Police enquiry at home
Discussion
the mac said:
I denied knowing anything about the incident and still don’t know anything about what allegedly took place.
They issued the fixed penalty noted that I said I know nothing about it and feel free to take it to court.
Well surely it's very simple then. If you don't know anything about it, decline any offer of a fixed penalty and take it to court. They issued the fixed penalty noted that I said I know nothing about it and feel free to take it to court.
Mojooo said:
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!Hugo Stiglitz said:
Even when in not at work I see THR mentioned
I used to spend half my working time re THRIVE incidents after inexperienced call takers assessed absolute tripe as potential end of days scenarios. This made response policing impossible because every incident was suddenly a priority and if everything is a priority then nothing really is a priority. I won’t even start on their assessment of the vulnerability bit. the mac said:
Matt_E_Mulsion said:
Well surely it's very simple then. If you don't know anything about it, decline any offer of a fixed penalty and take it to court.
Cheers for your top tip
If I need any advice I’ll be sure to give you a shout!
The whole FPN thing is becoming a bit of a nonsense - anecdotally they get handed out for all sorts of flaky reasons (don't want to bring up the C word but covid seems to have changed things a fair bit in that sense)
And basically people have to pay up or face a potentially much worse punishment. Basically a "pay up or we might prosecute you" threat. Maybe there should be a way to challenge them (in a similar way to a parking ticket) without incurring the risk of a proper prosecution?
AIUI when it's not an FPN, the CPS/PF decide whether there's enough evidence, and it's in tbe public interest before they can even go as far as charging someone. What is required to issue an FPN?
And basically people have to pay up or face a potentially much worse punishment. Basically a "pay up or we might prosecute you" threat. Maybe there should be a way to challenge them (in a similar way to a parking ticket) without incurring the risk of a proper prosecution?
AIUI when it's not an FPN, the CPS/PF decide whether there's enough evidence, and it's in tbe public interest before they can even go as far as charging someone. What is required to issue an FPN?
Edited by Plymo on Friday 1st July 20:39
Surely this case rests upon identifying the driver? Have the police identified the driver? I don't think an S172 was issued from what I've read, and how can anyone be expected to recall who may or may not have been driving weeks later? That's the point of the S172 being sent within 2 weeks isn't it? It all seems very irregular starting with the knock on the door at midnight and leaving it for another week to pass before doing anything.
Quite bizarre.
Quite bizarre.
Super Sonic said:
Think they're making you sweat, hoping you'll incriminate yourself. Go to court, and when neither witness turns up, and the police drop the charges, claim costs.
Sometimes the procedure is the punishment.
Do you think the police officers care one way or the other?Sometimes the procedure is the punishment.
It's just another pointless job to be binned ASAP as far as they are concerned.
( may take a bit longer now they are working to rule)
Fastdruid said:
Look at it from the police perspective. It can go two ways.
1) They threaten, you accept a FPN. The flimsy evidence doesn't matter.
2) They threaten, you say "no, I'll go to court please". The Procurator Fiscal (I think, it being Scotland it's a bit different) then takes a look at it and decides if its worth taking to court.
Odds are with that little evidence they're going to throw it out. Little more than hearsay evidence, no video evidence, no proof it was you or even your car.
Personally I would play the odds and choose option 2 and would represent myself, at this point you have nothing to lose other than a slightly higher fine and a very good chance they will drop it.
If it goes as far as court you have the identity issue along with just plain going down the "I have no recollection of it".
I would also argue that they need to make the case for what you were accused of is actually DWDCA rather than the other party just being idiots and braking because they were doing (for example) 20 in a 60 and someone came past them quickly!
ie someone braking "because you overtook them" by itself is not DWDCA **UNLESS** they had to for example brake because of something else in front of them that "you" had put them in conflict with. For example overtaking someone *just* before they were going to overtake a cyclist.
Or cut in so quickly that they had to brake to avoid hitting you.
Mostly this.1) They threaten, you accept a FPN. The flimsy evidence doesn't matter.
2) They threaten, you say "no, I'll go to court please". The Procurator Fiscal (I think, it being Scotland it's a bit different) then takes a look at it and decides if its worth taking to court.
Odds are with that little evidence they're going to throw it out. Little more than hearsay evidence, no video evidence, no proof it was you or even your car.
Personally I would play the odds and choose option 2 and would represent myself, at this point you have nothing to lose other than a slightly higher fine and a very good chance they will drop it.
If it goes as far as court you have the identity issue along with just plain going down the "I have no recollection of it".
I would also argue that they need to make the case for what you were accused of is actually DWDCA rather than the other party just being idiots and braking because they were doing (for example) 20 in a 60 and someone came past them quickly!
ie someone braking "because you overtook them" by itself is not DWDCA **UNLESS** they had to for example brake because of something else in front of them that "you" had put them in conflict with. For example overtaking someone *just* before they were going to overtake a cyclist.
Or cut in so quickly that they had to brake to avoid hitting you.
Just remember, there is no need to talk to the police at all, in court no need to take the witness stand.
In the unlikely event it does end up in court, (no way would I accept a fixed penalty), all the evidence has to be disclosed at some point. Decide then if legal help is required.
I very much doubt it will get that far.
caziques said:
Fastdruid said:
Look at it from the police perspective. It can go two ways.
1) They threaten, you accept a FPN. The flimsy evidence doesn't matter.
2) They threaten, you say "no, I'll go to court please". The Procurator Fiscal (I think, it being Scotland it's a bit different) then takes a look at it and decides if its worth taking to court.
Odds are with that little evidence they're going to throw it out. Little more than hearsay evidence, no video evidence, no proof it was you or even your car.
Personally I would play the odds and choose option 2 and would represent myself, at this point you have nothing to lose other than a slightly higher fine and a very good chance they will drop it.
If it goes as far as court you have the identity issue along with just plain going down the "I have no recollection of it".
I would also argue that they need to make the case for what you were accused of is actually DWDCA rather than the other party just being idiots and braking because they were doing (for example) 20 in a 60 and someone came past them quickly!
ie someone braking "because you overtook them" by itself is not DWDCA **UNLESS** they had to for example brake because of something else in front of them that "you" had put them in conflict with. For example overtaking someone *just* before they were going to overtake a cyclist.
Or cut in so quickly that they had to brake to avoid hitting you.
Mostly this.1) They threaten, you accept a FPN. The flimsy evidence doesn't matter.
2) They threaten, you say "no, I'll go to court please". The Procurator Fiscal (I think, it being Scotland it's a bit different) then takes a look at it and decides if its worth taking to court.
Odds are with that little evidence they're going to throw it out. Little more than hearsay evidence, no video evidence, no proof it was you or even your car.
Personally I would play the odds and choose option 2 and would represent myself, at this point you have nothing to lose other than a slightly higher fine and a very good chance they will drop it.
If it goes as far as court you have the identity issue along with just plain going down the "I have no recollection of it".
I would also argue that they need to make the case for what you were accused of is actually DWDCA rather than the other party just being idiots and braking because they were doing (for example) 20 in a 60 and someone came past them quickly!
ie someone braking "because you overtook them" by itself is not DWDCA **UNLESS** they had to for example brake because of something else in front of them that "you" had put them in conflict with. For example overtaking someone *just* before they were going to overtake a cyclist.
Or cut in so quickly that they had to brake to avoid hitting you.
Just remember, there is no need to talk to the police at all, in court no need to take the witness stand.
In the unlikely event it does end up in court, (no way would I accept a fixed penalty), all the evidence has to be disclosed at some point. Decide then if legal help is required.
I very much doubt it will get that far.
The Secret Barrister talks about this issue a lot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff