How long can police keep you under investigation?
If you have been arrested on suspicion of an offence, the police are allowed to detain you for a reasonable time to carry out investigations, for example, to interview you, if you agree to being interviewed. This period cannot normally be more than six hours (unless an extension is granted by a detention warrant).
How many times can police extend bail?
There is no limit to the number of times a person can be bailed without charge. The police are under an obligation to conduct investigations diligently and efficiently those two obligations are at odds with one another, which means that the new time limit on bail has caused the police some real problems.
How long does it take to do an investigation?
The length of time for a police investigation will also depend on the kind of crime that is being investigated and what sort of statute of limitations governs it. The statute of limitations around federal cases, for instance, is five years, so those kinds of investigations can go on for a very long time.
Can I find out if I’m under investigation?
Generally, you will not be told that you are under investigation unless they want to talk to you and ask specific questions. When they do call you, they have probably already gathered data, and they only want to confirm their conclusions.
How do you know if someone pressed charges on you?
Arrest. The most obvious way to find out if charges are being pressed is when you’re arrested, taken to the police station, and booked: your fingerprints are taken, among other requirements. In the meantime, the police investigate the circumstances of your arrest and provide any evidence to the prosecutor.
Can you be charged with a crime 10 years later?
A statute of limitations is a law that forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. After the time period has run, the crime can no longer be prosecuted, meaning that the accused person is essentially free.
Can you be convicted with only circumstantial evidence?
Posted J by Ugur Nedim & filed under NSW Courts. Courts have consistently upheld the proposition that circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict, and there have been a number of recent cases where juries have convicted defendants without any direct evidence of their guilt.
What does circumstantial evidence prove?
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.