Writing mitigating circumstances

[Starfighter]

carinaman said:

The RoSPA advanced driving test is conducted by former or current traffic officers. I doubt too many of them would be happy with pootling along at 40 in a 60 and not making an overtake if the conditions and situation allowed.

That would be a fail for both RoADA and IAM. Both organisation would expect the driver to at least be looking for and planning an overtake. Traffic / road conditions may mean that the plan doesn't come together but they would expect the driver to be ready (contact rather than following position, gear selected etc).

[10 Pence Short]

That may be, but the careful and competent driver test has nothing to do with IAM or ROSPA. It is also irrelevant, as the officer is not suggesting the OP was offending by overtaking, rather he was supporting the tailgating accusation by demonstrating the OP appeared to be in a hurry.

[New POD]

Careless driving ? You accelerated, within the speed limit, and over took within the speed limit and the police officers assertion that you were too close is a matter of opinion. You didn't crash into the back of the other car, so unless he had a perfect view, from the side, then maybe it was an optical illusion.

I'll tell you what. My mate, lost control on leaving a motorway roundabout, as he joined a dual carriage way slip road, and unfortunately left the road and killed an innocent pedestrian on the pavement, before the car turned over into the ditch. I was the ONLY witness. He was charged with Careless driving, and with the services of a decent solicitor was found NOT guilty. It was a tragic accident see.

[liquidfox]

New POD said:

Careless driving ? You accelerated, within the speed limit, and over took within the speed limit and the police officers assertion that you were too close is a matter of opinion. You didn't crash into the back of the other car, so unless he had a perfect view, from the side, then maybe it was an optical illusion.

The car had recording equipment in it, but if he was behind me (which he was as we joined from the same slip road) I doubt he has a true picture of it all. Unfortunately I can't simply rest on this bit.

Edited by liquidfox on Wednesday 5th March 20:47

[10 Pence Short]

Massive, massive pedant mode: you might be in contempt of court sharing with those not your legal advisors information and/or witness statements disclosed that have not been seen in open court yet.

[JustinP1]

10 Pence Short said:

Massive, massive pedant mode: you might be in contempt of court sharing with those not your legal advisors information and/or witness statements disclosed that have not been seen in open court yet.

I think the OP's changed his mind... ahem...

[10 Pence Short]

If it's in connection with the relevant proceedings it should be ok, but see s.17 CPIA. I can't imagine it coming up ever in these circumstances, but famous last words and all that.

[liquidfox]

Ahem. Don't know what you're on about.

[ridds]

I'd say you've got 3 options.

Bend over, plead guilty and take the potential high points and fine. Wear a suit, look very sorry in court, hope the mags arellenient.

Get a legal beagle involved and run the risk of getting off but with a big legal bill or getting the same high points and fine as above AND the big legal bill. Bear in mind the legal bill will be a LOT more than the fine. £600+ off for preperation and hearing IF it's straight forward. They cache advise if Guilty or Not guilty is the best route depending on the evidence.

Plead not guilty, fight it yourself, which if they have vid evidence might help in your favour. Possibly still end up with the high points and fine but no legal fees. OR get off Scott free.

Tricky one and I don't envy you. IMHO if it was me and I was adamant that it wasn't careless I'd fight it myself. Legal fees are crippling if you lose.

[liquidfox]

ridds said:

I'd say you've got 3 options.

Bend over, plead guilty and take the potential high points and fine. Wear a suit, look very sorry in court, hope the mags arellenient.

Get a legal beagle involved and run the risk of getting off but with a big legal bill or getting the same high points and fine as above AND the big legal bill. Bear in mind the legal bill will be a LOT more than the fine. £600+ off for preperation and hearing IF it's straight forward. They cache advise if Guilty or Not guilty is the best route depending on the evidence.

Plead not guilty, fight it yourself, which if they have vid evidence might help in your favour. Possibly still end up with the high points and fine but no legal fees. OR get off Scott free.

Tricky one and I don't envy you. IMHO if it was me and I was adamant that it wasn't careless I'd fight it myself. Legal fees are crippling if you lose.

The legal beagle option is already off the cards, there is no way I could afford to pay for one, especially if it still ended up with a fine at the end of it all. I think I'll be booking the day off and attending to plead guilty at this rate. As you all say, it is far better to appear in person and apologise for my actions than just appear as a number on a piece of paper.

[agtlaw]

What do you accept doing that amounts to careless driving?

[ridds]

Have a read up on the maximum penalty. If you can stomach it then plead not guilty and fight it yourself. If not, plead guilty and go in very submissive and hope for friendly Mags.

I used a lawyer for my faux pas as I really needed to avoid the ban. After seeing what goes on in the court I'd probably have just pled guilty and presented my case myself.

Can't remember if your allowed to spectate cases but might be worthwhile if you have an afternoon free.

First thing to do is write down everything you can remember. My court date was 8 months after the event! You can forget a lot in that time!

[liquidfox]

agtlaw said:

What do you accept doing that amounts to careless driving?

Going off the description of "driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver"

My following distance between the car in front in the first part of the journey. I feel there was nothing wrong with my acceleration, other than it was quicker than most drivers would only due to I have more power than those drivers. I certainly do not feel my overtake was anything other than perfectly safe, I know that stretch extremely well as it is on my way to and from home every single day. There were no cars coming the other way before, during or after the overtake for a considerable amount of time.

The only issue is that I don't feel capable, nor confident, of defending myself in court and don't believe I could sway this to a Not Guilty verdict if all the evidence and witness statement held up.

[JustinP1]

liquidfox said:

The only issue is that I don't feel capable, nor confident, of defending myself in court and don't believe I could sway this to a Not Guilty verdict if all the evidence and witness statement held up.

To be fair mate, the officer is not a Panda car rookie, he's probably the most qualified you could imagine, and it's a follow which lasted a good few minutes, and a good few factors he's given evidence on.

I speak as someone who is optimistic enough to plead not guilty on a case where a local solicitor told me he wouldn't take my money as it was a waste trying to counter the statements of three corroborating officers.

I won, but only because I could display something documentary, I was well prepared, and I had a bit of luck.

In court, even if you throw doubt on everything else, he'll have you on the tailgating and you'll still be guilty. Of course, the interview with you does incriminate you somewhat.

As I said I'm hugely optimistic, but not even I would take this one on. Barring a legal loophole and/or miracle, you'll be found guilty. I don't think even a pro would take this on, even if you had the cash.

Damage limitation here.

Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 5th March 22:26

[liquidfox]

I agree. Thanks everyone for your posts, particularly Justin

If I could ask you one last massive favour and check your emails one last time for me please when you get a spare moment?

[NPI]

Durzel said:

Something not adding up here..

Accelerating briskly within the prevailing speed limits is not an offence...

You say 'briskly', the OP said 'pretty quickly'.

The cop says 'aggressively'. He stands up in court and says that and the Mags all look shocked. Guess what happens next.

The OP has held his hands up to tailgating anyway.

The language used by the cop crops us word for word in Dangerous driving guidelines so the OP might consider himself to be lucky to only be charged with careless.

[liquidfox]

So I had my day in court today, thanks to the advice of you guys and Justin in particular I've walked away with 3 points, £115 and £50 costs. The first court couldn't handle my case as one of the magistrates lives on my street and knows my father, the second weren't briefed on the case so only had what the clerk gave them. This turned out to be the witness statement from the officer, and my letter of mitigation.

Edited by liquidfox on Tuesday 15th April 23:06

[Red Devil]

Result!