this not theft by the police?
Also - if new owner is know to the shop owner, and presumably the police... could they not have been asked to bring it in to the trial?
Aren't there fairly strict rules on chain of custody for evidence, where "we lost it, but we got it back later" isn't good enough? (For the bike to have got into the auction, I'd guess those rules must already have been broken.)
I've bought a couple of bikes at police auctions, and they made it clear that you really did gain a legal title to the bike even if it was originally stolen, because it was the police selling it after the original owner had had reasonable time to reclaim it. I don't know what the law is if the police were selling it by mistake though.
Talk about PC Plod. A prominent simple label on the bike stating
'This bike is evidence in a robbery case would have prevented the bike being disposed of in the auction'.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out surely !!!!!
Talk about PC Plod. A prominent simple label on the bike stating
'This bike is evidence in a robbery case would have prevented the bike being disposed of in the auction'.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out surely !!!!!
So will the police be prosecuted for handling stolen goods in hte same way a shop selling stolen goods would?
If someone did that in one of the warehouses that I am involved with, they'd get a 'Dont Come Monday' right away. That is incompetence of the highest order. Makes you wonder how hard it is for dodgy coppers to get other items out of storage and flog them on. Impossible, i'd guess.
I can't even imagine how poor the evidence storage/handling must be for items from an evidence hold ending up in lost & found...
Words fail me...
But this is why I don't think I could buy anything from a police auction with a clear conscience. The probable reason they are selling it not returning it to its rightful owner is incompetence.
Surely the Police should know that they would be far better off fencing their stolen goods at a car boot sale. Auction sites keep records that might lead the Police back to the ... oh hang on.
It'll suck for the girl that bought it from the auction, but this bike was reported stolen so it is still stolen. Why does the police auctioning it change this?
So, are they going to refund the shop owner given they sold his property?
I imagine theoretically the property already belonged to the insurance company and they'll have paid out...