Complicated situation
Discussion
Ten years ago I was accused of running a red light, totally incorrectly, by three police officers.
Their statements suggested that I had run red light by 6 seconds almost causing an accident. I pleaded not guilty, came to court with photos of the scene and cross examined the officers, one by one, exposing the *actual truth* on what they *actually saw and heard*.
The Judge, who was sitting in for magistrates, told me that I was a credible witness, and he discounted two of the police officers testimonies altogether. As it was a shaky account by one officer, against my credible testimony the evidence was not to the standard to find me guilty, so I was found not guilty.
This can be done:
1) You need to get your witnesses to court.
2) You need to systematically go through the evidence, and work out exactly which parts will be used to convict you.
3) You then disassemble those parts to make them look incredible. You've started doing that, by coming up with facts about distances.
How it works is that the witnesses will be called one by one (including yourself) and they will be examined, then cross examined. Basically you ask questions. The art is which questions to ask.
Let me know if you want some specific examples.
What goes very well for you is that there was an IPCC complaint upheld. They are of course different issues, but it is a factual account you can reference to show how accurate and correct the procedures were.
Their statements suggested that I had run red light by 6 seconds almost causing an accident. I pleaded not guilty, came to court with photos of the scene and cross examined the officers, one by one, exposing the *actual truth* on what they *actually saw and heard*.
The Judge, who was sitting in for magistrates, told me that I was a credible witness, and he discounted two of the police officers testimonies altogether. As it was a shaky account by one officer, against my credible testimony the evidence was not to the standard to find me guilty, so I was found not guilty.
This can be done:
1) You need to get your witnesses to court.
2) You need to systematically go through the evidence, and work out exactly which parts will be used to convict you.
3) You then disassemble those parts to make them look incredible. You've started doing that, by coming up with facts about distances.
How it works is that the witnesses will be called one by one (including yourself) and they will be examined, then cross examined. Basically you ask questions. The art is which questions to ask.
Let me know if you want some specific examples.
What goes very well for you is that there was an IPCC complaint upheld. They are of course different issues, but it is a factual account you can reference to show how accurate and correct the procedures were.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 9th September 12:40
tony-er8kp said:
Also I couldn’t be driving that fast that he could note my registration plate comfortably as The law states that driver's must be able to read a clean number plate at 20.5 metres in good daylight.
You know that's the absolute bare minimum, right? Go and stand 20m away from a plate, and consider how easy it is to read from that distance.tony-er8kp said:
Upon trying to park up released my seatbelt which I had it on until this, looked left to see if was clear to park...
starting driving on.
Bang to rights on the belt, then.starting driving on.
tony-er8kp said:
I was focussing on my journey had full 100% concentration on road was unaware officer was running up to us
Umm...TooMany2cvs said:
tony-er8kp said:
Upon trying to park up released my seatbelt which I had it on until this, looked left to see if was clear to park...
starting driving on.
Bang to rights on the belt, then.starting driving on.
OP?
You defending this relies upon you being able to stand up in court, in the dock and being able to state that you are innocent of what you are being accused of.
JustinP1 said:
Ten years ago I was accused of running a red light, totally incorrectly, by three police officers.
Their statements suggested that I had run red light by 6 seconds almost causing an accident. I pleaded not guilty, came to court with photos of the scene and cross examined the officers, one by one, exposing the *actual truth* on what they *actually saw and heard*.
The Judge, who was sitting in for magistrates, told me that I was a credible witness, and he discounted two of the police officers testimonies altogether. As it was a shaky account by one officer, against my credible testimony the evidence was not to the standard to find me guilty, so I was found not guilty.
This can be done:
1) You need to get your witnesses to court.
2) You need to systematically go through the evidence, and work out exactly which parts will be used to convict you.
3) You then disassemble those parts to make them look incredible. You've started doing that, by coming up with facts about distances.
How it works is that the witnesses will be called one by one (including yourself) and they will be examined, then cross examined. Basically you ask questions. The art is which questions to ask.
Let me know if you want some specific examples.
What goes very well for you is that there was an IPCC complaint upheld. They are of course different issues, but it is a factual account you can reference to show how accurate and correct the procedures were.
Very good way of approaching it... i will work through that and then reply with my findings and then we can corroborate regarding the specific examples.Their statements suggested that I had run red light by 6 seconds almost causing an accident. I pleaded not guilty, came to court with photos of the scene and cross examined the officers, one by one, exposing the *actual truth* on what they *actually saw and heard*.
The Judge, who was sitting in for magistrates, told me that I was a credible witness, and he discounted two of the police officers testimonies altogether. As it was a shaky account by one officer, against my credible testimony the evidence was not to the standard to find me guilty, so I was found not guilty.
This can be done:
1) You need to get your witnesses to court.
2) You need to systematically go through the evidence, and work out exactly which parts will be used to convict you.
3) You then disassemble those parts to make them look incredible. You've started doing that, by coming up with facts about distances.
How it works is that the witnesses will be called one by one (including yourself) and they will be examined, then cross examined. Basically you ask questions. The art is which questions to ask.
Let me know if you want some specific examples.
What goes very well for you is that there was an IPCC complaint upheld. They are of course different issues, but it is a factual account you can reference to show how accurate and correct the procedures were.
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 9th September 12:40
Thanks for this.
agtlaw said:
This doesn't sound at all complicated. Careless driving is fairly easy to prove. Your best chance is to get it dropped before trial. Not much point turning up at court to plead NG - when you can do that by post.
How can i get it dropped before trial.. it says on the letter "you must appear at the courthouse on 19/09/2015"if you do not attend will be heard in your absence etc...
So who do i write the NG to the court? as CPS havn't got any dealings with this case it was directed from the police traffic unit to court and no plea form available for advance plea?
SteveR1979 said:
JustinP1 said:
Well spotted.
OP?
You defending this relies upon you being able to stand up in court, in the dock and being able to state that you are innocent of what you are being accused of.
Are you not allowed to remove your belt to perform parking maneuvers???OP?
You defending this relies upon you being able to stand up in court, in the dock and being able to state that you are innocent of what you are being accused of.
However, it's not clear whether this is exactly what happened.
Vaud said:
Be careful on some of your points.
"Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
I know that but hes trying to say i was escaping so why would i have my handbrake on and in neutral... basically he's saying that i was trying to escape... so that why i was trying to contradict his statement that if i was trying to escape there would be no revving involved as there would in a manual... do u get it?"Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
tony-er8kp said:
Vaud said:
Be careful on some of your points.
"Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
I know that but hes trying to say i was escaping so why would i have my handbrake on and in neutral... basically he's saying that i was trying to escape... so that why i was trying to contradict his statement that if i was trying to escape there would be no revving involved as there would in a manual... do u get it?"Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
It's actually this type of 'random added fact' in the officer's statements that I was able to discount that threw doubt on their whole story.
tony-er8kp said:
The seat belt... i took off for reversing which i believe is allowed in legislation.
It is, although it shouldn't be necessary or even particularly beneficial, unless you've got some medical condition such as very limited neck mobility.tony-ek8rp said:
Also as he told me to drive on then i did so.
...but without putting your belt on first...tony-ek8rp said:
So the seatbelt one i don't know how will i defend that one
You can't, since you're guilty of it. If you deny it, then let that slip out, the rest of your statement will lose all credibility. At the end of the day, it's your word against his - although you started off saying there were two policemen outside the club.It's a £100 and no points fixed penalty normally, but a maximum fine of £500. Deny it to start with, then accept it - or, worse, be found guilty - in court, and you will get hit with more than £100.
Vaud said:
Be careful on some of your points.
"Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
You can do it in drive, if you're two-footing it, too. The torque converter'll slip up until relatively loud revs if you're stood next to it at standstill."Car was not revving is a diesel and is an Automatic 1foot gas 1 foot brake no revving at standstill. He’s trying to add this for context."
You can rev an auto diesel in neutral whilst the car is on the handbrake.
TooMany2cvs said:
You can't, since you're guilty of it. If you deny it, then let that slip out, the rest of your statement will lose all credibility. At the end of the day, it's your word against his - although you started off saying there were two policemen outside the club.
It's a £100 and no points fixed penalty normally, but a maximum fine of £500. Deny it to start with, then accept it - or, worse, be found guilty - in court, and you will get hit with more than £100.
Is there an exception to offences when you are directed to do so by a uniformed officer?It's a £100 and no points fixed penalty normally, but a maximum fine of £500. Deny it to start with, then accept it - or, worse, be found guilty - in court, and you will get hit with more than £100.
I would argue that my manoeuvre was interrupted by a police officer who hand signalled me to make another manoeuvre of which I had no idea of the urgency so complied.
I think if it's gone to court anyway, the fixed penalty no longer applies.
TooMany2cvs said:
You can't, since you're guilty of it. If you deny it, then let that slip out, the rest of your statement will lose all credibility. At the end of the day, it's your word against his - although you started off saying there were two policemen outside the club.
It's a £100 and no points fixed penalty normally, but a maximum fine of £500. Deny it to start with, then accept it - or, worse, be found guilty - in court, and you will get hit with more than £100.
I haven't provided a statement yet. but if i go guilty for seat-belt then isn't that half way there for the due care?It's a £100 and no points fixed penalty normally, but a maximum fine of £500. Deny it to start with, then accept it - or, worse, be found guilty - in court, and you will get hit with more than £100.
There were two officers, but plan is to deny it as i had it on about to reverse park. Officer was waving to move on... and at that point he mentioned he seen me with it of.
So thats the situation.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff