Couple's fury after police 'let off' A52 bridge yobs
A COUPLE who chased and caught the youths they believe threw a large object from a rail bridge which caused them to crash are stunned after police said there was nothing they could do.
Jaysika Lala, 26, and her boyfriend were travelling along the A52, near Radcliffe-on-Trent Cricket Club, at 2pm on Sunday, March 7 when the unknown item smashed into the roof of their car, narrowly missing the rear windscreen.
The impact caused Ms Lala's boyfriend to swerve into the central reservation before he was able to regain control of the vehicle.
He parked and ran after three male youths who had loitered on the bridge after they threw the object.
She said: "They started running when they saw my boyfriend coming after them.
"He was gone about 20 to 30 minutes. He'd worked out where they were heading and we drove to Stragglethorpe Lane [Radcliffe-on-Trent] and saw them by Cotgrave Golf Course.
"They looked quite shocked and surprised to see us."
Ms Lala said the youths were aged about 14.
"My boyfriend said if they ran he would find them and I dialled 999," she said.
"Two police cars and three officers turned up after 10 minutes. They addressed the youths by their first names – they were clearly no strangers to law-breaking.
"The police eventually let them off without even a dressing down. They told us that there was no evidence they were the youths in question.
"Meanwhile, we are left with more than £500 of damage to our car.
"I am appalled at the injustice and that the youths' parents were not even informed.
"Had my partner or myself dealt out our own justice, I am sure the police would be very quick to throw an assault charge at us."
Ms Lala, from Sneinton, said she and her boyfriend were "very lucky" to escape unhurt.
She said: "My main concern is these youths will do something similar.
"What if the rock had hit the rear windscreen and there had been children in the back?
"They clearly had no regard for the dangers involved, nor did they seem to care. It seems the law favours the criminals."
Ms Lala said she planned to contact Cotgrave town and Rushcliffe borough councils to urge them to visit schools to warn youngsters about the dangers of throwing objects onto roads.
A Notts police spokeswoman said: "We received a report items had been thrown at a car travelling along the A52 on Sunday, March 7.
"Officers spoke to the driver and passenger of the car, who had detained three youths they thought may have committed the offence.
"In this instance, there was very little description of the offenders and the driver said he had not clearly seen the offenders. The couple thought the three youths were responsible because they were nearby.
"There was no evidence to suggest the youths were responsible and the officers explained they could not proceed with an arrest. The driver of the car accepted this.
"Had there been evidence the boys had committed the offence, they would have been swiftly arrested and dealt with.
"Thankfully, no-one was hurt in the incident. A senior officer is reviewing the incident."
Anyone who has information about the offence is urged to contact Notts police on 0300 300 9999.
guy.woodford@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
79 Comments
View all
by FW, Nottingham
Tuesday, March 16 2010, 12:26AM
“
The police and crown prosecution service are often far too presumptious in many cases. It is not their job to act as judge and jury.
It is, however, the CPS' job to decide whether to prosecute, which they do on the basis of whether there is a reasonable prospect of gettin a conviction. Since there was apparently nothing to tie the youths directly to even the scene of the crime let alone the crime istelf, the chances of a conviction in this case would be tiny.”
by Andyman, Derbys
Monday, March 15 2010, 11:44PM
“These should have been taken in by the Police and interviewed at the very least, for two reasons.
If they were running from the scene it is a reasonable assumption they might have been involved in the incident in some way, and need eliminating by investigations.
If they were in the vicinity and not involved they might hold vital information and be witnesses to the incident and identify those responsible.
Considering they were known to the Police it seems more likely to be the former.”
by William Fotherington-Thomas, Nottingham
Monday, March 15 2010, 11:07PM
“The couple involved should consider a private claim in the civil for damages. In a civil case the Judge has to find 'on the balance of probability' rather than 'beyond all reasonable doubt' as in the criminal courts.”
by john, Carlton
Monday, March 15 2010, 10:44PM
“There is of course the converse of the extremely rare miscarriages of justice that everyone hears about because they are so unusual. That is the tens upons tens of thousands of crimes committed by suspects of other crimes that the police bail or simply let go.
The police and crown prosecution service are often far too presumptious in many cases. It is not their job to act as judge and jury.”
by Gotcha, Nottingham
Monday, March 15 2010, 10:19PM
“J, you've been posting since 10.24am.
Get a job.
Have a nice night now.”
by j, leic
Monday, March 15 2010, 10:04PM
“BJ, you come across as more and more of a psycho with each passing day. He only asked "Mr Mann, can you tell me what case you're referring to?", and in return you go off the deep end rambling and ranting like a loony. Take a chill pill (or for that matter any one of the pills they give you,,,,,,,,,,,,)”
by Mr B J Mann, Nottingham
Monday, March 15 2010, 9:38PM
“Errrmmmmmmmmmmm, Mr Stupid:
You really, REALLY, *REALLY* are the most illiterate and ignorant person I have ever had the misfortune to come across.
Do you *REALLY* read *NOTHING* but Labour party PR sheets?!?!?!
.
Murder cases without a body 'are not that rare'
By Jamie Grierson, Press Association
Friday, 5 February 2010
Cases of murder where the victim's body has not been found are "not as rare as one might think", a Crown prosecutor said today.
Brian Pixton, who works with the South West Complex Casework Unit, built up the case against Adrian Prout, who was convicted today of murdering his estranged wife Kate Prout.
Prout's conviction follows a so-called "no body" investigation as - after disappearing more than two years ago - Mrs Prout's body has never been found.
But Mr Pixton said this was not as rare as some might believe.
He said: "This was an unusual case for the Crown Prosecution Service, though I have to say, not rare."
He added: "Cases of murder where the victim's body has not been found, while not common, are not as rare as one might think. Nationally, there are several each year."
.
Have I ever mentioned that you are a moron?
.”
by Mr. sensible, The Real World
Monday, March 15 2010, 9:24PM
“"So how do people get banged up for a life stretch for murder, no less.
Not only without a clear identification of them committing the murder:
But without even a clear identification of a BODY ?!?!?!?!"
Mr Mann, can you tell me what case you're referring to?”
by j, leic
Monday, March 15 2010, 9:20PM
“Why Cannes? Is he in film”
by Lesta, Lace Market sur le Trent
Monday, March 15 2010, 8:28PM
“'j', ou est le 'MadBadger' si vous plais ? Cannes perchance ?”