Police enquiry at home

[Nibbles_bits]

I would assume a court would consider that a cop a) is expected to and where appropriate via advanced driver training is taught to drive at a high standard

You'd assume wrong.


The need to have a full driving licence as a Police Officer hasn't always been a requirement, yet an Officer in that position can still make a judgement on the standard of driving.
The basic driving assessment is similar to a standard driving test....... which we've all passed, or should have
There's no special training.

Colleague of mine started some 18yrs before me, yet passed her test after me.

[Funk]

the cueball said:

This kind of thing does happen in the real world - happened to me a few months ago.

tt in his 2 tonne SUV took offence at a perfectly good overtake from me and phoned the police talking all kinds of st of how I was dangerous/speeding/killing babies etc.

Thankfully, thankfully…I had my head camera on.

Police took no further action against me, just my footage showed him speeding/crossing solid double white lines/weaving all over the road/doing 30 in a 60/on his phone and a mis-spaced number plate….just went on and on.

Hopefully Karma went to see him..

Not sure how it would have panned out without my footage though…

Wait, your what-now? You drive around with a camera strapped to your bonce...?

[Nibbles_bits]

Funk said:

the cueball said:

This kind of thing does happen in the real world - happened to me a few months ago.

tt in his 2 tonne SUV took offence at a perfectly good overtake from me and phoned the police talking all kinds of st of how I was dangerous/speeding/killing babies etc.

Thankfully, thankfully…I had my head camera on.

Police took no further action against me, just my footage showed him speeding/crossing solid double white lines/weaving all over the road/doing 30 in a 60/on his phone and a mis-spaced number plate….just went on and on.

Hopefully Karma went to see him..

Not sure how it would have panned out without my footage though…

Wait, your what-now? You drive around with a camera strapped to your bonce...?

This thread has taken yet another twist.

Must
Hear
More

[Nibbles_bits]

SiH said:

eldar said:

lb3nson said:

eldar said:

There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.

But was there evidence they were not innocent?
I can’t see how anyone can be convicted of a criminal act without evidence?

There was, indeed, enough to convict. The poster was convinced the evidence wouldn't support a conviction. He was wrong.

This thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Edited by eldar on Wednesday 29th June 15:49

Ah yes, that one. If I remember rightly the story invovled him being accused of shoplifting and instead of just calmly showing the security guard the receipt he got angry, started posturing and generally inflamed the situation in a completely needless manner. He was on to a loser right from the start.

Just started reading that.
30 pages in and I'm convinced he's innocent.
Can't wait to find out how it ends

[Chrisgr31]

It may be the Police were/are hoping the OP incriminates himself.

The legal advice my father got when he had the Police come round after an alleged motoring incident was to admit to being in that location at that time but not to admit to knowledge of any incident.

The Police indeed confirmed that without an admission of any knowledge of an incident from my father it would go no further.

So if the OP continues to deny knowledge it may not proceed. I certainly would be admitting to this if I was unaware of it

[eldar]

Funk said:

the cueball said:

This kind of thing does happen in the real world - happened to me a few months ago.

tt in his 2 tonne SUV took offence at a perfectly good overtake from me and phoned the police talking all kinds of st of how I was dangerous/speeding/killing babies etc.

Thankfully, thankfully…I had my head camera on.

Police took no further action against me, just my footage showed him speeding/crossing solid double white lines/weaving all over the road/doing 30 in a 60/on his phone and a mis-spaced number plate….just went on and on.

Hopefully Karma went to see him..

Not sure how it would have panned out without my footage though…

Wait, your what-now? You drive around with a camera strapped to your bonce...?

Motor cycle? V8 powered roller skates?

[Mojooo]

Nibbles_bits said:

the mac said:

So an update, got a phone call today and arranged to go see them as opposed to them coming to see me again, officer apologised for the late call but apparently was told to by their boss, and apparently the reason they didn’t get back to me is because they were dealing with a prisoner. The reason they wanted to speak me that was “nothing to worry about” was to charge me with careless driving! Apparently back in May I overtook another car at speed and caused them to brake hard. This seemingly falls under careless driving and is exempt from the 14 day rule, I’ve made a couple of calls for legal advice and apparently this is correct! I can fight it if I wish but costs are roughly £2000 +vat! Or accept a fixed penalty of £100. I have no recollection of the event but they have two witness statements albeit from people in the same car and apparently this is sufficient.

Oh dear

Aren't you glad the Officer didn't leave a note saying "I called to report you for a driving offence but you weren't in. I'm now not available until Thursday. Have a nice weekend"

Just so we're clear.......is it unreasonable for the Police to speak with a suspected offender at midnight??

I'd file this one under 'badly handled' - al things considered

[Nibbles_bits]

Yup

No point in complaining about the late night knock.

Time to concentrate on the allegations.

[kestral]

the mac said:

Certainly news to me!
Thanks for finding that for me.

The facts of your case are totally different to that. The requirements of a NIP must be met properly.

The principals of a NIP in the quoted case were very easily met, in your case they are the complete opposite.

The principal of a NIP as enacted by Parliament is to give an accused person the oportunity to remember the events of an incident that he may well not be aware of. Where an accused could properly in the normal course of events remember an incident it would not be necessary to serve a NIP. That is the intention of Parliament.

In the case quoted, the person avoiding an accident,then becoming angry and chasing a vehicle, overtaking it, slamming the brakes on in front of it. Then getting out of the car and slapping the spectacles off the driver does not meet the Parliamentary intention to give notice by NIP (as the person would be able to recall such an incident readily)

In the OP case the OP can claim no knowledge of the incident quite properly, and if the prosecution want to declare that no NIP was required as per the Mark Mclaughlin appeal they can try. And try is what the will do because the overriding principle of the NIP must be met.

Parliament inserted the NIP exclusion of "Accident" for a reason and that is because the accused would know he had been involved in something he could later recal. That's why the McLaughlin appeal failed.

Then we have this evidence of two witnesses. Their evidence is only of what happened what they saw and what they heard. Their opinon on if the accused DWDC is not relevant, and if they were to voice an opinion on that the court would told not to take any acount of it. The court decides if the threshold of DWDC is reached.

The issue of non independant wittnesses has been discussed. It is correct that thier evidence is as good as independant wittnesses of what happened. The only problem with non independants is that they very rearly stand up well to CE, because their friendship/ association can work against them, particularly in a case like this, they are the accusers not just bystanders.

People represent themseves in court all the time, more so than ever now, and they win.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13388652/driver-trip...

[OutInTheShed]

Durzel said:

But what if the 2 eyewitnesses are embellishing what happened? What if it didn't happen at all? What if the OP was at home and these two people made this complaint because they held a grudge, or were bored?

In the absence of dashcam footage all you have is two people saying something happened, and one person saying it didn't, or rather that they don't remember. To be fair to the OP I don't think I could remember an event from May if it was entirely unmemorable to me (or didn't happen).

If two people saying something happened is sufficient to convict someone, in the absence of any other actual factual evidence, then that seems wrong to me, simply because if I had your details & details of your vehicle and whereabouts one day I could go and make a complaint now, backed up by a mate who was in my car, and - according to what you've written - that would be entirely valid.

A lot of people seem to be missing the point that the plod have apparently assessed the evidence and seem to view it as worth proceeding with.

That is the situation, so our opinions about whether that evidence should be taken as credible seem not to count for much.

I am wondering whether the police are following correct procedure here and whether calling that into question via a 'police complaints' channel might be viable. If it were me, I'd be researching that.

[vonhosen]

Blib said:

Cat said:

It could happen but in the real world it tends not to. People, on the whole, don't decide to make up an allegation against another random person. If there was some grudge or history between those involved this would likely come to light.

It may seem wrong to you but that doesnt change how it works.

Cat

Every individual has their own idea of what is or is not "dangerous, or bad driving". How can a court decide if the witnesses' 'threshold' is reasonable when there's no other evidence?

The witnesses say what happened.
The court make a decision on whether what they say happened amounts to & satisfies the criteria for careless driving.
It doesn't matter if the witnesses think it is careless or dangerous, it matters whether the court believe the behaviour as described passes the threshold.
The bar for careless driving is not a high one. It only has to fall short of behaviour expected of a competent & careful driver. It doesn't have to be dangerous.

[Cat]

kestral said:

The facts of your case are totally different to that. The requirements of a NIP must be met properly.

The requirements of a NIP are that it must specify the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it was alleged to have been committed. I presume you mean the requirements of a section 1 warning.

kestral said:

The principals of a NIP in the quoted case were very easily met, in your case they are the complete opposite.

The principal of a NIP as enacted by Parliament is to give an accused person the oportunity to remember the events of an incident that he may well not be aware of. Where an accused could properly in the normal course of events remember an incident it would not be necessary to serve a NIP. That is the intention of Parliament.

If the relevant point was whether or not a driver would have been aware of the incident it is interesting that the appeal judgement makes absolutely no reference to that at all.

What is relevant is whether or not an accident occured and that is, strangely enough, what the appeal focused on. At no point did they give any consideration to what you claim is the relevant point or the intention of Parliament.

kestral said:

In the OP case the OP can claim no knowledge of the incident quite properly, and if the prosecution want to declare that no NIP was required as per the Mark Mclaughlin appeal they can try. And try is what the will do because the overriding principle of the NIP must be met.

Whether or not the OP can claim knowledge of the incident is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not what took place constituted an "accident" as per the interpretation of the courts in various judgements.

kestral said:

Parliament inserted the NIP exclusion of "Accident" for a reason and that is because the accused would know he had been involved in something he could later recal. That's why the McLaughlin appeal failed.

The appeal failed becasue the court accepted that someone having to emergency brake to avoid a colliion contituted an "accident". It had nothing to do with the accused's knowledge or recollection. Here is the relevant part of the judgement

Court Judgement said:

That conveys, in colloquial terms, that he had to“stand on the brakes”. In the context of a busy trunk road where one would not normally come to a stop (in contrast, say to a junction in town controlled by traffic lights) that does constitute an accident within the meaning of section 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and we have concluded that the sheriff did not err in holding that there had been an accident.

kestral said:

In the case quoted, the person avoiding an accident,then becoming angry and chasing a vehicle, overtaking it, slamming the brakes on in front of it. Then getting out of the car and slapping the spectacles off the driver does not meet the Parliamentary intention to give notice by NIP (as the person would be able to recall such an incident readily)

Again none of those facts were considered by the appeal court. They confined themselves to the relevant issue.

The fact that the solicitor who the OP spoke with also stated that a section 1 warning would not be required further suggests that your interpreation of the facts is incorrect.

Remind everyone where you have acquired your legal knowledge?

Cat

[Greendubber]

I'm guessing from within a cracker....

[vaud]

Greendubber said:

I'm guessing from within a cracker....

Bit harsh on crackers. I've picked up lots of funny (to me) jokes from crackers.

[the cueball]

Nibbles_bits said:

Funk said:

the cueball said:

This kind of thing does happen in the real world - happened to me a few months ago.

tt in his 2 tonne SUV took offence at a perfectly good overtake from me and phoned the police talking all kinds of st of how I was dangerous/speeding/killing babies etc.

Thankfully, thankfully…I had my head camera on.

Police took no further action against me, just my footage showed him speeding/crossing solid double white lines/weaving all over the road/doing 30 in a 60/on his phone and a mis-spaced number plate….just went on and on.

Hopefully Karma went to see him..

Not sure how it would have panned out without my footage though…

Wait, your what-now? You drive around with a camera strapped to your bonce...?

This thread has taken yet another twist.

Must
Hear
More

Helmet camera sorry!

I ride a motorcycle… so more like this:




And not this I’m afraid..

[kestral]

Cat said:

Again none of those facts were considered by the appeal court. They confined themselves to the relevant issue.

The fact that the solicitor who the OP spoke with also stated that a section 1 warning would not be required further suggests that your interpreation of the facts is incorrect.

Remind everyone where you have acquired your legal knowledge?

Cat

You are simply analysing the appeal and it's conclusions. Which I do not disagree with.

The OP's case would be proceeded on a different bases.

The appeal in McLaughlin is about the definition of an 'accident',nothing to do with the principle of a NIP and what it's purpose is.

In the McLaughlin case the evidence was he knew about the incident.

Therfore the 'principle' of non issue of a NIP had been met IE he knew about the incident and did not need notification to recal the events.. Parliament decided NIP's would be issued to people so they could recal events.
'
Because Mclaughlin new about the incident his council decided to take the 'literal' wording of the act "That an accident must have occured", for non issue to be available to the prosecution.
That 'literal' defence was rejected by the appeal court.

They(Defence) argued that there must be a collision for for non service of a NIP. That was the issue, NOT that the principle of a NIP had not been complied with..


If McLaughlin had been unaware of the incident(accident) then his defence could have been different. The defence of not knowing about the incident(accident).

Because he McLaughlin was aware of the incident the appeal was based on the definition of an 'accident' as apposed to if he knew about the incident.

That's why the court never concidered the pinciple of the NIP or mentioned it.

Just because the definition of an accident can be applied to the circumstances of the OP does not mean he has waved his right to be notified of an event he might not have been able to or could not have any reason to remember.

McLaughlin knew. The OP does not.

Two completely different situations and circumstance by far. Case dismissed.

Edited by kestral on Thursday 30th June 21:28

[CharlesdeGaulle]

kestral said:

You are simply analysing the appeal and it's conclusions. Which I do not disagree with...

I love it when the credible and qualified experts arrive to put us all straight. Er, hang on...

[Cat]

kestral said:

You are simply analysing the appeal and it's conclusions. Which I do not disagree with.

The OP's case would be proceeded on a different bases.

The appeal in McLaughlin is about the definition of an 'accident',nothing to do with the principle of a NIP and what it's purpose is.

In the McLaughlin case the evidence was he knew about the incident.

Therfore the 'principle' of non issue of a NIP had been met IE he knew about the incident and did not need notification to recal the events.. Parliament decided NIP's would be issued to people so they could recal events.
'
Because Mclaughlin new about the incident his council decided to take the 'literal' wording of the act "That an accident must have occured", for non issue to be available to the prosecution.
That 'literal' defence was rejected by the appeal court.

They(Defence) argued that there must be a collision for for non service of a NIP. That was the issue, NOT that the principle of a NIP had not been complied with..


If McLaughlin had been unaware of the incident(accident) then his defence could have been different. The defence of not knowing about the incident(accident).

Because he McLaughlin was aware of the incident the appeal was based on the definition of an 'accident' as apposed to if he knew about the incident.

That's why the court never concidered the pinciple of the NIP or mentioned it.

Just because the definition of an accident can be applied to the circumstances of the OP does not mean he has waved his right to be notified of an event he might not have been able to or could not have any reason to remember.

McLaughlin knew. The OP does not.

Two completely different situations and circumstance by far. Case dismissed.

Edited by kestral on Thursday 30th June 21:28

What the actual are you on about?

You have absolutley no idea what you are talking about.

kestral said:

The defence of not knowing about the incident(accident).

There is so much utter, utter nonsense in one post I don't even know where to begin.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Thursday 30th June 22:15

[Hackney]

ED209 said:

I only wished the public also agreed that calling in the middle of the night for non urgent matters was unreasonable. The amount of people that ring in at 3 am about things that happened years, sometimes decades ago wouldn’t be believed by most members of the public.

Do they turn up at your door to do that?

[Mojooo]

ED209 said:

I only wished the public also agreed that calling in the middle of the night for non urgent matters was unreasonable. The amount of people that ring in at 3 am about things that happened years, sometimes decades ago wouldn’t be believed by most members of the public.

Maybe the next tiem the Police ring me I'll put them on hold for 45 mins and suggest they contact me via a form on my website!