Drink driver, leaving an accident...
Discussion
rxe said:
I'm suggesting the sort of example that could very easily happen when a member of the public decides to pursue someone. In this case it all went well, bad guy apprehended etc. If it had gone badly, I have no doubt the OP would have had the book thrown at him with almost zero regard for what he was attempting to achieve.
It's a bit like the advice posted above. Rather than unequivocally saying "if you cross a red light to let an emergency vehicle through, we will not prosecute", it says "prove that you did it for this reason, and we'll think about it".
The Police wouldn't tell an untrained member of the public to aggressively pursue someone, at most they would say to follow if safe to do so. As soon as you start egregiously breaking speed limits and driving dangerously yourself, to keep up, then I'd assume all bets were off. It's a bit like the advice posted above. Rather than unequivocally saying "if you cross a red light to let an emergency vehicle through, we will not prosecute", it says "prove that you did it for this reason, and we'll think about it".
Having said that as long as you didn't trigger any automated enforcement devices or cause any accidents yourself I'd assume the Police would take no further action.
Similar thing myself, driver all over the place, my wife called it in with commentary and I just followed at a distance, he stopped at a traffic light and I got out and tapped on his window pointing at his tyres, he put the window down to speak & I took the keys out of the ignition and shouted to my wife 'I've got the keys sarge, traffic will be here in 2' and told the guy to hang on and breath deeply to get rid of the alcohol before they turned up - he actually said 'thanks hocifer' followed shortly afterwards by two traffic cars screaming round the corner. He was just an old boy and not 'micey' looking and I'd only been out of the old bill a few years so was fairly comfortable with the situation. I don't know what he thought about someone he may have presumed was plod getting out of a clapped out Scenic though...
I know,
Good on yer OP.
I know,
Good on yer OP.
rxe said:
Breadvan72 said:
So, in other words, it doesn't hit on it at all.
When someone has died while being detained, would you rather that the police investigate, or just say "looks like a wrong 'un, nothing to see here"?
PS: My brother was once interviewed in a murder investigation. It had no impact on his career.
So, if the OP had lost it chasing a van doing 80 in a 40, would you underwrite the fact that a dangerous driving conviction wouldn't be applied? Or if he had lost it and killed someone, that he wouldn't be looking at a few years inside? When someone has died while being detained, would you rather that the police investigate, or just say "looks like a wrong 'un, nothing to see here"?
PS: My brother was once interviewed in a murder investigation. It had no impact on his career.
What the police and CPS will look at is the public interest. If people have the right intentions then that can go a long way.
rxe said:
If OP had stacked his car during the pursuit, he'd have had the book thrown at him for dangerous driving. If the van driver had stacked, and claimed he was being chased, then OP would be in trouble. The police have enough trouble justifying their own pursuits, let alone justifying one by some random viewer of an incident.
Call me cynical, but I'd have checked the person that got hit was OK, and that would be it. Far, far too much to lose, and far too little to gain.
Given the driver of the vehicle that was hit was behind the OP i am guessing they were fineCall me cynical, but I'd have checked the person that got hit was OK, and that would be it. Far, far too much to lose, and far too little to gain.
RTS95 said:
An update for you. The driver has been charged with:
Driving over the limit
Whats to stop him saying he drank a skinfull of booze once he left the vehicle, since he was not breath tested at the time? Unless he's honest, of course, but usually people charged with drink drive don't mind a bit of lying on top of that....Driving over the limit
Of course the mags/jury might not believe him, but beyond reasonable doubt and all that...
MickC said:
Whats to stop him saying he drank a skinfull of booze once he left the vehicle, since he was not breath tested at the time? Unless he's honest, of course, but usually people charged with drink drive don't mind a bit of lying on top of that....
Of course the mags/jury might not believe him, but beyond reasonable doubt and all that...
Police and CPS can do a back track calculation to prove his story wrongOf course the mags/jury might not believe him, but beyond reasonable doubt and all that...
pavarotti1980 said:
Police and CPS can do a back track calculation to prove his story wrong
Only if they have some idea of what he did/did not drink afterwards (get them to produce the bottle etc). But if they produce an empty vodka bottle and have actually poured most of it down the sink, then its very difficult to prove. Hence the priority of catching drink drivers before they get home/out of the car.helmutlaang said:
Genuine question:
He went to court and they referred it straight to CC.
Is that a procedure that has to be followed or can someone decide to bypass MC and go straight to CC? Or does it depend on the severity of the offence?
Just curious really..
My understanding is that if the magistrates feel they don't have the sentencing powers it gets referred to CC or if the defendant requests it to be referredHe went to court and they referred it straight to CC.
Is that a procedure that has to be followed or can someone decide to bypass MC and go straight to CC? Or does it depend on the severity of the offence?
Just curious really..
It is nothing to do with how the magistrates "feel". Their sentencing powers are defined by statute. If the offence is triable either in a Magistrates' court or in a Crown Court and the magistrates consider that the offence requires a more severe sentence than they have power to impose, they refer it to the Crown Court. In a not guilty plea case, the defendant can elect trial by jury if the offence is triable either way. Some offences are only triable by a Crown Court, and some are only triable by a Magistrates' Court.
Eyersey1234 said:
My understanding is that if the magistrates feel they don't have the sentencing powers it gets referred to CC or if the defendant requests it to be referred
Breadvan72 said:
It is nothing to do with how the magistrates "feel". Their sentencing powers are defined by statute. If the offence is triable either in a Magistrates' court or in a Crown Court and the magistrates consider that the offence requires a more severe sentence than they have power to impose, they refer it to the Crown Court. In a not guilty plea case, the defendant can elect trial by jury if the offence is triable either way. Some offences are only triable by a Crown Court, and some are only triable by a Magistrates' Court.
ah come on, "consider" is one of many synonyms of the verb feel. I'd be fairly sure that's what Eyersey1234 meant. RTS95 said:
Another update...
Driver entered a not guilty plea in Crown Court, apparently a 3 day trial in a couple of months time with 3 witnesses against him.
Thoughts?
He’s seeing if the witnesses turn up, if they do then he’ll put in a very late guilty plea to avoid a trial. Even if he does go to trial, it won’t last three days. Driver entered a not guilty plea in Crown Court, apparently a 3 day trial in a couple of months time with 3 witnesses against him.
Thoughts?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff