Advice - MadCop - 999 - BobTheBench et al
Discussion
Seems a frind of mine has gone and go himself in a whole pile (if you excuse the pun) of crap ...
He was out and about last night visiting a friend where he has a joint or two ... Got in his car and proceeded to drive home, still a little stoned obviously, BiB driving behind him obviously picked up something in the way he was driving and attempted to pull him over .... This is where it gets ugly, He got spooked and drove away without stopping, About half an hour or so, 10 squad cars and a helicopter chase later he pulled over, refused to open his window, which a policewoman smashed with a truncheon(sp) pulled him out of the car and arrested him, Now, my question is this, what will they charge him with?? and how much crap is he really in ... I know I shouldn't get involved with this but I really and truely feel very sorry for the chap, he's been on a real downer lately and is (in my opinion) a little unstable at the moment, Marriage break up and so on and so on ....
I tried calling the station this morning but was told that it could not be disclosed what he was being charged with as it was data protected information ... Can anyone suggest what I should do??
Thanks for any advice!
He was out and about last night visiting a friend where he has a joint or two ... Got in his car and proceeded to drive home, still a little stoned obviously, BiB driving behind him obviously picked up something in the way he was driving and attempted to pull him over .... This is where it gets ugly, He got spooked and drove away without stopping, About half an hour or so, 10 squad cars and a helicopter chase later he pulled over, refused to open his window, which a policewoman smashed with a truncheon(sp) pulled him out of the car and arrested him, Now, my question is this, what will they charge him with?? and how much crap is he really in ... I know I shouldn't get involved with this but I really and truely feel very sorry for the chap, he's been on a real downer lately and is (in my opinion) a little unstable at the moment, Marriage break up and so on and so on ....
I tried calling the station this morning but was told that it could not be disclosed what he was being charged with as it was data protected information ... Can anyone suggest what I should do??
Thanks for any advice!
Im amazed they cant disclose what he was charged with.
Its not as if the police themselves dont hold press conferences to announce that someone has been charged (in high profile cases).
Im sure that names are only withheld under special circumstances (ie to protect the identity of someone else etc)
Someone correct me here if Im wrong?
Its not as if the police themselves dont hold press conferences to announce that someone has been charged (in high profile cases).
Im sure that names are only withheld under special circumstances (ie to protect the identity of someone else etc)
Someone correct me here if Im wrong?
Seems a frind of mine has gone and go himself in a whole pile (if you excuse the pun) of crap ...
He was out and about last night visiting a friend where he has a joint or two ... Got in his car and proceeded to drive home, still a little stoned obviously, BiB driving behind him obviously picked up something in the way he was driving and attempted to pull him over .... This is where it gets ugly, He got spooked and drove away without stopping, About half an hour or so, 10 squad cars and a helicopter chase later he pulled over, refused to open his window, which a policewoman smashed with a truncheon(sp) pulled him out of the car and arrested him, Now, my question is this, what will they charge him with?? and how much crap is he really in ... I know I shouldn't get involved with this but I really and truely feel very sorry for the chap, he's been on a real downer lately and is (in my opinion) a little unstable at the moment, Marriage break up and so on and so on ....
I tried calling the station this morning but was told that it could not be disclosed what he was being charged with as it was data protected information ... Can anyone suggest what I should do??
Thanks for any advice!
they will charge him with fail to stop
posetion of puff if he had it on him
and driving under the inflence of drug if the figger out he was stoned
and then there try to fit him up with a due care and atetion or dagerous driving chareg
they will usally try one of em on
and anything else the try to make up
the there will try it on
I'm not an expert, but I think he can be charged:
1. under Section 163(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 for not stopping when required to do so by a constable in uniform
2. depending on how he evaded the Plod, charged under Section 2 (reckless driving) or Section 3 RTA 1988(careless/inconsiderate driving)
3. depending on how 'stoned' he was, charged under Section 4(1) RTA 1988 (driving on a public road whilst unfit to drive through drugs)
4. They might even try to get him under S143(1)(a) - driving without third party insurance, as his insurance would almost certainly be void if he's under the influence. Not sure on this one though.
I doubt he kept to the speed limit either, so add that to the list.
He can't complain about the busted window either, as S4(7) RTA 1988 gives the Plod the power to enter without warrant any place where a constable suspects a person to have committed an offence under S4(1) to be.
Put simply, there's a big book heading for him at a rate of knots.
1. under Section 163(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 for not stopping when required to do so by a constable in uniform
2. depending on how he evaded the Plod, charged under Section 2 (reckless driving) or Section 3 RTA 1988(careless/inconsiderate driving)
3. depending on how 'stoned' he was, charged under Section 4(1) RTA 1988 (driving on a public road whilst unfit to drive through drugs)
4. They might even try to get him under S143(1)(a) - driving without third party insurance, as his insurance would almost certainly be void if he's under the influence. Not sure on this one though.
I doubt he kept to the speed limit either, so add that to the list.
He can't complain about the busted window either, as S4(7) RTA 1988 gives the Plod the power to enter without warrant any place where a constable suspects a person to have committed an offence under S4(1) to be.
Put simply, there's a big book heading for him at a rate of knots.
loaf said:
4. They might even try to get him under S143(1)(a) - driving without third party insurance, as his insurance would almost certainly be void if he's under the influence. Not sure on this one though.
Insurance validity has no bearing on this case as you're still covered whether you're pissed, stoned, driving dangerously, speeding, etc.
Loaf has explained exactly what he will have been charged with. Maybe one or two extra small offences as well depending on what else may have come to light.
Insurance will not be proceded with as stated above the fact that someone is under influence of substance or alcohol will not invalidate it.
Section 2 is not Reckless Driving any more as that required some mens-rea (guilty state of mind)
It is now purely Dangerous driving which is far easier to prove just the actions of the driving are enough. The pursuit will no doubt have been captured on the aircraft video tape system. This does not bode well for a lenient sentence either at magistrates or crown court, especially if the judge gets a look at what happened.
If your friend gets the opportunity to be dealt with by magistrates, then he should take it. To appear before a judge on such charges will not do anything for his already precarious stability!
Dangerous driving is triable either way.
Edited to add that the person at the Police station who refused to disclose what the charges were was quite right. If you need to know, then you have to ask the person himself. He may or may not wish you to know!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th January 19:53
Insurance will not be proceded with as stated above the fact that someone is under influence of substance or alcohol will not invalidate it.
Section 2 is not Reckless Driving any more as that required some mens-rea (guilty state of mind)
It is now purely Dangerous driving which is far easier to prove just the actions of the driving are enough. The pursuit will no doubt have been captured on the aircraft video tape system. This does not bode well for a lenient sentence either at magistrates or crown court, especially if the judge gets a look at what happened.
If your friend gets the opportunity to be dealt with by magistrates, then he should take it. To appear before a judge on such charges will not do anything for his already precarious stability!
Dangerous driving is triable either way.
Edited to add that the person at the Police station who refused to disclose what the charges were was quite right. If you need to know, then you have to ask the person himself. He may or may not wish you to know!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th January 19:53
madcop said: Loaf has explained exactly what he will have been charged with. Maybe one or two extra small offences as well depending on what else may have come to light.
Insurance will not be proceded with as stated above the fact that someone is under influence of substance or alcohol will not invalidate it.
Section 2 is not Reckless Driving any more as that required some mens-rea (guilty state of mind)
It is now purely Dangerous driving which is far easier to prove just the actions of the driving are enough. The pursuit will no doubt have been captured on the aircraft video tape system. This does not bode well for a lenient sentence either at magistrates or crown court, especially if the judge gets a look at what happened.
If your friend gets the opportunity to be dealt with by magistrates, then he should take it. To appear before a judge on such charges will not do anything for his already precarious stability!
Dangerous driving is triable either way.
Edited to add that the person at the Police station who refused to disclose what the charges were was quite right. If you need to know, then you have to ask the person himself. He may or may not wish you to know!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th January 19:53
dont agreay with you on going to magistraits court for it mad
there just send it to croe for sentance
miy advice it jury and way the the lesser carge of careless under jurys nose .
as they dont ushally now the diference
outlaw said:
madcop said: Loaf has explained exactly what he will have been charged with. Maybe one or two extra small offences as well depending on what else may have come to light.
Insurance will not be proceded with as stated above the fact that someone is under influence of substance or alcohol will not invalidate it.
Section 2 is not Reckless Driving any more as that required some mens-rea (guilty state of mind)
It is now purely Dangerous driving which is far easier to prove just the actions of the driving are enough. The pursuit will no doubt have been captured on the aircraft video tape system. This does not bode well for a lenient sentence either at magistrates or crown court, especially if the judge gets a look at what happened.
If your friend gets the opportunity to be dealt with by magistrates, then he should take it. To appear before a judge on such charges will not do anything for his already precarious stability!
Dangerous driving is triable either way.
Edited to add that the person at the Police station who refused to disclose what the charges were was quite right. If you need to know, then you have to ask the person himself. He may or may not wish you to know!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th January 19:53
dont agreay with you on going to magistraits court for it mad
there just send it to croe for sentance
miy advice it jury and way the the lesser carge of careless under jurys nose .
as they dont ushally now the diference
Hmmm I know which advice I would choose to follow given the same circumstances...
When a pursuit gets going the BiB often get a camera car at the front of the convoy to video all the events. (usually gives better detail than the chopper) This usually gets submitted as evidence.
I am not condoning his actions at all but I would get his solicitor to take a careful look at the video at the point where they removed him from the car.
Other than that I would tell him to stop next time - saves a lot of hassle later on.
I am not condoning his actions at all but I would get his solicitor to take a careful look at the video at the point where they removed him from the car.
Other than that I would tell him to stop next time - saves a lot of hassle later on.
Well, an update:
In the Ely paper yesterday, The chap I refered to in the original posting has been charged with no less than 8 differing charges, these incluse
Threatening to kill someone??
Threatening someone with of a Toy Pistol (One of those that shoot blanks)
Assult
Threatening to destroy property
Taking a vehical without the owners consent
I cant remember the others ... Or the exact wording of those above, four of the charges have been defered to the Cambridge Crown courts for hearing...
Seems the chap was a little more than just stoned!
In the Ely paper yesterday, The chap I refered to in the original posting has been charged with no less than 8 differing charges, these incluse
Threatening to kill someone??
Threatening someone with of a Toy Pistol (One of those that shoot blanks)
Assult
Threatening to destroy property
Taking a vehical without the owners consent
I cant remember the others ... Or the exact wording of those above, four of the charges have been defered to the Cambridge Crown courts for hearing...
Seems the chap was a little more than just stoned!
Richard92c2 said: Well, an update:
In the Ely paper yesterday, The chap I refered to in the original posting has been charged with no less than 8 differing charges, these incluse
Threatening to kill someone??
Threatening someone with of a Toy Pistol (One of those that shoot blanks)
Assult
Threatening to destroy property
Taking a vehical without the owners consent
I cant remember the others ... Or the exact wording of those above, four of the charges have been defered to the Cambridge Crown courts for hearing...
Seems the chap was a little more than just stoned!
Me thinks he is in very big doo doo then.
If he is capable of behaviour like this, it may be wise to reconsider your relationship with him!
Who knows when he decides to flip again if you will be with him? Although on the strength of your posting that probably won't be for a reasonable period of time!
I thought there were exclusions for drink/drugs in most insurance....
Looking at Hefeylumps on-line insurance T&C's, it seems that you will loose your personal accident benefits if you are influence of drink or drugs, and they also say
"If an accident happens and as a result you or any person entitled to drive under section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, cover will be restricted to our liability under the Road Traffic Act.
We reserve the right to recover any resulting costs from you and/or the driver. "
So seems that if you stack your car whilst under the infulence they will pay out for anyone else, but not anything you do to you/your car.
J
Looking at Hefeylumps on-line insurance T&C's, it seems that you will loose your personal accident benefits if you are influence of drink or drugs, and they also say "If an accident happens and as a result you or any person entitled to drive under section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, cover will be restricted to our liability under the Road Traffic Act.
We reserve the right to recover any resulting costs from you and/or the driver. "
So seems that if you stack your car whilst under the infulence they will pay out for anyone else, but not anything you do to you/your car.
J
joust said: I thought there were exclusions for drink/drugs in most insurance....
"If an accident happens and as a result you or any person entitled to drive under section 5 of your current Certificate of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink or drugs, or was driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, cover will be restricted to our liability under the Road Traffic Act.
We reserve the right to recover any resulting costs from you and/or the driver. "
So seems that if you stack your car whilst under the infulence they will pay out for anyone else, but not anything you do to you/your car.
J
Seems reasonable to me!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff