Writing mitigating circumstances
Discussion
Evening,
Basics of the case, I was pulled over for tailgating, accelerating "aggressively" and performing an overtake which the officer could see no reason for.
Fair cop on the first, although I believe if this was the only offence it wouldn't have resulted in a stop. The second was coming off a loop from a bridge where the typical speed is around 30mph, the road straightens up for around 0.5 miles. I accelerated pretty quickly from that 30mph up to the 70mph NSL. Clear road ahead of me, nobody around, just behind.
The last was an overtake of two cars doing 40mph on a single carriageway, straight road for 0.4 miles where you can see very clearly all the way down. The two cars were sitting too close to each other to perform two manoeuvres so I did it in one. I was asked why I performed the overtake, I said the road was clear, I performed the overtake safely and was making progress (Surprisingly this doesn't appear in the statement which I blindly signed (D'oh!) as I was still in a bit of shock that I was going to be summoned to court). The officer said that there was nothing wrong with the overtake, that it was within the speed limit but was unnecessary and it was the prerogative of the drivers to sit at 40mph if they wish. I should have sat and waited behind. Again, none of that appeared in the statement. I would love them to view the CCTV that was inside of the vehicle during the interview, but I can't exactly tell them the statements aren't completely true after I've signed everything! Lesson learned, if regrettably this was ever to happen again I'll be taking the legal council offered.
I never noticed the unmarked car behind me, but I suppose that's the whole point. I'm planning on pleading guilty by post as although I wouldn't say the driving was careless, I admit it wasn't what a normal driver would do.
I'm trying to write mitigating circumstances to explain that although I did wrong, the acceleration wasn't illegal and neither was overtake. However I don't want to sound as if I'm trying to make out the officer to be a liar, or sound aggressive in anyway which is how I feel it comes across at the moment. I was looking for any tips that you guys may have in putting my point forward in a gentler way.
Basics of the case, I was pulled over for tailgating, accelerating "aggressively" and performing an overtake which the officer could see no reason for.
Fair cop on the first, although I believe if this was the only offence it wouldn't have resulted in a stop. The second was coming off a loop from a bridge where the typical speed is around 30mph, the road straightens up for around 0.5 miles. I accelerated pretty quickly from that 30mph up to the 70mph NSL. Clear road ahead of me, nobody around, just behind.
The last was an overtake of two cars doing 40mph on a single carriageway, straight road for 0.4 miles where you can see very clearly all the way down. The two cars were sitting too close to each other to perform two manoeuvres so I did it in one. I was asked why I performed the overtake, I said the road was clear, I performed the overtake safely and was making progress (Surprisingly this doesn't appear in the statement which I blindly signed (D'oh!) as I was still in a bit of shock that I was going to be summoned to court). The officer said that there was nothing wrong with the overtake, that it was within the speed limit but was unnecessary and it was the prerogative of the drivers to sit at 40mph if they wish. I should have sat and waited behind. Again, none of that appeared in the statement. I would love them to view the CCTV that was inside of the vehicle during the interview, but I can't exactly tell them the statements aren't completely true after I've signed everything! Lesson learned, if regrettably this was ever to happen again I'll be taking the legal council offered.
I never noticed the unmarked car behind me, but I suppose that's the whole point. I'm planning on pleading guilty by post as although I wouldn't say the driving was careless, I admit it wasn't what a normal driver would do.
I'm trying to write mitigating circumstances to explain that although I did wrong, the acceleration wasn't illegal and neither was overtake. However I don't want to sound as if I'm trying to make out the officer to be a liar, or sound aggressive in anyway which is how I feel it comes across at the moment. I was looking for any tips that you guys may have in putting my point forward in a gentler way.
liquidfox said:
The officer said that there was nothing wrong with the overtake, that it was within the speed limit but was unnecessary and it was the prerogative of the drivers to sit at 40mph if they wish. I should have sat and waited behind.
If the officer can be made to repeat that in court, a decent motoring solicitor would be able to demolish the non-sequitur in short order. It is tantamount to saying that overtaking any cars travelling at 40 mph on a NSL limit road is impossible and that doing so could lead to a careless driving charge.Either your account of what happened is downplaying the full circumstances or you have been properly shafted. I suspect the former otherwise why on earth would you sign an admission? Rather than ask on here about a mitigation statement you have nothing to lose by an e-mail to - http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/About-us/contact-us....
I have no connection to the firm but she is a member on here.
ked over.Something not adding up here..
Accelerating briskly within the prevailing speed limits is not an offence (unless you were accelerating up to the NSL sign)
Likewise overtaking people within the speed limit is not an offence.
Whilst it's possible the cop was having a really crap day he/she would know that this wouldn't stand up in court and would be wasting the CPS time. The bar for Careless is - one would assume - reasonably high.
How sugar coated is this version of events?
Accelerating briskly within the prevailing speed limits is not an offence (unless you were accelerating up to the NSL sign)
Likewise overtaking people within the speed limit is not an offence.
Whilst it's possible the cop was having a really crap day he/she would know that this wouldn't stand up in court and would be wasting the CPS time. The bar for Careless is - one would assume - reasonably high.
How sugar coated is this version of events?
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 5th March 01:49
Sorry, but something here isn't quite adding up. I presume you haven't got citation yet. It will allege that you did.. (whatever misdemeanour) and did fail to drive without due care and attention to other road users etc.. If you plead guilty, you admit you drove as described, and that this was criminal. If you write in to say you are pleading guilty, but that you didn't drive as described and it wasn't criminal anyway but you cannot afford a day off work so are pleading guilty then that is termed a plea of convenience and won't be accepted by the court. You will probably be ordained to appear a few weeks later.
Next you want to challenge the police version of events, but not call them liars. Crown will narrate from the police report, which you have signed. If called into doubt, usual line of questioning to you would be do you dispute it is a true and accurate record ? That leaves you between a rock and a hard place. If you say it is not true, then by you signing it you look like you are complicit in any lie, so you can't be believed. If you say it is true, court looks no further and accepts it. Tricky.
I'd expect from what you have said, police will report only for tailgating and nothing else about your driving be mentioned, other than perhaps you appeared impatient. If you are happy to plead to this, it might be worth contacting police or CPS to indicate you would accept fixed penalty for it, so a fixed fine and points, or even ask for driver awareness course though I suspect you might be too late for that.
If you don't want to volunteer for points, then sit tight and wait and see if a summons is issued, and see what it accuses you of before deciding your next move.
Next you want to challenge the police version of events, but not call them liars. Crown will narrate from the police report, which you have signed. If called into doubt, usual line of questioning to you would be do you dispute it is a true and accurate record ? That leaves you between a rock and a hard place. If you say it is not true, then by you signing it you look like you are complicit in any lie, so you can't be believed. If you say it is true, court looks no further and accepts it. Tricky.
I'd expect from what you have said, police will report only for tailgating and nothing else about your driving be mentioned, other than perhaps you appeared impatient. If you are happy to plead to this, it might be worth contacting police or CPS to indicate you would accept fixed penalty for it, so a fixed fine and points, or even ask for driver awareness course though I suspect you might be too late for that.
If you don't want to volunteer for points, then sit tight and wait and see if a summons is issued, and see what it accuses you of before deciding your next move.
Durzel said:
Whilst it's possible the cop was having a really crap day he/she would know that this wouldn't stand up in court and would be wasting the CPS time. The bar for Careless is - one would assume - reasonably high.
How sugar coated is this version of events?
That's a possibility. How sugar coated is this version of events?
However, from my experience, three police officers went all the way to court with me with a charge that wouldn't stand up - that I ran a red light.
I knew it couldn't stand up as I knew they had not actually see me enter the junction and when I crossed the stop line. The reason I knew that was I entered the junction 10 seconds before the lights changed and waited in the centre to turn right.
It is unfortunate in a 'stand off' some people, police officer not exempted get 'big balls', and then don't like to sit on them. Something small gets added to, then something else to back up the story and prevent losing face.
In my case for example, the junior police officer 'recounted' in his statement him seeing me jump a red light by four seconds and even cars skidding to avoid me! Total rubbish of course, and as I proved in court, quite impossible.
So, I can quite image that the police officer had noted the OP's tailgating of the 40mph drivers, and was deciding to pull him over. The overtake comments are only to reinforce the justification for the tailgating.
For the OP - if you don't go to court, you run the risk of being stuffed. You'll be painted as a young lad (I guess?) driving aggressively, causing the police work and needed to be taught a lesson. The icing on the cake will be that you don't want to come to court.
On the other hand, you could arrive, stand out from the tracksuit wearing scrotes and wear a suit, and speak for yourself and show you are a fine, upstanding individual who whilst he does not agree with some of the statement and offer facts to dispute it, does accept driving too close to the car in front and has learnt his lesson.
Guys, thanks for the advice. If I plead not guilty, and end up being found guilty I'm presuming the punishment can be harsher? I have the summons in my hand.
I can honestly say, hand on heart that the officer did indeed say that it was the prerogative of the cars in front of me to be travelling 40mph in a 60mph zone after I said the reason for my overtake was to make progress and that I felt it was safe. His words were "I'm not saying the overtake wasn't safe otherwise I would have been talking to you regarding dangerous or reckless driving".
The acceleration in the statement is something like this (paraphrasing as I don't know if I should put the exact wording on here. The basic facts and key words are all the same). As the road straightened out and the car infront turned off I had a clear view ahead and could see the car had put a large distance between us indicating harsh acceleration.
The overtake - I was three vehicles behind the car. I clearly saw the vehicle pull out and overtook the vehicle travelling in front. I was not in a position to record the speed of the vehicle. The overtake was unnecessary and aggressive.
The only real damning bit in his statement is the tailgating where he mentions "Clearly tailgating". The rest of it his opinion and nothing illegal now I read it back and have calmed down a bit after getting this yesterday.
I can honestly say, hand on heart that the officer did indeed say that it was the prerogative of the cars in front of me to be travelling 40mph in a 60mph zone after I said the reason for my overtake was to make progress and that I felt it was safe. His words were "I'm not saying the overtake wasn't safe otherwise I would have been talking to you regarding dangerous or reckless driving".
The acceleration in the statement is something like this (paraphrasing as I don't know if I should put the exact wording on here. The basic facts and key words are all the same). As the road straightened out and the car infront turned off I had a clear view ahead and could see the car had put a large distance between us indicating harsh acceleration.
The overtake - I was three vehicles behind the car. I clearly saw the vehicle pull out and overtook the vehicle travelling in front. I was not in a position to record the speed of the vehicle. The overtake was unnecessary and aggressive.
The only real damning bit in his statement is the tailgating where he mentions "Clearly tailgating". The rest of it his opinion and nothing illegal now I read it back and have calmed down a bit after getting this yesterday.
Edited by liquidfox on Wednesday 5th March 20:48
liquidfox said:
If someone of a legal background would like to see the officer's statement I will quite happily email it over to you.
I am not a solicitor, but my track record started in defending myself successfully against the opinion of three police officers in court. On PH I've assisted a truck driver on 9 points from a speed gun accusation, and he was found not guilty. Two more red light cases, both NG. There's a couple of others, one speeding, one careless, the last chap who was accused of three offences, ended up with one.I've seen quite a few statements - PM me - I don't mind having a look to see if you can get some traction somewhere.
The problem is is that if you don't question the facts and they are damning, the magistrates is a lottery. You might think £100 fine and 3 points, and you may end up with £500 and 8 points.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 5th March 18:27
liquidfox said:
The overtake - I was three vehicles behind the car. I clearly saw the vehicle pull out and overtook the vehicle travelling in front. I was not in a position to record the speed of the vehicle. The overtake was unnecessary and aggressive.
The police can try it on. My MP got a letter from a Chief Constable with waffle in it and it's not even over a traffic offence. 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 it was aggressive and unnecessary is subjective and not an offence.
While not wishing to insult you, as I've seen the police make up stuff first hand, I'm unsure what to believe. That a police officer could proffer an opinion as the law and gospel does match my experience of dealing with some police officers. BS and bluster can accompany false allegations or attempts to substantiate opinion or prejudice.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 5th March 18:37
julian64 said:
I'm afraid this is one of the two reasons I have a CCTV system in my car and a phone with a recording app on it.
I am hoping that if I ever get taken to court for the manner of my driving I will not have to put up with the 'oh yes he did' 'oh no he didn't' arguments.
In my legendary case, the three police officers colluded on all of the facts apart from what my name was. I am hoping that if I ever get taken to court for the manner of my driving I will not have to put up with the 'oh yes he did' 'oh no he didn't' arguments.
One said I was called Jason, one Justin, one Dominic. Wouldn't be so bad if they all didn't each see my driving licence and have their notebooks out busily writing it down for the on the spot radio check to confirm my identity which was confirmed without issue.
In court, when I questioned one of the officers to attack his credibility he told the court he was confused due to the fact that I was evasive in questioning and first of all gave them a false name with came back as false after a radio check!
I couldn't quite believe it was happening in court...!
JustinP1 said:
I am not a solicitor, but my track record started in defending myself successfully against the opinion of three police officers in court. On PH I've assisted a truck driver on 9 points from a speed gun accusation, and he was found not guilty. Two more red light cases, both NG. There's a couple of others, one speeding, one careless, the last chap who was accused of three offences, ended up with one.
I've seen quite a few statements - PM me - I don't mind having a look to see if you can get some traction somewhere.
The problem is is that if you don't question the facts and they are damning, the magistrates is a lottery. You might think £100 fine and 3 points, and you may end up with £500 and 8 points.
Justin, many thanks for the offer. The car I was interviewed in supposedly had CCTV inside and all of it was recorded for use if I do decide to plead not guilty.I've seen quite a few statements - PM me - I don't mind having a look to see if you can get some traction somewhere.
The problem is is that if you don't question the facts and they are damning, the magistrates is a lottery. You might think £100 fine and 3 points, and you may end up with £500 and 8 points.
Edited by liquidfox on Wednesday 5th March 20:49
liquidfox said:
JustinP1 said:
I am not a solicitor, but my track record started in defending myself successfully against the opinion of three police officers in court. On PH I've assisted a truck driver on 9 points from a speed gun accusation, and he was found not guilty. Two more red light cases, both NG. There's a couple of others, one speeding, one careless, the last chap who was accused of three offences, ended up with one.
I've seen quite a few statements - PM me - I don't mind having a look to see if you can get some traction somewhere.
The problem is is that if you don't question the facts and they are damning, the magistrates is a lottery. You might think £100 fine and 3 points, and you may end up with £500 and 8 points.
Justin, many thanks for the offer. I'll get it typed up word for word an email you his statement if you want? Or would you rather the statement and interview (the parts of it he wrote down anyway!)? The car I was interviewed in supposedly had CCTV inside and all of it was recorded for use if I do decide to plead not guilty.I've seen quite a few statements - PM me - I don't mind having a look to see if you can get some traction somewhere.
The problem is is that if you don't question the facts and they are damning, the magistrates is a lottery. You might think £100 fine and 3 points, and you may end up with £500 and 8 points.
Remember, if you plead not guilty (though I am unsure that this is wise) the court will not see his statement, and instead he'll come to give testimony and you'll have the chance to cross-examine him. That said, if something from the statement helps you, you can refer to it in court.
JustinP1 said:
Anything that's going to be used against you, so both would be better.
Remember, if you plead not guilty (though I am unsure that this is wise) the court will not see his statement, and instead he'll come to give testimony and you'll have the chance to cross-examine him. That said, if something from the statement helps you, you can refer to it in court.
I'll drop you a PM. Thanks again for taking the time to look over this.Remember, if you plead not guilty (though I am unsure that this is wise) the court will not see his statement, and instead he'll come to give testimony and you'll have the chance to cross-examine him. That said, if something from the statement helps you, you can refer to it in court.
Edited by liquidfox on Wednesday 5th March 20:50
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff