Why would a police force hold off on charging someone? Can they do this?
<p>Person A commits an offence on January 1st. The police force have everything they need to charge person A within a few days.</p>

<p>Assuming there is no more evidence they can possibly obtain, would they hold off on pressing charges? say, for three or more years.</p>

<p>Surely they would want to move forward as soon as possible? since memories, data and other evidence may degrade (service providers are only bound to keep message records for 12 months ).</p>

<p>I have never heard of this happening, it seems like as soon as they have enough to charge they go right ahead. This seems the correct course of action in terms of the alleged victims of the crime "getting it over and done with".</p>

<p>This is fundamentally different to someone holding off from pressing charges (i.e the many victims of Jimmy Savile). </p>

<p>Examples</p>

<ul>
<li>Hate Crime:
I can not think why there would be delays on a Hate Crime charge. Once there is sufficient evidence to lay charges in this case, then why would a police force hold off on charging?</li>
<li>Same confusion holds with offences such as harassment, distribution indecent images and plotting to commit a terrorist activity.</li>
</ul>

<p>This isn't strictly a legal question, but there are many reasons that a police force might delay. These include, but are not limited to:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The case is a low priority so resources are devoted elsewhere, and no one ever gets back around to dealing with it.</p></li>
<li><p>The case may implicate another ongoing undercover operation which the arrest would disrupt.</p></li>
<li><p>It is likely that if the police wait that they will be able to bring much more serious charges, when the conduct they have evidence for is not as serious if they wait and monitor the suspect for future criminal conduct or leads to more serious past conduct. For example, the police may only have evidence of a single incident of harassment but may think that if they wait and watch that they may get evidence of extortion or attempted murder.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a concern that prosecuting immediately would lead to community uproar that would undermine community safety or impair police operations generally. In the same vein, public opinion might produce a tainted or unfavorable jury if charges were pressed now, but the jury might be less likely to have pre-existing opinions or to consider the case a hot button issue once publicity around an incident has died off.</p></li>
<li><p>The police may intentionally be exercising discretion not to press charges because it seems unjust to do so, or the perpetrator had some justification, or otherwise deserves a second chance.</p></li>
<li><p>Pre-charge negotiations might be ongoing between prosecutors and defense counsel.</p></li>
<li><p>The perpetrator already faces more serious charges that are highly likely to result in his incarceration and the new charges would be served concurrently and not add to his sentence, so pressing charges is not a priority.</p></li>
<li><p>There are doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence or there is a belief that more evidence may be obtained soon (and nobody bothers to check back and try to press the case when that potential lead doesn't pan out).</p></li>
<li><p>A modest delay in pressing charges for any number of reasons causes a witness to become unavailable or evidence to be lost.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Generally speaking, law enforcement has wide discretion to decide which cases to focus on and try to have prosecuted, and which cases the leave be. No law enforcement agency has the resources to prosecute (with prosecuting attorney assistance) every possible case that they could prove.</p>

<p>There is another possible aspect, related to the difference between the police and the CPS (or DA's office in America). It is not uncommon for the police to be satisfied that the suspect is guilty, and for there to be enough evidence to lay charges, when a lawyer knows there is little chance of a conviction, either for good reasons (some of the evidence will be inadmissible) or bad ones (local juries are notoriously sympathetic to this crime). After an acquittal there is no chance of a retrial even if further evidence turns up, whereas delaying in the hope of further untainted evidence turning up or public sentiment changing is always an option, particularly since Britain has no criminal Statute of Limitations. </p>

<p>In some cases the police may use the practice of keeping people on bail without charge as a tactic to disrupt activities the subject is involved in, such as protests that are inconvenient to the police. As the Legal Defence and Monitoring group <a href="http://ldmg.org.uk/files/Should_you_ignore_police_bail_conditions.doc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">put it</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The cops like keeping people on bail because it’s a punishment in
  itself, especially if there are conditions attached, while the  CPS
  get paid however long it takes. This leads to people being on bail for
  months and even years with disruption to their lives and ongoing
  psychological pressures.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, first off you need to realize that the police are incapable of laying charges.  The police are an investigation and public service organization, not involved with prosecution.</p>

<p>Charges are laid by the DA’s office, not the police.  A totally separate organization.</p>

<p>So, why would DA’s office delay?  The first and most obvious reason is that they are unconvinced by the polices evidence. The police believe they have sufficient evidence that someone is guilty, the DA disagrees.  Secondly, they could be worried about getting a conviction, the police are concerned with finding sufficient evidence of guilt, the DA has to worry about the judge and jury.</p>

<p>Finally they could be abusing the system.</p>

united-kingdom police