Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
WeirdNeville said:
...Does the officers failure to ask a question and subsequent assumption of the answer sufficiently taint their professional character that it renders all evidence they offer worthless?
Quite. That was the point I was making although I would use 'undermined' rather than 'worthless'. A credible explanation as to why ethnicity records are guessed/falsified should counter any suggestion of unreliability on the substantive facts.The question is pointless. It provides no dependable stats. It is not part of the offence.
There was a spate of football supporters arrested saying that they were black, their theory being that this would show the police as racist.
No excuse for ticking the box.
Before going to court in a big case I used to 'walk-through' the location, normally literally, but sometimes on paper. If there was a number of officers involved I would take them with me. It clarified the case.
This was challenged a couple of times in court. We all 'admitted' according to the defence, but agreed in actuality, that we had done it. Even then, though, our evidence contradicted one another on detail.
As for one officer not not being 'allowed' to see the evidence presented in court before they gave theirs, this is the norm for everyone. Don't read anything into it.
There was a spate of football supporters arrested saying that they were black, their theory being that this would show the police as racist.
No excuse for ticking the box.
Dog Star said:
If the police officer lies then I think that to base any conviction on anything else they have to say on that case is very dodgy.
I've had experience of exactly this happening to me.
In a nutshell - 1986. I got arrested for fighting. When this went to court the two officers were not allowed to hear each other testify, and upon cross-examination it was quite obvious that their stories had been superficially corroborated, but fell apart once detailed questions were asked - they'd even held their notebooks up and stated that the notes had been written at the time of the offence. O rly? The questions weren't even about the offence, just the location, where they were when it happened, which way did they drive to the station, did they stop en route. Their answers did not match on any of the above. My solicitor didn't even get as far as asking about any fighting or the actual alleged offence, the magistrates held their hands up and stated that they refused to continue as they could not possibly trust the police officer's testimony (I can't remember the exact terminology). They threw it out.
I do remember the prosecution/CPS bod going bonkers - he was shouting "but an offence has been committed! An offence has been committed!". Indeed one had.
So back to the OP - my personal view is that even if he was on the phone, smoking a spliff and drinking from a bottle of scotch, the officers statement cannot and should not be trusted. Rules apply to both sides, no?
The idea that witnesses contradicting one-another is unusual is not the case. I would be suspicious if evidence was identical. If you have five witnesses to a single incident then there are six different versions. This can be exploited of course, and is. I've had experience of exactly this happening to me.
In a nutshell - 1986. I got arrested for fighting. When this went to court the two officers were not allowed to hear each other testify, and upon cross-examination it was quite obvious that their stories had been superficially corroborated, but fell apart once detailed questions were asked - they'd even held their notebooks up and stated that the notes had been written at the time of the offence. O rly? The questions weren't even about the offence, just the location, where they were when it happened, which way did they drive to the station, did they stop en route. Their answers did not match on any of the above. My solicitor didn't even get as far as asking about any fighting or the actual alleged offence, the magistrates held their hands up and stated that they refused to continue as they could not possibly trust the police officer's testimony (I can't remember the exact terminology). They threw it out.
I do remember the prosecution/CPS bod going bonkers - he was shouting "but an offence has been committed! An offence has been committed!". Indeed one had.
So back to the OP - my personal view is that even if he was on the phone, smoking a spliff and drinking from a bottle of scotch, the officers statement cannot and should not be trusted. Rules apply to both sides, no?
Before going to court in a big case I used to 'walk-through' the location, normally literally, but sometimes on paper. If there was a number of officers involved I would take them with me. It clarified the case.
This was challenged a couple of times in court. We all 'admitted' according to the defence, but agreed in actuality, that we had done it. Even then, though, our evidence contradicted one another on detail.
As for one officer not not being 'allowed' to see the evidence presented in court before they gave theirs, this is the norm for everyone. Don't read anything into it.
The reality of a trial is that one demonstrable mistake by an officer does not automatically render the whole of his evidence unreliable. If this were the case then nobody would ever be found guilty! As stated before, wrong box ticked is no defence. A non starter if it gets to court. If you have a real defence (e.g. "I wasn't using the phone") then don't pollute a good defence with a ludicrous point.
Derek Smith said:
As for one officer not not being 'allowed' to see the evidence presented in court before they gave theirs, this is the norm for everyone. Don't read anything into it.
No worries, Derek, I was just pointing it out for the benefit of those who might not know.The fact that they can't hear each other saved my bacon - cos I was guilty as hell!
agtlaw said:
The reality of a trial is that one demonstrable mistake by an officer does not automatically render the whole of his evidence unreliable. If this were the case then nobody would ever be found guilty! As stated before, wrong box ticked is no defence. A non starter if it gets to court. If you have a real defence (e.g. "I wasn't using the phone") then don't pollute a good defence with a ludicrous point.
It wasn't one though, the OP said the officer stated that holding a phone was an offence. He was also told he was being video recorded and that turned out to be untrue as well.This copper wasn't very good was he
NoNeed said:
agtlaw said:
The reality of a trial is that one demonstrable mistake by an officer does not automatically render the whole of his evidence unreliable. If this were the case then nobody would ever be found guilty! As stated before, wrong box ticked is no defence. A non starter if it gets to court. If you have a real defence (e.g. "I wasn't using the phone") then don't pollute a good defence with a ludicrous point.
It wasn't one though, the OP said the officer stated that holding a phone was an offence. He was also told he was being video recorded and that turned out to be untrue as well.This copper wasn't very good was he
thegoose said:
There was some dialogue between us, she checked my licence & verified it, then wrote out a ticket and explained that I was likely to be offered an awareness course, fixed penalty or I could go to court.
NoNeed said:
It wasn't one though, the OP said the officer stated that holding a phone was an offence. He was also told he was being video recorded and that turned out to be untrue as well.
This copper wasn't very good was she
This is moronic and doesn't merit a response. However: This copper wasn't very good was she
- Using a handheld phone is an offence.
- Officer unaware of technical defect with the equipment. Not a defence.
You don't even have to be in the car to be driving. Whether the engine is running or not does not alter the fact of driving.
Some of the prosecutions have been over officious though. Someone on here, can't remember who, once said that the only time he would consider a person not driving was if they were off-road or in a parking place. One wonders if this chap would report someone for polishing his glasses whilst stationary at lights.
In essence, if you start a journey you continue driving until you complete it.
Some of the prosecutions have been over officious though. Someone on here, can't remember who, once said that the only time he would consider a person not driving was if they were off-road or in a parking place. One wonders if this chap would report someone for polishing his glasses whilst stationary at lights.
In essence, if you start a journey you continue driving until you complete it.
Terminator X said:
What about pulled over at side of road with ignition off? I often do this but now you've got me worried!
TX.
Are you blocking the road, are you parked safely, are you on a motorway hard shoulder.TX.
Did you answer before pulling over?
Did you pull over safely?
The police don't want to nick sensible safe drivers, they want to nick the cocks.
Don't be a cock - and you'll be fine.
Snowboy said:
The police don't want to nick sensible safe drivers, they want to nick the cocks.
Don't be a cock - and you'll be fine.
Perhaps the plod next to me in an X5 on the M606 last Thursday would like to check their mirrors once in a while. They might have noticed the bint behind me spending the whole twenty minute crawl with her eyes down glued to her phone Don't be a cock - and you'll be fine.
Derek Smith said:
You don't even have to be in the car to be driving. Whether the engine is running or not does not alter the fact of driving.
Some of the prosecutions have been over officious though. Someone on here, can't remember who, once said that the only time he would consider a person not driving was if they were off-road or in a parking place. One wonders if this chap would report someone for polishing his glasses whilst stationary at lights.
In essence, if you start a journey you continue driving until you complete it.
While I can kind of see where your coming from with the engine off sitting in the car although I would like to think that with the engine off/handbrake on common sense would prevail but I cannot see where the bold can be right, how can you "drive" a car if your not in it? That's just nonsense......Some of the prosecutions have been over officious though. Someone on here, can't remember who, once said that the only time he would consider a person not driving was if they were off-road or in a parking place. One wonders if this chap would report someone for polishing his glasses whilst stationary at lights.
In essence, if you start a journey you continue driving until you complete it.
Gary
Court of Appeal didn't consider it nonsense earlier this year. "It is to be noted that it is no part of the statutory definition that the driving must be coterminous with the impact resulting in the death. The offence is "causing the death ... by driving". It is not "causing the death while driving".
Jenkins wasn't behind the wheel of his parked HGV. He was still found guilty and conviction upheld on appeal
Jenkins wasn't behind the wheel of his parked HGV. He was still found guilty and conviction upheld on appeal
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff