Police station representation?
Discussion
carinaman said:
I am so pleased you had representation. 
Why? He's been charged with 3 offences.
carinaman said:
What did your solicitor say after? What feedback did they give you?
As it appears his solicitor didn't explain that phoning up several hours later wasn't sufficient to comply with the duty to report the accident it might be advisable to take any feedback provided with a pinch of salt.
carinaman said:
'Report in person'? When they're shutting so many police stations and reducing the hours that staffed police stations are open?
Is that 'Reasonably practicable'?
Sounds like BiB playing the technicality game again.
Is that 'Reasonably practicable'?
Sounds like BiB playing the technicality game again.
It has nothing to do with the police playing the technicality game - the courts have decided that the law requires the accident to be reported in person - agtlaw has provide details of the relevant case law.
carinaman said:
If you reported it at the time the details of the call will be on the call log of your mobile phone and possibly on the itemised billing. So you have the details of the call on either or both of those with the time and the date and duration of that call?
It wasn't reported at the time it was reported some hours later. However your comments about call logs etc. are irrelevant because in order to satisfy the legal requirement he needed to report it in person. Cat
Go to the Doctors and give him/her the symptoms of concussion. Go to solicitor and give him a Doctors letter. Solicitor will get another Doctor to act as expert, they will tell the court this. You will get off. Depending on what you have said in interview... Which is why I always said nothing.
And here comes the abuse...
And here comes the abuse...
photosnob said:
Go to the Doctors and give him/her the symptoms of concussion. Go to solicitor and give him a Doctors letter. Solicitor will get another Doctor to act as expert, they will tell the court this. You will get off. Depending on what you have said in interview... Which is why I always said nothing.
And here comes the abuse...
I did go to the doctors 3 days after the accident as I had a few minor injuries plus I'd had a headache & nausea for a couple of days. He said it was likely concussion & the other aches and pains would heal in time.And here comes the abuse...
xr2gte said:
I did go to the doctors 3 days after the accident as I had a few minor injuries plus I'd had a headache & nausea for a couple of days. He said it was likely concussion & the other aches and pains would heal in time.
Go back say you still have a sore head. Get a note detailing your head injury. You can lie and say it's for work. Take it to your solicitor. If you qualify for legal aid then just sit back and wait for the cps to either give up, or for you to be found not guilty. The DWDCA is pre-injury, so how would that get the CPS to drop that? Secondly, he had the presence of mind to call the police to inform them of the RTC, which if it reached incident stage, will be a non-destructible electronic sequentially recorded incident along with the audio of the call. I also doubt he's raised it in interview, therefore may be subject to exactly what the caution is talking about.
That sounds like digging a larger hole to me.
That sounds like digging a larger hole to me.
Cat said:
It wasn't reported at the time it was reported some hours later. However your comments about call logs etc. are irrelevant because in order to satisfy the legal requirement he needed to report it in person.
Cat
But I've witnessed a group of kids picking up stones and lobbing them at windows. One broke. So I went to the police station 200 yards away to report them. It was closed. Not opened.Cat
He's crashed his car. It possibly doesn't drive. Depending on the time of day and his location the nearest police station that's likely to be open may be where exactly?
The rules say he has to report it person?
I am not sure where that tallies with the newspaper reports about members of the public being asked to look for evidence for themselves rather than police attend.
It could seem that the police want their cake and eat it. But if the rules says that's how it is.....
Given the number of unmanned and closed police stations, something police call handlers will be aware of themselves, it may be quite helpful for them to say 'Your nearest police station that's open and manned and where you need to report this incident is 30 miles away in the next County'
Perhaps we need a rule to ban the use of the term 'Informal chat'? Or would that be something covered under 'guidance'?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 10th November 13:06
La Liga said:
The DWDCA is pre-injury, so how would that get the CPS to drop that? Secondly, he had the presence of mind to call the police to inform them of the RTC, which if it reached incident stage, will be a non-destructible electronic sequentially recorded incident along with the audio of the call. I also doubt he's raised it in interview, therefore may be subject to exactly what the caution is talking about.
That sounds like digging a larger hole to me.
Stick to arresting people if you think the cps would run with charging someone against a doctor acting as an expert witness, for something as poxy as that. Making a call doesn't mean that he was in a medically fit state to think rationally. The man had suffered severe head injuries, he was in a state of shock and was confused. The police didn't recognise this and failed in there duty of care. That's what his solicitor will be saying at court.That sounds like digging a larger hole to me.
Unless they have recovered the car good luck getting the driving charge to stick. Who's to say there wasn't a mechanical problem that caused the accident? Without any external witnesses it ain't going anywhere.
I've had that caution read to me too many times. And I've seen enough of the courts to know that it doesn't mean anything. Inferences are almost never drawn and an expert witness will come above him in determining if he was concussed.
OP, the only one you should be discussing legal matters with and taking advice from is an appropriately qualified solicitor. Your case has specific circumstances that require bespoke advice from someone privy to everything.
photosnob said:
Stick to arresting people if you think the cps would run with charging someone against a doctor acting as an expert witness, for something as poxy as that. Making a call doesn't mean that he was in a medically fit state to think rationally. The man had suffered severe head injuries, he was in a state of shock and was confused.
The magic bullet. Lie to your doctor and it's the secret key to making everything go away.photosnob said:
The police didn't recognise this and failed in there duty of care. That's what his solicitor will be saying at court.
Where were they meant to recognise this? On the phone call that will likely be recorded? How does he sound? Is he coherent and describing the full circumstances? Have you heard it? I don't think you understand the duty of care. photosnob said:
Unless they have recovered the car good luck getting the driving charge to stick. Who's to say there wasn't a mechanical problem that caused the accident? Without any external witnesses it ain't going anywhere.
That's another matter. That's evidential. Neither of us know the strength of that specific offence. photosnob said:
I've had that caution read to me too many times. And I've seen enough of the courts to know that it doesn't mean anything. Inferences are almost never drawn and an expert witness will come above him in determining if he was concussed.
Whether they do or do not is a matter for the court. It's a risk. The circumstances appear to fit S.34. V8 Fettler said:
Single vehicle, injury to driver only. Why was this reportable to plod? Damage to property?
I don't think there was a requirement to report this rtc to Police, it's only when there's an injury to another party that you're required to report.It seems unusual for this to be pursued, as a single vehicle, damage only rtc wouldn't even been attended most of the time. There must be some aggravating factor that the op either isn't aware of, or isn't mentioning. For example, is it possible he was seen or spoken to at the scene and concussion gave the appearance of being under the influence? Something like that would presumably have been mentioned during interview.
photosnob said:
Stick to arresting people if you think the cps would run with charging someone against a doctor acting as an expert witness, for something as poxy as that. Making a call doesn't mean that he was in a medically fit state to think rationally. The man had suffered severe head injuries, he was in a state of shock and was confused. The police didn't recognise this and failed in there duty of care. That's what his solicitor will be saying at court.
Unless they have recovered the car good luck getting the driving charge to stick. Who's to say there wasn't a mechanical problem that caused the accident? Without any external witnesses it ain't going anywhere.
I've had that caution read to me too many times. And I've seen enough of the courts to know that it doesn't mean anything. Inferences are almost never drawn and an expert witness will come above him in determining if he was concussed.
You're full of terrible advice.Unless they have recovered the car good luck getting the driving charge to stick. Who's to say there wasn't a mechanical problem that caused the accident? Without any external witnesses it ain't going anywhere.
I've had that caution read to me too many times. And I've seen enough of the courts to know that it doesn't mean anything. Inferences are almost never drawn and an expert witness will come above him in determining if he was concussed.
You learn something new everyday. For those in the know can you please tell if there is a requirement to physically visit the police station to report ANY accident. E.G. I run into the back of someone. I had always thought the only thing that was required was to inform insurers.
Like someone else said, there may be more to this than OP has provided. I cant see the police wasting their time trying to prosecute someone for crashing their own car.
Like someone else said, there may be more to this than OP has provided. I cant see the police wasting their time trying to prosecute someone for crashing their own car.
carinaman said:
He's crashed his car. It possibly doesn't drive. Depending on the time of day and his location the nearest police station that's likely to be open may be where exactly?
I don't know but I can guarantee you that there was one which could be reached in less than 24 hours. The closure of stations may make it less convenient to report in person, and it may mean that "as soon as is reasonably practicable" is now 3 hours instead of 1 hour but it doesn't preclude the need to report in person (unfortunately for the OP).
carinaman said:
The rules say he has to report it person?
Yes they do. Irrelevant newspaper reports don't change that.
carinaman said:
Given the number of unmanned and closed police stations, something police call handlers will be aware of themselves, it may be quite helpful for them to say 'Your nearest police station that's open and manned and where you need to report this incident is 30 miles away in the next County'
You're right it is something that you would hope would be done - unfortunately for the OP the fact that they haven't doesn't change the fact that he failed to appropriately report the accident.
Cat
Eclassy said:
You learn something new everyday. For those in the know can you please tell if there is a requirement to physically visit the police station to report ANY accident. E.G. I run into the back of someone. I had always thought the only thing that was required was to inform insurers.
This is a quick summary: http://www.essex.police.uk/contact_us/road_collisi...It may be the law, but it's also a farce it has to be said.
Incident was reported to a representative of the police, by phone, a few hours later. Several hours later I also spoke to a PC who visited my home and asked me to sign a form (i think to confirm I was the registered keeper, I have the copy somewhere).
However because I didn't physically attend a police station it's classed as failure to report. And neither the lady on the 0330 number nor the officer in person thought it might be helpful to advise me of this? Not exactly entrapment but certainly leaves a bad taste.
As I said, I didn't feel well for a couple of days after with headache & nausea so reading up on the legalities of reporting an accident / 15 mile trip to the nearest police station wasn't prime on my mind. Thought I'd done 'my bit'.
Incident was reported to a representative of the police, by phone, a few hours later. Several hours later I also spoke to a PC who visited my home and asked me to sign a form (i think to confirm I was the registered keeper, I have the copy somewhere).
However because I didn't physically attend a police station it's classed as failure to report. And neither the lady on the 0330 number nor the officer in person thought it might be helpful to advise me of this? Not exactly entrapment but certainly leaves a bad taste.
As I said, I didn't feel well for a couple of days after with headache & nausea so reading up on the legalities of reporting an accident / 15 mile trip to the nearest police station wasn't prime on my mind. Thought I'd done 'my bit'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff