Prosecution from 3rd-party dash cam?
Discussion
One of MrsC's colleagues, a friend of ours, is in a bit of a state currently. She's had a letter from the police stating that they have received dash cam footage of her driving "dangerously", sent in to them by a 3rd party, and included with the letter was a form to complete a formal statement about what happened, why, how, etc. They will apparently subsequently decide whether to prosecute or not.
She has no recollection whatsoever of any interaction or altercation with anyone else on the evening in question (although she does know she was out at the time because she'd been to an event in the evening). Alcohol definitely not involved. She may be slightly scatty in general but she just potters about in an ancient Honda HRV. You would think that if it was bad enough for plod to get involved, she would at least remember doing something iffy?
She's enlisted the help of a BiB friend to complete the statement - not sure what she put on it other than that essentially she has no idea what they're on about.
My question is: if some random sends dash cam footage in of someone else's driving just because they didn't like it, can, and indeed will, the police actually prosecute against that, or is it just a question of writing a letter saying something like "we didn't like what we saw, don't let it happen again"?
She has no recollection whatsoever of any interaction or altercation with anyone else on the evening in question (although she does know she was out at the time because she'd been to an event in the evening). Alcohol definitely not involved. She may be slightly scatty in general but she just potters about in an ancient Honda HRV. You would think that if it was bad enough for plod to get involved, she would at least remember doing something iffy?
She's enlisted the help of a BiB friend to complete the statement - not sure what she put on it other than that essentially she has no idea what they're on about.
My question is: if some random sends dash cam footage in of someone else's driving just because they didn't like it, can, and indeed will, the police actually prosecute against that, or is it just a question of writing a letter saying something like "we didn't like what we saw, don't let it happen again"?
La Liga said:
I’d need to see the paperwork, but I think I’d be asking to be interviewed at the police station.
There she can have free legal advice present and disclosure of the evidence against her.
I'll have to check but I got the impression that she'd returned the statement request already.There she can have free legal advice present and disclosure of the evidence against her.
So in essence, is prosecution possible from this type of evidence?
CAPP0 said:
a letter from the police stating that they have received dash cam footage of her driving "dangerously", sent in to them by a 3rd party
...
She may be slightly scatty in general but she just potters about in an ancient Honda HRV. You would think that if it was bad enough for plod to get involved, she would at least remember doing something iffy?
Depends on what the "dangerous driving" incident is. If she's the kind of "generally-scatty-just-potters" that, let's be honest, we're all thinking of, then it's entirely possible (likely, even) that she's blithely carved somebody up simply because she didn't see them....
She may be slightly scatty in general but she just potters about in an ancient Honda HRV. You would think that if it was bad enough for plod to get involved, she would at least remember doing something iffy?
CAPP0 said:
My question is: if some random sends dash cam footage in of someone else's driving just because they didn't like it, can, and indeed will, the police actually prosecute against that, or is it just a question of writing a letter saying something like "we didn't like what we saw, don't let it happen again"?
Depends. The video certainly can be evidence. If what it shows is clear enough, and the driver's identifiable, then why on earth not?If it was even remotely borderline, would they be saying "dangerous"? Surely they'd be heading towards a nice simple FP for careless/DWDC&A?
I wondered this the other day - followed a car to a set of lights that where red as he sneaked through. I caught up with him by the next set and again, they went red and he went through so late the car coming on green from the other direction had to brake!
Don't have a cam but wondered if people seeing people behave SO dangerous can just shop them in (although realise on here that starts a whole...but where does that end, convo)
Don't have a cam but wondered if people seeing people behave SO dangerous can just shop them in (although realise on here that starts a whole...but where does that end, convo)
Does anyone else think the whole "dashcam dobbing" in thing is a little unsavoury or is it just me? Fair enough if you have a bump or are forced off the road into a field by some lunatic, feel free to use the footage for that purpose, but generally using miscellaneous clips to get people in bother with the law stinks in my book
ks?Just been talking to MrsC again (and it REALLY isn't her) and she told me where this is supposed to have happened. The letter apparently refers to a "level crossing" but the only level crossing near where this happened is onto a riverside area which is a dead end so there's not chance she would have been going round there (she was on her way home at the time). HOWEVER.....potential simple clerical error: there is a pelican crossing, or whatever those are called, a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing, on the road she would have ben travelling on. My guess is going to be that she went through the lights on red and the car behind her filmed that.
If so then that's a definite no-no although I have no idea whether it constitutes a DD rather that a DWDCA.
If so then that's a definite no-no although I have no idea whether it constitutes a DD rather that a DWDCA.
CAPP0 said:
Just been talking to MrsC again (and it REALLY isn't her) and she told me where this is supposed to have happened. The letter apparently refers to a "level crossing" but the only level crossing near where this happened is onto a riverside area which is a dead end so there's not chance she would have been going round there (she was on her way home at the time). HOWEVER.....potential simple clerical error: there is a pelican crossing, or whatever those are called, a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing, on the road she would have ben travelling on. My guess is going to be that she went through the lights on red and the car behind her filmed that.
If so then that's a definite no-no although I have no idea whether it constitutes a DD rather that a DWDCA.
I'd have thought that would be a simple TS10 FP, unless... Was there somebody using the crossing at the time?If so then that's a definite no-no although I have no idea whether it constitutes a DD rather that a DWDCA.
The question wasn't whether it stinks, it was whether it's legal. It is.
Like with other evidence (e.g., from speed cameras), the police will not be obliged to provide any evidence until after the driver has been charged and a not guilty plea has been entered. It doesn't seem fair, but that's how it goes.
Like with other evidence (e.g., from speed cameras), the police will not be obliged to provide any evidence until after the driver has been charged and a not guilty plea has been entered. It doesn't seem fair, but that's how it goes.
If she's been asked to complete a statement about whats happened with a view to deciding whether to prosecute her then they must suspect her of an offence. That wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny and I would imagine it would be thrown out straight away and is, frankly, illegal.
If it's not a 172 request, and you haven't been given duff info about what has actually been sent, and it is what you said, then I wouldn't send anything back at all.
If they want to obtain an account from her then they can do it in an interview, under caution, when you've had access to a solicitor and fully aware of the ramifications of answering questions.
I can't believe though that a police force has actually done it as you have described.
If she has enlisted a BiB friend and it is how you describe then what on earth is that police officer doing either getting involved at all or not questioning the legality of it.
If it's not a 172 request, and you haven't been given duff info about what has actually been sent, and it is what you said, then I wouldn't send anything back at all.
If they want to obtain an account from her then they can do it in an interview, under caution, when you've had access to a solicitor and fully aware of the ramifications of answering questions.
I can't believe though that a police force has actually done it as you have described.
If she has enlisted a BiB friend and it is how you describe then what on earth is that police officer doing either getting involved at all or not questioning the legality of it.
Edited by TheBear on Friday 22 December 10:36
STe_rsv4 said:
Does anyone else think the whole "dashcam dobbing" in thing is a little unsavoury or is it just me? Fair enough if you have a bump or are forced off the road into a field by some lunatic, feel free to use the footage for that purpose, but generally using miscellaneous clips to get people in bother with the law stinks in my book
On the contrary, I believe that any chance to get those who're truly guilty of dangerous / bad driving will be of benefit to the rest of us petrolheads.Get the idiots off the road, those that can't handle a car proficiently, those with no observance/awareness, those that obstruct, those that are inconsiderate, educate them, and then maybe the roads will become a safer place, and maybe technical enforcement and painfully slow speed limits could be relaxed.
Yeah, I know - dream on.
TheBear said:
If she's been asked to complete a statement about whats happened with a view to deciding whether to prosecute her then they must suspect her of an offence. That wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny and I would imagine it would be thrown out straight away and is, frankly, illegal.
If it's not a 172 request, and you haven't been given duff info about what has actually been sent, and it is what you said, then I wouldn't send anything back at all.
If they want to obtain an account from her then they can do it in an interview, under caution, when you've had access to a solicitor and fully aware of the ramifications of answering questions.
I can't believe though that a police force has actually done it as you have described.
only have it second hand, I haven't actually seen anything but as above is how it's been played back to me.If it's not a 172 request, and you haven't been given duff info about what has actually been sent, and it is what you said, then I wouldn't send anything back at all.
If they want to obtain an account from her then they can do it in an interview, under caution, when you've had access to a solicitor and fully aware of the ramifications of answering questions.
I can't believe though that a police force has actually done it as you have described.
Jarcy said:
Get the idiots off the road, those that can't handle a car proficiently, those with no observance/awareness, those that obstruct, those that are inconsiderate, educate them, and then maybe the roads will become a safer place, and maybe technical enforcement and painfully slow speed limits could be relaxed.
The roads would be a safer place? There would barely be a car on them if this was done 
Jarcy said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Does anyone else think the whole "dashcam dobbing" in thing is a little unsavoury or is it just me? Fair enough if you have a bump or are forced off the road into a field by some lunatic, feel free to use the footage for that purpose, but generally using miscellaneous clips to get people in bother with the law stinks in my book
On the contrary, I believe that any chance to get those who're truly guilty of dangerous / bad driving will be of benefit to the rest of us petrolheads.Get the idiots off the road, those that can't handle a car proficiently, those with no observance/awareness, those that obstruct, those that are inconsiderate, educate them, and then maybe the roads will become a safer place, and maybe technical enforcement and painfully slow speed limits could be relaxed.
Yeah, I know - dream on.
Or the prat that accelerates toward you when you have pulled out at a roundabout safely but because he has a dashcam and a horn thinks it makes better entertainment.
When does it stop?
STe_rsv4 said:
Does anyone else think the whole "dashcam dobbing" in thing is a little unsavoury or is it just me? Fair enough if you have a bump or are forced off the road into a field by some lunatic, feel free to use the footage for that purpose, but generally using miscellaneous clips to get people in bother with the law stinks in my book
There is something distinctively Walt-ish about the whole thing. I passed a car that was plastered in stickers similar to these: Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff