Discussion
A friend of mine has this morning been supposedly caught by plod for wheelieing from a set of traffic lights on the outskirts of a city. (30 zone - two lanes - no houses kids schools)
Plod stated that he would want to go for dangerous driving however due to him being on a bike also and the only witness he couldn't. Plod stated that my friend would hear from them within the next 6 months with a court date on the charge of due care and attention. My friend was not given any paper work or anything to sign. Plod took details of bike and licence and promptly left the scene.
Now this seems odd to me, how can he intend to do my friend with due care but cannot get him up on charge of dangerous due to lack of witnesses.
Any advice/p taking greatly welcome.
Plod stated that he would want to go for dangerous driving however due to him being on a bike also and the only witness he couldn't. Plod stated that my friend would hear from them within the next 6 months with a court date on the charge of due care and attention. My friend was not given any paper work or anything to sign. Plod took details of bike and licence and promptly left the scene.
Now this seems odd to me, how can he intend to do my friend with due care but cannot get him up on charge of dangerous due to lack of witnesses.
Any advice/p taking greatly welcome.
I think he's learnt the hard way.
My only suspision that the officer made comment relating to the time scale of receiving the summons. 6 months? Reading about it, the net seems to say if not received within 14 days (letter of intent to...) then the matter is close?
Would be nice to hear someone whom may have experienced this in the past.
My only suspision that the officer made comment relating to the time scale of receiving the summons. 6 months? Reading about it, the net seems to say if not received within 14 days (letter of intent to...) then the matter is close?
Would be nice to hear someone whom may have experienced this in the past.
Rastrack said:
I think he's learnt the hard way.
My only suspision that the officer made comment relating to the time scale of receiving the summons. 6 months? Reading about it, the net seems to say if not received within 14 days (letter of intent to...) then the matter is close?
Would be nice to hear someone whom may have experienced this in the past.
14 days is for a NIP sent through the post. If the warning of prosecution (which has a 6 months time limit for information to be laid before the court) is a verbal one given at the time, which it appears it probably has, then the 14 day postal NIP is not necessary.My only suspision that the officer made comment relating to the time scale of receiving the summons. 6 months? Reading about it, the net seems to say if not received within 14 days (letter of intent to...) then the matter is close?
Would be nice to hear someone whom may have experienced this in the past.
The 14 day rule applies to NOIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution), these are usually issued as a result of unmanned detection.
From what you say it sounds like your friend was given a verbal NOIP (something along the lines of "You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for......") and therefore the 14 day limit no longer applies.
From what you say it sounds like your friend was given a verbal NOIP (something along the lines of "You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for......") and therefore the 14 day limit no longer applies.
Officer will report it and cps and force will consider prosecution for either offence but careless driving is much more likely.
Most forces will write to you with a summons or a standard letter stating "having considered the evidence we find it is insufficient at this time to prosecute however should further evidence come to light in the future you could still be prosecuted" etc etc.
The 14 day rule is a common misconception, as said it relates to speed cameras/traps were you are not stopped and spoken to a the time. Once an officer has stopped you and told you of intention to report the offence its onto 6 months to get you to court.
Most forces will write to you with a summons or a standard letter stating "having considered the evidence we find it is insufficient at this time to prosecute however should further evidence come to light in the future you could still be prosecuted" etc etc.
The 14 day rule is a common misconception, as said it relates to speed cameras/traps were you are not stopped and spoken to a the time. Once an officer has stopped you and told you of intention to report the offence its onto 6 months to get you to court.
Some people appear to have a strange idea of what constitutes evidence. The testimony of a single witness is evidence. It is a matter for the court to decide whether or not that testimony is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof. In other words, if the court believes the officer and doesn't believe any denial that might be forthcoming from the biker, the biker will be potted.
FarmerFitzy, why do you suggest that the word of the police officer is not "real proof"? I reiterate that you appear to misunderstand what evidence is. You are perhaps confusing evidence with corroboration.
In the Cop vs Biker case, Cop saying "Biker did a wheelie" is evidence. The evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence, but it does not have to be. The question is - does the court accept that the cop's evidence is true (and so that the biker's contrary evidence is not true)?
In the Cop vs Biker case, Cop saying "Biker did a wheelie" is evidence. The evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence, but it does not have to be. The question is - does the court accept that the cop's evidence is true (and so that the biker's contrary evidence is not true)?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff