Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
grahamw48 said:
streaky said:
But the Chairman of the Bench, who only just managed to park his Austin A35 Countryman within his reserved slot at the fifth attempt, might feel that a "twitchy" car indicated an inability to control it properly.
Streaky
My friend is currently a 'Chairman of the bench', and I well-remember the time when he employed a good Solicitor who specialised in motoring offences to (successfully) 'get him off' a due care and attention prosecution.Streaky
This came about as a result of said friend leaving the road at approx. 100mph and then proceeding across a ploughed field in his new Pontiac Transam.
Don't stereotype.
Streaky
Goaty Bill said:
I can see this from both perspectives, though I have less than zero interest in horses or farming.
On the one side;
I live in the country and have done for several years, near and next to various farms and stables.
My first and foremost belief is; If you don't like what country folk do, don't go into the country, and sure as Hell don't live next to farms or stables. They were there first, and if they weren't tough, that's what you should expect to find in the country.
When my neighbour starts his tractor at 5am on a Sunday morning in August, I praise him for his dedication, I don't whine about his tractor noise.
When shotguns are blasting various local animate or inanimate flying 'things' at 7am on Sunday, if you don't like it; I would suggest getting ear muffs or moving back to the town or city.
Certainly don't bother expressing your opinions on the matter to me, I wouldn't be listening. (No I don't shoot either).
On the other side;
I personally have been driving a 5 litre TVR Chimaera for about 13 years.
It arrived, from the factory VERY loud, not standard specification, but factory produced and legal. It has passed every MOT bar one first time, noise level and exhaust condition have never been noted or commented on.
I have had (rare) occasion to be stopped by the police, who have had the 'opportunity' of hearing the vehicle under power, and at idle. The noise level has never been questioned, though once complimented.
Additionally, I can assure those of you who perhaps haven't owned such a vehicle, the difference between leaving fairly gently at moderate acceleration, and leaving £10 worth or more of rubber like substance on the tarmac is about 1/16 of an inch in throttle depression and is very easily misjudged never mind greatly affected by the condition of the road surface and what is laying on the road. And in my case certainly, it is never quiet either way, and it is almost unavoidably quicker than what might be considered 'normal'.
I have seen both types of horse riders. The polite, responsible, and appreciative of you taking care type (the majority), and the obnoxious, pompous and apparently inconsiderate type, and I suppose a few in-between.
Interjection; We also get the complete morons who ignore the 30mph hour speed limit in front of our house, and drive at speeds near 60-70 mph. I'll take the 'other' type of horse rider in preference thank you.
I have also seen a horse bolt, (nothing to do with me I was 50m away and walking), and it is a terrifying sight.
Conclusions?
If I see horses on the road, or a horse box slowly trundling down the country lane, I often curse under my breath at the inconvenience and disruption to my driving. Because to me, at that point in time, it is the most important thing in the world to me.
I then and immediately call myself back to reality, take a deep breath and do what seems appropriate and safest for all concerned.
If that means stopping for the horses, then I do (though rarely has it seemed necessary).
If they 'flag' me, I slow further, and keep driving. I do NOT stop and enter into conversations/debates with people who's life styles/choices I can not possibly comprehend, and have no interest in. Furthermore, I have no interest in their opinion of the noise level of my vehicle; they have all the legal right to the opinion they hold, I have the legal right to completely ignore it. Thank goodness on both counts.
The point I make there is maybe; avoid confrontational situations at all (reasonable) costs.
The advice from experienced black cab drivers is something like; "Don't make eye contact, your fault or not. Keep driving as though nothing has happened. Only in the most extreme circumstances will an incident go any further."
As to the OP son's issue;
Perhaps he may be better advised, but I feel that bringing the very nature of the vehicle into the evidence could easily assist his case?
After all, if his TVR S3 is anywhere nearly as loud or as 'twitchy' as my Chimaera is to drive (and assuming fully legal etc.), and if expert testimony would confirm this as a fact, it may then be argued that the plaintiffs/witnesses have simply misjudged his driving actions through their own (not unreasonable) ignorance.
My limited experience of these things in court, and in taking into account statements of friends in the legal profession; a magistrate may easily take the less controversial route in making judgement, to assure that the matter does not reappear in the court (as an appeal for example).
As this (if I have read correctly) is purely a 'criminal' charge, not a private suit, surely any reasonable possibility that the drivers actions were innocent, and normal, without malice and virtually beyond his reasonable control, the case would be dismissed. There surely must be in the mind of the magistrate "no reasonable doubt", (as the logical reciprocal of the requirement to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"), before finding a judgement of guilty?
Indeed, an excellent post. I believe you may be correct in that the horse riders have heard a car under load, thought it must be doing a BILLION miles an hour to be that loud (let's face it, not many cars are as loud as TVR), and then seen Nick come into view and presumed he's going excessively. Now, who could he use as an expert witness? College tutor? On the one side;
I live in the country and have done for several years, near and next to various farms and stables.
My first and foremost belief is; If you don't like what country folk do, don't go into the country, and sure as Hell don't live next to farms or stables. They were there first, and if they weren't tough, that's what you should expect to find in the country.
When my neighbour starts his tractor at 5am on a Sunday morning in August, I praise him for his dedication, I don't whine about his tractor noise.
When shotguns are blasting various local animate or inanimate flying 'things' at 7am on Sunday, if you don't like it; I would suggest getting ear muffs or moving back to the town or city.
Certainly don't bother expressing your opinions on the matter to me, I wouldn't be listening. (No I don't shoot either).
On the other side;
I personally have been driving a 5 litre TVR Chimaera for about 13 years.
It arrived, from the factory VERY loud, not standard specification, but factory produced and legal. It has passed every MOT bar one first time, noise level and exhaust condition have never been noted or commented on.
I have had (rare) occasion to be stopped by the police, who have had the 'opportunity' of hearing the vehicle under power, and at idle. The noise level has never been questioned, though once complimented.
Additionally, I can assure those of you who perhaps haven't owned such a vehicle, the difference between leaving fairly gently at moderate acceleration, and leaving £10 worth or more of rubber like substance on the tarmac is about 1/16 of an inch in throttle depression and is very easily misjudged never mind greatly affected by the condition of the road surface and what is laying on the road. And in my case certainly, it is never quiet either way, and it is almost unavoidably quicker than what might be considered 'normal'.
I have seen both types of horse riders. The polite, responsible, and appreciative of you taking care type (the majority), and the obnoxious, pompous and apparently inconsiderate type, and I suppose a few in-between.
Interjection; We also get the complete morons who ignore the 30mph hour speed limit in front of our house, and drive at speeds near 60-70 mph. I'll take the 'other' type of horse rider in preference thank you.
I have also seen a horse bolt, (nothing to do with me I was 50m away and walking), and it is a terrifying sight.
Conclusions?
If I see horses on the road, or a horse box slowly trundling down the country lane, I often curse under my breath at the inconvenience and disruption to my driving. Because to me, at that point in time, it is the most important thing in the world to me.
I then and immediately call myself back to reality, take a deep breath and do what seems appropriate and safest for all concerned.
If that means stopping for the horses, then I do (though rarely has it seemed necessary).
If they 'flag' me, I slow further, and keep driving. I do NOT stop and enter into conversations/debates with people who's life styles/choices I can not possibly comprehend, and have no interest in. Furthermore, I have no interest in their opinion of the noise level of my vehicle; they have all the legal right to the opinion they hold, I have the legal right to completely ignore it. Thank goodness on both counts.
The point I make there is maybe; avoid confrontational situations at all (reasonable) costs.
The advice from experienced black cab drivers is something like; "Don't make eye contact, your fault or not. Keep driving as though nothing has happened. Only in the most extreme circumstances will an incident go any further."
As to the OP son's issue;
Perhaps he may be better advised, but I feel that bringing the very nature of the vehicle into the evidence could easily assist his case?
After all, if his TVR S3 is anywhere nearly as loud or as 'twitchy' as my Chimaera is to drive (and assuming fully legal etc.), and if expert testimony would confirm this as a fact, it may then be argued that the plaintiffs/witnesses have simply misjudged his driving actions through their own (not unreasonable) ignorance.
My limited experience of these things in court, and in taking into account statements of friends in the legal profession; a magistrate may easily take the less controversial route in making judgement, to assure that the matter does not reappear in the court (as an appeal for example).
As this (if I have read correctly) is purely a 'criminal' charge, not a private suit, surely any reasonable possibility that the drivers actions were innocent, and normal, without malice and virtually beyond his reasonable control, the case would be dismissed. There surely must be in the mind of the magistrate "no reasonable doubt", (as the logical reciprocal of the requirement to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"), before finding a judgement of guilty?
Also, he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief.
King Fisher said:
Indeed, an excellent post. I believe you may be correct in that the horse riders have heard a car under load, thought it must be doing a BILLION miles an hour to be that loud (let's face it, not many cars are as loud as TVR), and then seen Nick come into view and presumed he's going excessively. Now, who could he use as an expert witness? College tutor?
Also, he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief.
How do you see that playing in court? "It's loud because it's a TVR". Do you see that going down well, the magistrates nodding to each other and saying "ah, it's a TVR and they are loud, so it's ok. If it had been a Volkswagen and been loud then that would be very naughty but seeing as it's a TVR, that's ok then, case dismissed"?Also, he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief.
Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
King said:
Also, he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief.
You've been badly advised. I suggest that you ask him to check s.146 PCC(S)A 2000.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section...
ThisMy missus (and one of her horses)taught me to ride about 4 years back. I was very, very lucky. Both my wifes horses are what could be described as 'bombproof', both of them are very experienced, calm and most importantly older. By 'older' I mean they are not crazy 2 year old racehorses which are fed on rocketfuel.
There are several very important things that should be considered BEFORE anybody should consider they have the 'right' to take a horse onto the road;
1. The experience of the rider (as a rider).
2. The experience of the rider as a "horseman/woman"
3. The age and temperament of the animal.
The second point above is probably by far and away the most important issue.
As stated in some of the posts above, horses are herd animals. They live in a constant state of fear. They WILL react if the other horses/people around them freak out. As a horserider you are NOT just a passenger - you have an obligation to keep the animal under control. Part of this is due to the relationship the animal has with the rider - if the horse trusts the rider, it will more readily accept instructions that fly in the face of it's instinctive behaviour. However, the same can be said that the horse will become unsettled if it hears the rider screaming abuse at motorists!!!
As a horse-owner, I firmly believe that like most other road users, as a rider, you should pass a test before being allowed onto any public highway classed as a B road or higher. The test should be animal and rider specific in order that only the most stable animals are allowed out.
This will not prevent the problem of the horse spooking but would deal with the all the gear no idea mob who seem to think it's OK to ride an animal on a dual carriageway that weighs over half a metric tonne and has the ability to jump 9 feet sideways when it thinks the plastic bag in the hedgerow/tractor three fields away/cow in the field next to the road is going to attack it.
There are thousands of miles of bridleways in the UK which seem to be populated almost exclusively by silent mountainbikers doing 40mph which sneak up on you. These idiots should be educated on the fact that most horses 'spook' because something surprises them. Blasting past at 40mph in dayglo pink constitutes this kind of thing and it is only a matter of time before one of these numpties gets squashed or has their numb head kicked off their shoulders by an animal that IS being ridden where it belongs.
There are several very important things that should be considered BEFORE anybody should consider they have the 'right' to take a horse onto the road;
1. The experience of the rider (as a rider).
2. The experience of the rider as a "horseman/woman"
3. The age and temperament of the animal.
The second point above is probably by far and away the most important issue.
As stated in some of the posts above, horses are herd animals. They live in a constant state of fear. They WILL react if the other horses/people around them freak out. As a horserider you are NOT just a passenger - you have an obligation to keep the animal under control. Part of this is due to the relationship the animal has with the rider - if the horse trusts the rider, it will more readily accept instructions that fly in the face of it's instinctive behaviour. However, the same can be said that the horse will become unsettled if it hears the rider screaming abuse at motorists!!!
As a horse-owner, I firmly believe that like most other road users, as a rider, you should pass a test before being allowed onto any public highway classed as a B road or higher. The test should be animal and rider specific in order that only the most stable animals are allowed out.
This will not prevent the problem of the horse spooking but would deal with the all the gear no idea mob who seem to think it's OK to ride an animal on a dual carriageway that weighs over half a metric tonne and has the ability to jump 9 feet sideways when it thinks the plastic bag in the hedgerow/tractor three fields away/cow in the field next to the road is going to attack it.
There are thousands of miles of bridleways in the UK which seem to be populated almost exclusively by silent mountainbikers doing 40mph which sneak up on you. These idiots should be educated on the fact that most horses 'spook' because something surprises them. Blasting past at 40mph in dayglo pink constitutes this kind of thing and it is only a matter of time before one of these numpties gets squashed or has their numb head kicked off their shoulders by an animal that IS being ridden where it belongs.
singlecoil said:
How do you see that playing in court? "It's loud because it's a TVR". Do you see that going down well, the magistrates nodding to each other and saying "ah, it's a TVR and they are loud, so it's ok. If it had been a Volkswagen and been loud then that would be very naughty but seeing as it's a TVR, that's ok then, case dismissed"?
Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
No, I didn't mean it like that. The point is that because it's a loud car, they may have thought it was going faster than it was (one of their statements said he was doing '100mph'. I think not!).Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
King Fisher said:
singlecoil said:
How do you see that playing in court? "It's loud because it's a TVR". Do you see that going down well, the magistrates nodding to each other and saying "ah, it's a TVR and they are loud, so it's ok. If it had been a Volkswagen and been loud then that would be very naughty but seeing as it's a TVR, that's ok then, case dismissed"?
Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
No, I didn't mean it like that. The point is that because it's a loud car, they may have thought it was going faster than it was (one of their statements said he was doing '100mph'. I think not!).Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
And I wouldn't put any reliance at all on the fact that the car is legal, and that it came like that from the factory, in fact I would be trying to play down the whole noise thing altogether, rather than trying to justify it.
King Fisher said:
No, I didn't mean it like that. The point is that because it's a loud car, they may have thought it was going faster than it was (one of their statements said he was doing '100mph'. I think not!).
And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
Unless he is facing prosecution for excessive speed or careless/dangerous driving (which I don't believe he is), any discussion regarding alleged speed should be treated as superfluous. And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
It would appear to be the slowing, stopping and asking if there was a problem is the pivotal issue. If the prosecution witnesses imply to the court that he stopped and initiated the threatening behaviour (i.e. either starting off the abuse or coming across with a chavvy "What's your problem?" attitude) then it's a case of their word against his. In which case it will come down to whoever is more convincing to the court that the other started an altercation. Although it doesn't necessarily end there - if he was met with a torrent of abuse, even if it was unwarranted it would not justify him wheelspinning away from the area 'so as to teach them a lesson' (which is no doubt the image the prosecution will seek to portray).
King Fisher said:
No, I didn't mean it like that. The point is that because it's a loud car, they may have thought it was going faster than it was (one of their statements said he was doing '100mph'. I think not!).
And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
There won't be a jury for this summary only offence. This offence can only go before a jury if it's racially aggravated. Please tell me it's not the aggravated offence.And surely the fact he slowed, stopped, asked if there was a problem, and was met with a tirade of abuse about his driving and his car, and then threatened by one of the animals coming across the road towards him, would show the jury he hasn't done anything wrong?
To add to my earlier post, whilst your solicitor is wrong to say "they can't touch his licence" (they actually do have the power to disqualify) i'd think it most unlikely they would exercise their power in this unusual case. Best hope that you don't get a clever prosecutor or a district judge though.
You're best advised speaking to your solicitor about the validity or otherwise of the points you've mentioned.
Im fairly ok with Horse Riders on the road. They are all polite in that sense. However, if they know a horse is nervous, then dont ride it on the road. End of.
As for the horse box drivers. Again, if you aren't a confident driver, then for the love of God get someone else to drive who can go more than 25mph in a NSL area. I have come to this conclusion from many times of being stuck behind these speed nazi's (excuse the description), cheifly one was going to Goodwood breakfast club, a beautiful NSL road, early morning, TVR, Porsche, Lotus, MGB V8's all held up behind a horse lorry which refused to pull over for 10 miles (eventually pulled off road) despite many chances to.
So I sort of have a bitter view of horse box drivers, but I wont be the tailgater behind them, I'll wait for a senseible opportunity and get past them.
Rant over
As for the horse box drivers. Again, if you aren't a confident driver, then for the love of God get someone else to drive who can go more than 25mph in a NSL area. I have come to this conclusion from many times of being stuck behind these speed nazi's (excuse the description), cheifly one was going to Goodwood breakfast club, a beautiful NSL road, early morning, TVR, Porsche, Lotus, MGB V8's all held up behind a horse lorry which refused to pull over for 10 miles (eventually pulled off road) despite many chances to.
So I sort of have a bitter view of horse box drivers, but I wont be the tailgater behind them, I'll wait for a senseible opportunity and get past them.
Rant over
singlecoil said:
How do you see that playing in court? "It's loud because it's a TVR". Do you see that going down well, the magistrates nodding to each other and saying "ah, it's a TVR and they are loud, so it's ok. If it had been a Volkswagen and been loud then that would be very naughty but seeing as it's a TVR, that's ok then, case dismissed"?
Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
On the point of speed; Accepted.Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
I personally did not bring speed into the equation.
OP;
King Fisher said:
Ok guys, thanks for the info. It's an on going case, but basically my son is under investigation for careless driving after he stopped for a few horse riders (who I may add flagged him down), they abused him for the volume of his exhaust, then one started to prance towards his car, at which point he removed himself from the situation. Apparently because he accelerated away from the horse, it spooked it. Where does he stand?
Exhaust noise level and high acceleration were, by the OP in the first description of the incident.Wheel spin during acceleration was introduced by the OP in a later post when describing witness statements;
King Fisher said:
[snipped]
...and then drove off spinning his wheels for 'at least 3 seconds'. An independent witness said she saw a car spinning its wheels, and his car driving off at speed.
[snipped]
In my second post, I did suggest that advice from a solicitor would be advisable on considering to use the arguments I presented....and then drove off spinning his wheels for 'at least 3 seconds'. An independent witness said she saw a car spinning its wheels, and his car driving off at speed.
[snipped]
That statement assumed that a solicitor would be arguing the case on his behalf and that they would have decided on their strategy beforehand, as I also suggested an expert witness.
As the prosecution could not possibly find a truthful expert witness that could testify to the natural quietness of the TVR, it would prove a point.
"How it would play in court", to paraphrase, was exactly my concern.
I reiterated this in my second post, as there being a flip-side to my arguments.
I did not at any point suggest it was more okay for a TVR to be loud, than for example a Volkswagen.
On the other hand, it probably is; because the TVR was legally built and licensed that way, whereas in the case of most (again) Volkswagens, this is probably not the case.
The TVR is not a kit car thrown together from a collection of chance available parts in some private individual's garage.
It was constructed under a government issued licence, subject to the submission of approval for any substantive changes to the design.
It was approved for construction, licensing, sale and driving in this country, by the government of this country.
Assuming it is properly maintained and not modified and passes the MOT, everything within it's nature as a motor car is legal and approved. Including being loud.
The fact that is louder than an average car by some considerable margin just might be considered material by a defence attorney and ultimately the court.
It might be considered to prove that the driver was not doing anything unusual by simply being loud, or more to the point; louder than they usually experience a car to be.
OP referring to the interview with a solicitor;
King Fisher said:
[snipped]
[the solicitor] agreed that, by the nature of being a classic TVR, it is a loud vehicle.
[snipped]
I further argued that a TVR by it's very nature, is much more susceptible to wheel spinning and again by nature accelerates much more quickly than might be perceived as 'normal', especially (perhaps) by someone more used to driving an 'average' car or a even horsebox (in this instance).[the solicitor] agreed that, by the nature of being a classic TVR, it is a loud vehicle.
[snipped]
Average 0-60 times
A 'modern' TVR would beat the stated average (8.952s) by between 30 and 60 percent depending on model and driving ability.
From this it is possible to conclude that when being driven normally, it will also accelerate 30-60 percent more quickly than average.
This might be considered to prove that the driver was not doing anything unusual by simply being quick.
The main thrust of the argument, is to deflect attention away from certain elements that are open to interpretation by the witnesses and to diminish their impact as to proving the intent of the drivers actions.
Their opinions on him being 'loud' and his level of acceleration are purely subjective, and being outside their expertise to make a judgement on, all but irrelevant.
Your statement "...rather than that he was going at any particular speed." is substantially correct IMO on the same basis.
The witnesses have no proven expertise in judging the speed of a vehicle.
Once again; entirely subjective and all but irrelevant.
In any case, the only witness to the best means available of gauging the vehicle's speed, was the driver. His word should then prevail.
King Fisher said:
[snipped]
Now, who could he use as an expert witness? College tutor?
[snipped]
I suggest popping into the TVR forums and searching for, or alternatively asking for a list of TVR specialists (mechanics / historians / service managers / sales managers / original factory employees) that might be willing for a reasonable fee and / or expenses consider spending a few hours to give evidence.Now, who could he use as an expert witness? College tutor?
[snipped]
I am sure a few people will feel appropriately aggrieved at the idea of a TVR exhaust note being criticised.
Sits back and awaits the flames
Edited by Goaty Bill on Tuesday 8th November 15:59
Goaty Bill said:
singlecoil said:
How do you see that playing in court? "It's loud because it's a TVR". Do you see that going down well, the magistrates nodding to each other and saying "ah, it's a TVR and they are loud, so it's ok. If it had been a Volkswagen and been loud then that would be very naughty but seeing as it's a TVR, that's ok then, case dismissed"?
Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
On the point of speed; Accepted.Personally I would have thought that the case, if there is one, hinged on whether the behaviour of the driver was likely to upset the horses/cause accidents rather than that he was going at any particular speed.
I personally did not bring speed into the equation.
As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
singlecoil said:
Who said you did? What you've quoted there was addressed to the OP, not you
As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
Has he not been charged with this?As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
"On 19/09/2011 at HAXBY, YORK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, with intent to cause (horse riders names omitted for obvious reasons) harassment, alarm or distress, used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing that person or another harassment, alarm or distress.
- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986.'
- CCCJS CODE: PU86116'
- ACPO: '7.6.17.1'
- PNLD CODE: 'H350'
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
It appears to be a public order offence.
Orillion said:
singlecoil said:
Who said you did? What you've quoted there was addressed to the OP, not you
As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
Has he not been charged with this?As to your later points, whether the car is 'legal' or not has nothing to do with it. He hasn't been accused of driving an illegal car, he's been accused, AIUI, of careless driving.
"On 19/09/2011 at HAXBY, YORK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, with intent to cause (horse riders names omitted for obvious reasons) harassment, alarm or distress, used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing that person or another harassment, alarm or distress.
- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986.'
- CCCJS CODE: PU86116'
- ACPO: '7.6.17.1'
- PNLD CODE: 'H350'
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
It appears to be a public order offence.
Orillion said:
It appears to be a public order offence.
Exactly. So what the OP's son (and his brief) need to prepare and consider is1) Did his conduct during the verbal exchanges with the horse riders justify prosecution under the above, and/or
2) Did the nature of his departure justify prosecution under the above
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff