Prosecuted for something Police refused to prosecute for
Discussion
Something I have wondered about as a hypothetical in the past...
The scenario
Person A is driving along, minding their own business, then encounters Person B. Person B does something that is, in their mind, dangerous driving. It could be road-rage, racing, inappropriate speed, badly-timed overtake, not important.
Person A decides to do their civic duty / snitch (you decide) and reports Person B to the Police, with a dashcam video. PC Idontcare is on duty that day, shrugs and say "nothing to do with us, see ya!". Something that I'm sure happens at many cop shops every day
Person A, feeling disillusioned, decides "stuff it, I might as well drive like a bell-end too".
Whilst Person A now drives a bell, Person C witnesses him doing something dangerous. He snitches/civic duties over to the Police station and finds a more sympathetic ear, PC Brake. PC Brake takes the dashcam video very seriously indeed and vows to throw the full force of the law at Person A.
The outcome
Person A can obviously be charged with whatever PC Brake thinks he saw on the video. The CPS may also wish to take it to court.
Person A's original complaint bears no relation to Person A's charge. But, are the Police opening themselves up to a complaint by not having investigated the dangerous driving originally brought to their attention by Person A?
TLDR
Are the Police careful to apply standards consistently to avoid differing treatment?
Do their procedures and policies ensure this?
Has anything ever come from someone complaining after being charged/convicted of something the Police had previously dismissed when they reported it?
Should the Police just smile and nod and pretend they will look into this sort of thing just to avoid any fallout later? Conversely, should there be a big poster at every Police station saying "we only investigate traffic offences we witnessed ourselves"?
The scenario
Person A is driving along, minding their own business, then encounters Person B. Person B does something that is, in their mind, dangerous driving. It could be road-rage, racing, inappropriate speed, badly-timed overtake, not important.
Person A decides to do their civic duty / snitch (you decide) and reports Person B to the Police, with a dashcam video. PC Idontcare is on duty that day, shrugs and say "nothing to do with us, see ya!". Something that I'm sure happens at many cop shops every day
Person A, feeling disillusioned, decides "stuff it, I might as well drive like a bell-end too".
Whilst Person A now drives a bell, Person C witnesses him doing something dangerous. He snitches/civic duties over to the Police station and finds a more sympathetic ear, PC Brake. PC Brake takes the dashcam video very seriously indeed and vows to throw the full force of the law at Person A.
The outcome
Person A can obviously be charged with whatever PC Brake thinks he saw on the video. The CPS may also wish to take it to court.
Person A's original complaint bears no relation to Person A's charge. But, are the Police opening themselves up to a complaint by not having investigated the dangerous driving originally brought to their attention by Person A?
TLDR
Are the Police careful to apply standards consistently to avoid differing treatment?
Do their procedures and policies ensure this?
Has anything ever come from someone complaining after being charged/convicted of something the Police had previously dismissed when they reported it?
Should the Police just smile and nod and pretend they will look into this sort of thing just to avoid any fallout later? Conversely, should there be a big poster at every Police station saying "we only investigate traffic offences we witnessed ourselves"?
Thesprucegoose said:
Why are posters so vague and why would anyone decide to drive like a dick 'because someone else has...
It wasn't intentionally vague, I was trying to avoid hitting triggers that would send people off on rants, hence Person A could be an "adenoidal dashcam warrior" or a "concerned member of the public", either "snitching" or "doing one's civic duty" depending on your view of dashcams and reporting such things. Just trying to get away from emotive terms and keeping people on the "well, what if?" line of thinking. As to your second point, I have heard plenty of people voicing sentiments along the lines of "Why should I bother if no bugger else does?" in every facet of life from driving to diet to recycling to finance. The great social contract; if enough people don't fulfill their part of the contract why should anyone etc. etc.
I think maybe this is a matter that few have pondered. Perhaps it's better to close it now.
Ignorance is not an excuse, but wilful disobedience might be considered an aggravating factor in the prosecution of person A. So while person B was driving like a tit, the police/CPS might assume it was at least unintentional. If person A recognises that the act was unlawful then proceeds to perform it anyway, if it was brought to the attention of the police and it became known that A flaunted the law rather than being unaware of it that might push ‘stern b
king’ into ‘visit the magistrate ‘ territory.
I do recognise that this info wouldn’t be available at the point person C reports person A, just furthering the thought experiment.
king’ into ‘visit the magistrate ‘ territory.I do recognise that this info wouldn’t be available at the point person C reports person A, just furthering the thought experiment.
luckystrike said:
Ignorance is not an excuse, but wilful disobedience might be considered an aggravating factor in the prosecution of person A. So while person B was driving like a tit, the police/CPS might assume it was at least unintentional. If person A recognises that the act was unlawful then proceeds to perform it anyway, if it was brought to the attention of the police and it became known that A flaunted the law rather than being unaware of it that might push ‘stern bking’ into ‘visit the magistrate ‘ territory.
I do recognise that this info wouldn’t be available at the point person C reports person A, just furthering the thought experiment.
I would tend to agree with this.king’ into ‘visit the magistrate ‘ territory.I do recognise that this info wouldn’t be available at the point person C reports person A, just furthering the thought experiment.
Person B might just drive like a tit normally, unaware or uncaring about their t
ttishness.Person A has seen Person B and made a conscious decision to alter their driving to compete in the t
ttishness stakes.Person B is a knob but Person A should know better.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff