Threatened with prosecution - letter from police
Discussion
Surprised to receive a letter from the police today. Stating that I allegedly committed an office of driving without due care and attention, by overtaking a vehicle which was in lane 1, then swerving in front of that vehicle before moving back into lane 2. On the basis of the information currently available, police have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was sufficiently blameworthy to conclude that they were primarily responsible for the incident taking place. Before a decision is made as to what action police will take with regards to the driving behaviour, ie, to prosecute or refer the driver to a driver improvement course, they are giving e the opportunity to write back with my understanding of what led to the incident, together with any mitigating circumstances the driver may wish to offer.
I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
Username888 said:
Surprised to receive a letter from the police today. Stating that I allegedly committed an office of driving without due care and attention, by overtaking a vehicle which was in lane 1, then swerving in front of that vehicle before moving back into lane 2. On the basis of the information currently available, police have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was sufficiently blameworthy to conclude that they were primarily responsible for the incident taking place. Before a decision is made as to what action police will take with regards to the driving behaviour, ie, to prosecute or refer the driver to a driver improvement course, they are giving e the opportunity to write back with my understanding of what led to the incident, together with any mitigating circumstances the driver may wish to offer.
I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
normalbloke said:
No comment.
Given the potential charge of driving without due care and attention, and that you weren't attentive enough to realise that there was a car in your blind spot, going no comment might well be your best option... (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Otherwise, IANAL and I have no idea what the best thing to do would be. Depending on your finances, you may wish to consult a motoring lawyer, e.g., AGTlaw of this parish.
Username888 said:
Surprised to receive a letter from the police today. Stating that I allegedly committed an office of driving without due care and attention, by overtaking a vehicle which was in lane 1, then swerving in front of that vehicle before moving back into lane 2. On the basis of the information currently available, police have reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was sufficiently blameworthy to conclude that they were primarily responsible for the incident taking place. Before a decision is made as to what action police will take with regards to the driving behaviour, ie, to prosecute or refer the driver to a driver improvement course, they are giving e the opportunity to write back with my understanding of what led to the incident, together with any mitigating circumstances the driver may wish to offer.
I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
Never mind Arkell v Pressdram, I refer the honourable poster to this thread on voluntarily engaging with the constabulary and the potential risks thereof. I don't remember much about it other than the lanes were confusing with all the road works, and I did not realise that this guy was in my blind spot. Should I respond at all?
Have you received a Notice of Intended prosecution asking for the drivers details, an invitation to provide the Police with enough rope to hang you or a letter knocked up in Word by a pissed off driver? If the former, fill in the NIP and await the allegation, if either of the former get paid legal advice before responding.
I'm an advocate for lane discipline, indicating, not tailgating etc., and believe that the standard of driving generally is at an all time low. But, everyone makes mistakes. Sounds like this was a genuine accident (not in the sense of a collision), and no contact occurred. We all make mistakes, cut someone up, misjudge an overtake, inadvertently cause an obstruction, but a little give and take goes a long way, there but for the grace of god, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, etc.
I wonder if the fact that a letter was sent indicates that this was a cut above the usual indiscretions, or it's a sign of the way things are going in modern society. To be 'investigated' for something that may not really have registered at the time on the say-so of a driver who may be having a bad day themselves seems like a slippery slope to me.
Good luck OP.
I wonder if the fact that a letter was sent indicates that this was a cut above the usual indiscretions, or it's a sign of the way things are going in modern society. To be 'investigated' for something that may not really have registered at the time on the say-so of a driver who may be having a bad day themselves seems like a slippery slope to me.
Good luck OP.
croyde said:
Have we turned into East Germany (former) and have to constantly worry about our fellow comrades snitching on us.
What proof do the police have? I guess dashcam, the weapon of the masses.
You answered your own question - the dashcam is proof.What proof do the police have? I guess dashcam, the weapon of the masses.
If you (the royal you) drive like a bellend then I’m pretty much fine with you being reporters.
CPS aren’t going to be doing people for speeding from dashcam clips because they’re not type approved, but if your speed is so disproportionate as to be patently unsafe, well, I refer the honourable gentleman to the “bellend” comment made previously.
If the correspondence you have received is a notice of intended prosecution (NIP) it should have been received within 14 days of the alleged offence there are certain exemptions eg. If it’s a hire car or registered in someone else’s name etc the 14 day rule does not apply , as long as the NIP is served as reasonable practicable and efforts to trace the driver have been diligently done.
So let’s assume car is in your name etc you should have had the NIP with 14 days, if you haven’t it’s not valid. It will clearly stage if it’s an NIP
Normally the police will interview for offences, if the interview takes place at a police station and it’s an interview under caution it is a voluntary interview and as such you are entitled to free and independent legal advice. You can organise a solicitor yourself or before the interview date ask the officer to organise one for you.
Your solicitor or legal rep, will normally be given full disclosure by the officer before the interview starts especially for “minor” offences. You then discuss this and formulate how you are going to respond.
As an ex police officer, my advice is Always have legal representation, Never answer any questions when interviewed under caution by the police, always prepare a statement covering your “version of the events” you legal rep will help with this based on the disclosure given to him about the circumstances of the alleged offence.
So in summary if they want to interview ask for it to be done at the station not at your home and either get legal representation yourself or ask the officer to sort it before the interview, do a prepared statement and answer “no comment “ to every question put to you.
So let’s assume car is in your name etc you should have had the NIP with 14 days, if you haven’t it’s not valid. It will clearly stage if it’s an NIP
Normally the police will interview for offences, if the interview takes place at a police station and it’s an interview under caution it is a voluntary interview and as such you are entitled to free and independent legal advice. You can organise a solicitor yourself or before the interview date ask the officer to organise one for you.
Your solicitor or legal rep, will normally be given full disclosure by the officer before the interview starts especially for “minor” offences. You then discuss this and formulate how you are going to respond.
As an ex police officer, my advice is Always have legal representation, Never answer any questions when interviewed under caution by the police, always prepare a statement covering your “version of the events” you legal rep will help with this based on the disclosure given to him about the circumstances of the alleged offence.
So in summary if they want to interview ask for it to be done at the station not at your home and either get legal representation yourself or ask the officer to sort it before the interview, do a prepared statement and answer “no comment “ to every question put to you.
Simpo Two said:
What incident? Nothing happened.
That's my view also. I've had a dashcam in all my cars for 10+ years now, I wouldn't be without one. But it's there in case of a collision where I might require evidence to support any insurance claim. I don't understand these people who download every "incident" and report them to the police. Nothing happened. I'd rather the DCW was done with wasting police time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff