Mother wants police law to change after Fulcher decision

This Is Wiltshire: Karen Edwards Karen Edwards

THE door is now ‘wide open’ for changes to police procedure laws in the wake of a decision to reinstate a detective who set the rulebook aside to bring closure to two families.

That is according to Karen Edwards, the mum of murdered Becky Godden-Edwards, after Detective Superintendent Steve Fulcher was allowed to keep his job this week following a three-day disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of gross misconduct.

An independent panel found he had committed misconduct in breaching the Police and Criminal Evidence Act when interviewing Sian O’Callaghan’s killer Chris Halliwell in March 2011 and in going against force orders in talking to the media.

Karen, 52, has led a campaign to change PACE in light of the case, as his actions led to evidence against Chris Halliwell for Becky’s murder being ruled inadmissible by a High Court judge.

DSI Fulcher failed to take the suspect to the police station, allow him a solicitor and caution the 49-year-old mini-cab driver, of Ashbury Avenue, Nythe, when trying to persuade the killer to take him to Sian’s body and later to ‘another one’.

Becky’s body was found in a field in Eastleach shortly after 22-year-old Sian was discovered at Uffington, but a judge ruled his confession inadmissible due to breaches of the PACE code. Halliwell was jailed for life for Sian’s murder but a second charge for Becky’s murder was withdrawn due to a lack of evidence.

Karen said: “The panel’s decision was the right result and now that leaves the door wide open for PACE to be changed. I have to keep pushing with this campaign.

“There is nothing a change of PACE can do for my Becky now but it might help others. We have 30,000 signatures and we need more but also the MP Robert Buckland will be pushing it in Parliament and I think we have a better chance now.”

Mr Buckland, MP for South Swindon, was commissioned by policing minister Damien Green to look at possible reform of PACE and said now the last of the legal issues have been resolved with the conclusion of the conduct hearing, progress could begin to be made.

He said: “While I understand, quite rightly, the disciplinary processes have to take place, the fact he has been reinstated is just, in the rather unusual circumstances. All of us in that position would have had a very difficult choice to make.

“It is time to renew the pressure on the Government to get some changes to PACE. Through new technology it could meet the demands of fast-changing investigations.

“It should perhaps be considered as part of a wider look at how technology should be reflected in the codes of practice. An example is talk of the use of cameras on firearms officers now.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:13am Mon 27 Jan 14

RichardR1 says...

His re-instatement was the only sane and rational decision. Quite why it even got as far a this hearing beggars believe, when it was obvious to any right minded person that he acted in the best interests of the investigation. More importantly Becky's parents got closure, and he was clearly guilty of her murder also.

Time for PACE to change.
His re-instatement was the only sane and rational decision. Quite why it even got as far a this hearing beggars believe, when it was obvious to any right minded person that he acted in the best interests of the investigation. More importantly Becky's parents got closure, and he was clearly guilty of her murder also. Time for PACE to change. RichardR1
  • Score: 17

9:48am Mon 27 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.
It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 4

10:54am Mon 27 Jan 14

StillPav says...

It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. StillPav
  • Score: 7

11:03am Mon 27 Jan 14

Robh says...

I think it was more about his disobeying an order not to speak publicly about it than not following procedure. Most suspect that if he'd have taken him back to the station for a caution a solicitor would advise against giving further details. Also did he only murder 2 young ladies?
I think it was more about his disobeying an order not to speak publicly about it than not following procedure. Most suspect that if he'd have taken him back to the station for a caution a solicitor would advise against giving further details. Also did he only murder 2 young ladies? Robh
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Chrisg46 says...

As usual, the case is not as straightforward as it appears at first (as stated by others) - Regardless of the right and wrongs of this particular investigation, he broke the Law, something that police officers in general MUST NOT DO, and cannot be seen to do so (one law for them etc).
Additionally to that, he spoke to the media when he should not have done. As in any disciplined organisation, there is a chain of command to follow, he didn't.
Dem's da roolz, as they say.

That said, i am very glad he continues as a detective and hope he suffers no further for it. He did exactly the right thing based on the information he had at the time. Judging with hindsight is all very well, but hindsight never makes mistakes.
As usual, the case is not as straightforward as it appears at first (as stated by others) - Regardless of the right and wrongs of this particular investigation, he broke the Law, something that police officers in general MUST NOT DO, and cannot be seen to do so (one law for them etc). Additionally to that, he spoke to the media when he should not have done. As in any disciplined organisation, there is a chain of command to follow, he didn't. Dem's da roolz, as they say. That said, i am very glad he continues as a detective and hope he suffers no further for it. He did exactly the right thing based on the information he had at the time. Judging with hindsight is all very well, but hindsight never makes mistakes. Chrisg46
  • Score: 3

10:39pm Mon 27 Jan 14

dukeofM4 says...

Leave the law where it is we don't need Return of the Sweeney 2014. While my heart goes out to the girls involved in this case, it's not ample justification to change everything for the 10,000 to 1 case and make the other 9,999 suffer to obtain a feel good factor.
Leave the law where it is we don't need Return of the Sweeney 2014. While my heart goes out to the girls involved in this case, it's not ample justification to change everything for the 10,000 to 1 case and make the other 9,999 suffer to obtain a feel good factor. dukeofM4
  • Score: -1

8:34am Tue 28 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.
You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident.

Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.[/p][/quote]You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident. Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense. ChannelX
  • Score: 3

8:37am Tue 28 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

StillPav wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof.

All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.

If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.
[quote][p][bold]StillPav[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.[/p][/quote]About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof. All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible. If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

9:48am Tue 28 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.
You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident.

Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.
No I haven't.
It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.[/p][/quote]You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident. Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.[/p][/quote]No I haven't. It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

9:59am Tue 28 Jan 14

1 2 Could B says...

It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere

Let him carry on trolling.

No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics
[quote] It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere[/quote] Let him carry on trolling. No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics 1 2 Could B
  • Score: -2

10:11am Tue 28 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
StillPav wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof.

All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.

If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.
Citation needed!

And a few other things:

1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work.

3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right?

These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig').
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StillPav[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.[/p][/quote]About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof. All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible. If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.[/p][/quote]Citation needed! And a few other things: 1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. 2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work. 3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right? These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig'). benzss
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

benzss wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
StillPav wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof.

All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.

If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.
Citation needed!

And a few other things:

1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work.

3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right?

These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig').
Links! Proof!

Can't accept anything you've posted until somebody I trust comes round and signs an affidavit in front of a doctor, priest and MP.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StillPav[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.[/p][/quote]About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof. All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible. If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.[/p][/quote]Citation needed! And a few other things: 1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. 2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work. 3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right? These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig').[/p][/quote]Links! Proof! Can't accept anything you've posted until somebody I trust comes round and signs an affidavit in front of a doctor, priest and MP. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.
You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident.

Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.
No I haven't.
It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere
But PACE is not law. Did you not realise that?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.[/p][/quote]You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident. Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.[/p][/quote]No I haven't. It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere[/p][/quote]But PACE is not law. Did you not realise that? ChannelX
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Tue 28 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

1 2 Could B wrote:
It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere

Let him carry on trolling.

No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics
Said the biggest troll on the site... who, ironically, is using an attempted cloned version of one of my previous logins - which I discarded after it became apparent you'd cloned it.

Which should prove interesting.
[quote][p][bold]1 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote] It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere[/quote] Let him carry on trolling. No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics[/p][/quote]Said the biggest troll on the site... who, ironically, is using an attempted cloned version of one of my previous logins - which I discarded after it became apparent you'd cloned it. Which should prove interesting. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Tue 28 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
benzss wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
StillPav wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.
About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof.

All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.

If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.
Citation needed!

And a few other things:

1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work.

3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right?

These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig').
Links! Proof!

Can't accept anything you've posted until somebody I trust comes round and signs an affidavit in front of a doctor, priest and MP.
So when you said:

'About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty.'

and

'Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.'

You seriously, honestly, completely wanted and expected me or anybody else to accept that at face value? Are you joking or what?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StillPav[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know how many "guity" suspects have got away with murder due to a technicality, compared to how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted.[/p][/quote]About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty. Let off on silly technicalities and the need for an almost overwhelming burden of proof. All the defence has to do is show 'reasonable doubt'. In all but the most blatant cases, that's not difficult to introduce. Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible. If you ever speak to defence lawyers who haven't been completely corrupted by their own behaviour, you'll soon see the full picture as it really is. And it's not pretty.[/p][/quote]Citation needed! And a few other things: 1) 'Overwhelming burden of proof' is by definition on the side of the prosecution. That silly little caveat that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty puts the onus on the prosecution to show - in a criminal court at least - that the defend is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. 2) Yes, the defence is there to show that there is reasonable doubt. That's their function. It's the one thing that makes the adversarial court system work. 3) What evidence do you have that the judiciary, as a whole, is 'on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible'? You do know that the CPS *prosecutes*, right? These things, including the 'silly technicalities' are there to protect us, the people, from the state, which prosecutes the crimes. It's worked pretty well so far, and is a **** sight more preferable than your school of thinking ('looks dodgy, seems pretty blatant, must be guilty, throw him in the brig').[/p][/quote]Links! Proof! Can't accept anything you've posted until somebody I trust comes round and signs an affidavit in front of a doctor, priest and MP.[/p][/quote]So when you said: 'About 75% of those found not guilty in court are guilty.' and 'Especially when the judiciary are on hand to lead juries to find criminals not guilty as often as possible.' You seriously, honestly, completely wanted and expected me or anybody else to accept that at face value? Are you joking or what? benzss
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Tue 28 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
1 2 Could B wrote:
It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere

Let him carry on trolling.

No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics
Said the biggest troll on the site... who, ironically, is using an attempted cloned version of one of my previous logins - which I discarded after it became apparent you'd cloned it.

Which should prove interesting.
Okay, I suppose I should say this just the once: your account cannot be 'cloned'. Somebody else may gain access to that account and post on your behalf - if you're really careless with passwords - but it cannot be cloned. It just can't.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote] It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere[/quote] Let him carry on trolling. No amount of logins will defend him from his latest antics[/p][/quote]Said the biggest troll on the site... who, ironically, is using an attempted cloned version of one of my previous logins - which I discarded after it became apparent you'd cloned it. Which should prove interesting.[/p][/quote]Okay, I suppose I should say this just the once: your account cannot be 'cloned'. Somebody else may gain access to that account and post on your behalf - if you're really careless with passwords - but it cannot be cloned. It just can't. benzss
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Tue 28 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.
You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident.

Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.
No I haven't.
It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere
But PACE is not law. Did you not realise that?
PACE is an Act of Parliament, usually that constitutes law.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: It definitely needs looking at. Having a blatantly guilty man not getting justice for a crime is a joke.[/p][/quote]You've changed your tune after the fully deserved pasting you received on the other thread about this incident. Let's change PACE and put the law back on the side of victims and the public who is forced to pay for all this pro-criminal nonsense.[/p][/quote]No I haven't. It needs looking at but that doesn't excuse the blunders made. You work within the laws of that time. Now go troll elsewhere[/p][/quote]But PACE is not law. Did you not realise that?[/p][/quote]PACE is an Act of Parliament, usually that constitutes law. benzss
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Tue 28 Jan 14

1 2 Could B says...

ChannelX/Ringer/Bobb
y Wright etc,
Telling lies will not help you now
ChannelX/Ringer/Bobb y Wright etc, Telling lies will not help you now 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree