Incorrect prosecution
Discussion
A few weeks ago I witnessed a car drive into the back of another car. I saw it happen and anticipated a hazard so slowed down, the car that was hit then drove out in front of me, I gave it lots of space by stopping and allowed it out. My registration must have been incorrectly noted to be the car that was involved in the collision because I received an intended prosecution:
Failing to stop following a road traffic collision
Failing to report a road traffic collision
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention
I very luckily have a dashcam of the collision showing I wasn't involved, UK law states that witnesses of collisions don't have to stop so I haven't done anything wrong. There was actually about 20 other witnesses I should think and it wasn't safe to stop.
My worry is that
1. My insurance company may have been told I've been involved and this could affect me moving forward. Although they haven't contacted me.
2. The police are intending to prosecute me which could affect my job
I have just emailed across the dashcam footage to the police and I'm waiting for their response.
Failing to stop following a road traffic collision
Failing to report a road traffic collision
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention
I very luckily have a dashcam of the collision showing I wasn't involved, UK law states that witnesses of collisions don't have to stop so I haven't done anything wrong. There was actually about 20 other witnesses I should think and it wasn't safe to stop.
My worry is that
1. My insurance company may have been told I've been involved and this could affect me moving forward. Although they haven't contacted me.
2. The police are intending to prosecute me which could affect my job
I have just emailed across the dashcam footage to the police and I'm waiting for their response.
I wouldn't worry, just a simple error which is easily corrected, more so since you have the footage.
Something similar happened to me last year, with a NIP for two of three you mention, I filled in the form stating the facts and returned it. NIP cancelled and notified a couple of weeks after that. No impact on insurance.
Something similar happened to me last year, with a NIP for two of three you mention, I filled in the form stating the facts and returned it. NIP cancelled and notified a couple of weeks after that. No impact on insurance.
55palfers said:
Good how no one from Plod could spare 5 minutes to phone you and establish all the facts before launching a prosecution.
Yeah, it's worried me no end, as I got the letter on Friday and was told the people dealing with it aren't in until Tuesday. I stressed that I needed to show somebody the footage and the officer investigating it was in today. Just spoken to him on the phone, he said he can't view the footage on his computer but not to worry and I won't be prosecuted. I am a doctor and the police presumed that because the collision happened on an exit from a hospital that it must have been me (but I have never set foot in that hospital in my life), I wasn't on the exit from the hospital as I was already on the road which approached that exit.
It was an extremely busy area at rush hour, there must be CCTV everywhere.
Basically if I'm prosecuted for this kind of offence I could lose my licence to practice. So this kind of mistake has huge implications.
dreamdriver said:
55palfers said:
Good how no one from Plod could spare 5 minutes to phone you and establish all the facts before launching a prosecution.
Yeah, it's worried me no end, as I got the letter on Friday and was told the people dealing with it aren't in until Tuesday. I stressed that I needed to show somebody the footage and the officer investigating it was in today. Just spoken to him on the phone, he said he can't view the footage on his computer but not to worry and I won't be prosecuted. I am a doctor and the police presumed that because the collision happened on an exit from a hospital that it must have been me (but I have never set foot in that hospital in my life), I wasn't on the exit from the hospital as I was already on the road which approached that exit.
It was an extremely busy area at rush hour, there must be CCTV everywhere.
Basically if I'm prosecuted for this kind of offence I could lose my licence to practice. So this kind of mistake has huge implications.
DoubleD said:
55palfers said:
Good how no one from Plod could spare 5 minutes to phone you and establish all the facts before launching a prosecution.
If we all pay more taxes then we would be able to afford more police, then they would have enough time to phone people.They still seem to have plenty of money to investigate harsh words on Twitter.
Pothole said:
Except that is doesn't, and hasn't. Your thread title is also misleading and sensationalist. Calm down, dear.
The initial post was posted prior to the officer calling me back which happened a few minutes later and thus I updated, I have had a letter stating "intended prosecution" and have had to wait to speak to somebody from Friday until today, that's three days of concern and worry.When you are a law abiding citizen and you get a letter through the post stating the police are intending to prosecute you, which could affect your livelihood that you have worked for all your life, you do tend to panic.
Especially with the media reporting investigations ignoring evidence in order to get as many prosecutions as possible, you worry. I am lucky I installed a very cheap, but effective dashcam last year. Without that evidence it would have been my word against someone elses.
55palfers said:
Good how no one from Plod could spare 5 minutes to phone you and establish all the facts before launching a prosecution.
They are not “launching a prosecution” an NIP is no different to the police showing up at your door and asking to speak to you about a possible offence which, based on the outcome of said conversation, may or may not lead to further action. Now which approach, for 99.9% of basic traffic violations do you think is more efficient and effective? Any sent in error such as this, especially with perfect evidence, would be taken no further immediately.
A “prosecution” doesn’t actually start until you are charged with an offence and have therefore passed the evidential and public interest threshold tests. Any remedy before that point such as an FPN or restorative justice order etc is not a prosecution it is a disposal.
craigjm said:
Now which approach, for 99.9% of basic traffic violations do you think is more efficient and effective? Any sent in error such as this, especially with perfect evidence, would be taken no further immediately.
Thank-you, that's helpful. Unfortunately I had ruminated on this for 3 days waiting for the PC's call. Like I said being law abiding, so I'm not used to this. Something quite similar happened when I was 17, somebody had written down my registration plate and said I was involved in a collision, they got my gender, appearance and car description incorrect and said I'd hit them in a McDonalds carpark in a City I had never been to. It actually went to court and I had to stand up and say "not guilty", it was eventually thrown out. I had the benefit of my dad paying for a solicitor. Now I am quite senior in my career and without legal support the implications were a lot more worrying.
NIPs are not required following an accident (and the NIP appears to be out of time anyway)..
I suspect the officer is trying to cover all the bases by sending a NIP or he/ she has been given duff info.
From what you've said - try not to worry about it.
There's a big difference between a NIP and a prosecution.
I suspect the officer is trying to cover all the bases by sending a NIP or he/ she has been given duff info.
From what you've said - try not to worry about it.
There's a big difference between a NIP and a prosecution.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 11th February 12:26
craigjm said:
They are not “launching a prosecution” an NIP is no different to the police showing up at your door and asking to speak to you about a possible offence which, based on the outcome of said conversation, may or may not lead to further action.
I must admit I was pretty alarmed when they did that to me in middle of the night. Looked like a mistake in the address.I wonder who noted and passed on the OPs registration number? Perhaps another dashcammer.
Sheepshanks said:
craigjm said:
They are not “launching a prosecution” an NIP is no different to the police showing up at your door and asking to speak to you about a possible offence which, based on the outcome of said conversation, may or may not lead to further action.
I must admit I was pretty alarmed when they did that to me in middle of the night. Looked like a mistake in the address.DoubleD said:
55palfers said:
Good how no one from Plod could spare 5 minutes to phone you and establish all the facts before launching a prosecution.
If we all pay more taxes then we would be able to afford more police, then they would have enough time to phone people.
craigjm said:
Happened to me at uni. Door broken in by the police just before dawn to activate a warrant for a house on xxxx park road and they had just broken the door down of xxxx park terrace. Lots of embarrassment.
The Officers who called had the right address according to the information they were working from but it was a bit odd as the car owner (who lived a few doors away) had emigrated and sold the car at auction so it was the new owner who had committed several offences. It was asserted the car had always been registered at my address but he'd owned for a couple of years and I'd never had tax reminders etc so that wasn't true.
There was no embarrassment shown by the Officers - they didn't give a toss. To be honest I was just relieved that it wasn't me they were after.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff