hi question about undue care and attention
Discussion
Whoa there girl. Speeding and due care are summary offences for hearing before Mags alone, lets not lets go for Dangerous and a trip to Crown Court........
Just a thought - aseesion with a CAB Solicitor to prep on questions for the defence. Further check with Court concerned. Would the Court Duty Solitor take the case onboard as a Not Guilty ?
dvd
Just a thought - aseesion with a CAB Solicitor to prep on questions for the defence. Further check with Court concerned. Would the Court Duty Solitor take the case onboard as a Not Guilty ?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Noted he is only being summoned for S.3 Careless driving and no summons for exceeding the speed limit which the evidence of the officer supports. Strange that CPS are not taking the easy option and going for speed offence or is this a new twist by CPS.
Due care - £2,500 Discretionary disqualification, 3 - 9 points
Speeding - £1,000, Discretionary disqualification, 3 -6 points
Last week CPS announced that it is to look more closely at offences i.e. manslaughter instead of death by dangerous and dangerous driving instead of using a mobile phone where there is evidence of danger, but have not heard due care instead of speeding for the greater penalty.
To me that was naughty saying in the statement appeared to be racing - where is the evidence to support an agreement between two drivers to do so. May just as well have said I thought he was under the influence - and that is not allowed.
One that I would defend like Justin says but we have the nous to do so. There are some good points above re the speed between points that could well be utilised to disprove. Why does he say between 50 -60 mph - speedo up and down? instead of min speed 54 max 58 mph. At those speeds indicates to me a rush to get up behind. How was the speedo checked - stop watch over measured mile - speeds times to prove correct?. Traffic conditions? Weather? vehicles overtaken?
Wonder also if a Not Guilty plea was entered whether CPS would
review the case, see they are on a sticky wicket and withdraw.
One always has the the option to change plea at the last minute and put various points in mitigation - not that this is advocated.
dvd
You're right DVD.Due care - £2,500 Discretionary disqualification, 3 - 9 points
Speeding - £1,000, Discretionary disqualification, 3 -6 points
Last week CPS announced that it is to look more closely at offences i.e. manslaughter instead of death by dangerous and dangerous driving instead of using a mobile phone where there is evidence of danger, but have not heard due care instead of speeding for the greater penalty.
To me that was naughty saying in the statement appeared to be racing - where is the evidence to support an agreement between two drivers to do so. May just as well have said I thought he was under the influence - and that is not allowed.
One that I would defend like Justin says but we have the nous to do so. There are some good points above re the speed between points that could well be utilised to disprove. Why does he say between 50 -60 mph - speedo up and down? instead of min speed 54 max 58 mph. At those speeds indicates to me a rush to get up behind. How was the speedo checked - stop watch over measured mile - speeds times to prove correct?. Traffic conditions? Weather? vehicles overtaken?
Wonder also if a Not Guilty plea was entered whether CPS would
review the case, see they are on a sticky wicket and withdraw.
One always has the the option to change plea at the last minute and put various points in mitigation - not that this is advocated.
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 13th September 20:46
Sabina, is the only item on the summons driving without due care, and nothing else?
It does seem strange. I also agree the 'racing' thing is naughty. I can see a solicitor going to town on that and using that comment at intent to 'stitch up' for *something* rather than impartially taking evidence without bias.
It brings back strange memories of my case where one of the statement made a point of stating that "at no time did (my) brake lights illuminate" - which of course would deflect any defence that I could have that I tried to stop at the red light.
The strange this was it was physically impossible for the officer to be able to see my brakelights anyway if I was driving across his path... but that mention of brakelights when I questioned this fact made him significantly change his own timeline of events and the position of my car so when he saw me I was in a different position to what he first implied - and thus proved me not guilty!
sabina1986 said:
no it simply says summons for driving without undue care and attenion. I have spoken to a solicitor who was very reluctant to take oney from me to represent my brother as he though he did not have a good chance.
Don't worry. My local solicitor said that to me too. 
The good thing is that in the statement there is no mention of the charging of speeding, which is strange as the statement does put over some evidence to support this however vague.
He has not put forward any direct evidence which supports the 'undue care' charge... so I really don't know what they are going on unless the police officer is 'trying it on' in an effort to get a worse punishment than speeding.
It would be interesting to find out if the evidence of *speed alone* is enough evidence to convict for the 'careless' charge. If not, then the way forward is easy. Plead not guilty but do not dispute the officer's statement, so wont be called to give evidence. If you do that then the CPS solicitor without a witness has no way to prove the charge!
Justin
>>>>>unless the police officer is 'trying it on' in an effort to get a worse punishment than speeding. <<<<<<<
Delete Police Officer insert CPS otherwise all his speeeding offences would have been treated similarly. Just cannot understand why they upped a simple speed offence to due care. An absolute offence to one that can be argued. The definition of due care being
" the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances"
One wonders if CPS have more than the abysmal statement of PC or is it an abridged precis of his full statement to form the Statement of Facts that is sent with summons?. A Not Guilty plea and request for disclosure of all the evidence should resolve this question.
>>>>>>Plead not guilty but do not dispute the officer's statement, so wont be called to give evidence.<<<<<<<
But do not CPS, on receipt of a Guilty plea. call all their witnesses unless an agreement has been reached between the parties that they will accept a Sect 9 statement, served on the other, to be read out at Court thus saving the calling of that witness?
dvd
>>>>>unless the police officer is 'trying it on' in an effort to get a worse punishment than speeding. <<<<<<<
Delete Police Officer insert CPS otherwise all his speeeding offences would have been treated similarly. Just cannot understand why they upped a simple speed offence to due care. An absolute offence to one that can be argued. The definition of due care being
" the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances"
One wonders if CPS have more than the abysmal statement of PC or is it an abridged precis of his full statement to form the Statement of Facts that is sent with summons?. A Not Guilty plea and request for disclosure of all the evidence should resolve this question.
>>>>>>Plead not guilty but do not dispute the officer's statement, so wont be called to give evidence.<<<<<<<
But do not CPS, on receipt of a Guilty plea. call all their witnesses unless an agreement has been reached between the parties that they will accept a Sect 9 statement, served on the other, to be read out at Court thus saving the calling of that witness?
dvd
This is all very reminiscent of a guy i used to work with.
He got pulled and charged for speeds of over 100mph on a dual carriageway in Aberdeen. The poilce said they were travelling well over 100mph to catch him.
He went to court to defend himself, and despite us all thinking he was a twunt for doing so and expecting him to get the ban, he got the offence reduced to speeds of 90mph as he was able to demonstrate that although the police car had been going at speeds of over 100mph, he wasn't, and that based on the distances involved and the catch up required, there was sufficient doubt about him ever having gone over 100mph.
The court accepted his arguments and they reduced the fine and points accordingly. He was a lucky boy.
If what I'm reading here is correct, you need only go into court and prove that it was not possible for your brother/friend to have been going 60mph and the copper would have a lot of questions to answer. I would be preparing a whole host of diagrams showing distances and positions that 'prove' he could not have been going that fast, then closely question the copper in court as to which scenario is the one that matches his statement, and then point out that his perception of speed must be wrong!
Anyways, since when has the word of one copper, with no other supporting evidence, been enough for a conviction. My work colleagues got done by two coppers in the car, he proved them both wrong! Not liars, just mistaken.
He got pulled and charged for speeds of over 100mph on a dual carriageway in Aberdeen. The poilce said they were travelling well over 100mph to catch him.
He went to court to defend himself, and despite us all thinking he was a twunt for doing so and expecting him to get the ban, he got the offence reduced to speeds of 90mph as he was able to demonstrate that although the police car had been going at speeds of over 100mph, he wasn't, and that based on the distances involved and the catch up required, there was sufficient doubt about him ever having gone over 100mph.
The court accepted his arguments and they reduced the fine and points accordingly. He was a lucky boy.
If what I'm reading here is correct, you need only go into court and prove that it was not possible for your brother/friend to have been going 60mph and the copper would have a lot of questions to answer. I would be preparing a whole host of diagrams showing distances and positions that 'prove' he could not have been going that fast, then closely question the copper in court as to which scenario is the one that matches his statement, and then point out that his perception of speed must be wrong!
Anyways, since when has the word of one copper, with no other supporting evidence, been enough for a conviction. My work colleagues got done by two coppers in the car, he proved them both wrong! Not liars, just mistaken.
esselte said:
Piersman said:
Anyways, since when has the word of one copper, with no other supporting evidence, been enough for a conviction.
Since the beginning of time I think.........Now I'm well confused!!!
Edited by Piersman on Friday 14th September 12:11
Dwight VanDriver said:
Justin
>>>>>unless the police officer is 'trying it on' in an effort to get a worse punishment than speeding. <<<<<<<
Delete Police Officer insert CPS otherwise all his speeeding offences would have been treated similarly. Just cannot understand why they upped a simple speed offence to due care. An absolute offence to one that can be argued. The definition of due care being
" the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances"
One wonders if CPS have more than the abysmal statement of PC or is it an abridged precis of his full statement to form the Statement of Facts that is sent with summons?. A Not Guilty plea and request for disclosure of all the evidence should resolve this question.
>>>>>>Plead not guilty but do not dispute the officer's statement, so wont be called to give evidence.<<<<<<<
But do not CPS, on receipt of a Guilty plea. call all their witnesses unless an agreement has been reached between the parties that they will accept a Sect 9 statement, served on the other, to be read out at Court thus saving the calling of that witness?
dvd
You're right Dwight. My comments about the police officers input were more towards the 'racing' part perhaps to indeed as you say give the CPS the 'option' of the more serious offence. >>>>>unless the police officer is 'trying it on' in an effort to get a worse punishment than speeding. <<<<<<<
Delete Police Officer insert CPS otherwise all his speeeding offences would have been treated similarly. Just cannot understand why they upped a simple speed offence to due care. An absolute offence to one that can be argued. The definition of due care being
" the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances"
One wonders if CPS have more than the abysmal statement of PC or is it an abridged precis of his full statement to form the Statement of Facts that is sent with summons?. A Not Guilty plea and request for disclosure of all the evidence should resolve this question.
>>>>>>Plead not guilty but do not dispute the officer's statement, so wont be called to give evidence.<<<<<<<
But do not CPS, on receipt of a Guilty plea. call all their witnesses unless an agreement has been reached between the parties that they will accept a Sect 9 statement, served on the other, to be read out at Court thus saving the calling of that witness?
dvd
You are right with the agreement not to call the witnesses too. If I were defending myself I would call the witnes as normal. It may be the case though that a clever solicitor may go down the route of accepting the statement AND plead not guilty, although this may ring alarm bells for the CPS! However, so far they don't seem that on the ball, so this might slip through the net too.
I think the next step is as you say to check if the statement the OP has posted IS the full statement as oppose to part of the 'statement of facts'.
I remember from my case, the printed summons and the statements came in the same envelope, so it may be the full statement!
Indeed, even if the witness is called, it would be a very strong line of questioning if he brings forward damning evidence to try to prove the careless charge why he didn't think to put this in his statement.
JustinP1 said:
As far as I can see the officer has done a U-turn, enjoyed the thrill of the chase and pulled your brother over, and in discovering his car was legal tried to do him for speeding. It is also interesting that the officer indicates that he followed your brother for 0.2 of a mile - interestingly this is the minimum recommended distance for evidence to stand usually.*
It also strikes me that in the same sentance he states that he followed your brother at 'constant speed' yet he puts your brother's speed at between 50 and 60... I think what he *meant* to say was that he followed your brother at constant distance. This is important, as your brother can question this in a clever way to add doubt to the speed.
It would also suggest that if your brother was doing 50-60 that the police officer would have had to have driven considerably faster than this to catch up... So how fast was the officer driving in the 30mph zone... 70, 80, 90? he will probably try to play down his own speed, which will put the noose around his neck metaphorically when you can show that if that was the case, in the distances between the roundabouts he could not possibly have caught up.
A lot of these give good lines of questioning - if you can also prepare a map with the distances on, you will be able to throw doubt over the officer's testimony. The officer's testimony sounds slightly shaky as it is, but maybe be believed. However, if you can prove with the map that what he is saying cannot be true then this throws up enough reasonable doubt for his evidence to be discarded.
I'd agree with Justin P1 here. If the OP wants a copy map and calculations pm me an email address. Its easy to make a series of maps that show the relative positions of the 2 cars every 2-5 sec or so to support the argument in court.It also strikes me that in the same sentance he states that he followed your brother at 'constant speed' yet he puts your brother's speed at between 50 and 60... I think what he *meant* to say was that he followed your brother at constant distance. This is important, as your brother can question this in a clever way to add doubt to the speed.
It would also suggest that if your brother was doing 50-60 that the police officer would have had to have driven considerably faster than this to catch up... So how fast was the officer driving in the 30mph zone... 70, 80, 90? he will probably try to play down his own speed, which will put the noose around his neck metaphorically when you can show that if that was the case, in the distances between the roundabouts he could not possibly have caught up.
A lot of these give good lines of questioning - if you can also prepare a map with the distances on, you will be able to throw doubt over the officer's testimony. The officer's testimony sounds slightly shaky as it is, but maybe be believed. However, if you can prove with the map that what he is saying cannot be true then this throws up enough reasonable doubt for his evidence to be discarded.
I too experienced a PC who tried to get me a more serious punishment than simply speeding and a CPS that was happy to do what the PC wanted.
Richard C said:
Interesting
And I do have a problem with police and other people who are too dim to realise that if you have to catch someone then you have to drive faster than them. And consequently if they see 50 or 60 on their speedo it does not follow at all that the car being pursued did that speed at any time.
I got pulled by the police way back in my younger days, quite late at night travelling between villages - his argument was that he had to drive at over 80 to catch up with me on an unlit A-road. I said "really, is that because you were about half a mile behind me, as yours were the only headlights I could see in my mirror....." And I do have a problem with police and other people who are too dim to realise that if you have to catch someone then you have to drive faster than them. And consequently if they see 50 or 60 on their speedo it does not follow at all that the car being pursued did that speed at any time.
He just asked me where I was going and left it at that.......no producer, nothing. They try it on sometimes .... especially if its a slow night ;-)
yeah I think thats whats happened here but he didnt just try it on he summoned him hes due on tuesday, i applied for legal aid and got it knocked back for him but i wrote a letter to the courts and they have decided to give him the legal aid so thats great one battle won if nothing else.
sabina1986 said:
yeah I think thats whats happened here but he didnt just try it on he summoned him hes due on tuesday, i applied for legal aid and got it knocked back for him but i wrote a letter to the courts and they have decided to give him the legal aid so thats great one battle won if nothing else.
That is good news. This is one to be defended by a solicitor. Defending yourself is a difficult and sometimes harrowing experience.
From what I can see with a decent solicitor who devotes proper time to the case should have a straightforward job in winning the case. However, if he turns up on the day and tries to fudge it this limits your bro's chances.
Good luck though, and please let us know how it goes!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff