Can you still get a fine/points...
Discussion
mungo said:
But would it be possible to recieve somthing throught the post or do you have to be pulled over at the time for action to be taken?
For an offence like dangerous driving you would not have to be pulled over for at the time.
They would PNC check your car to get your details then put a file together with statements from the police officer(s). You would then either be requested to attend the police station voluntarily to be interviewed about the offence or recieve a court summons through the post.
If any traffic officers on here know different then say... I'm a shift officer and traffic isn't my strongest area.
Sounds about right but from experience and for the offence of Dangerous driving 99.9 times out of 100 the person would be stopped at the time to save identification issues at a later date.
Tonyrec said:
Sounds about right but from experience and for the offence of Dangerous driving 99.9 times out of 100 the person would be stopped at the time to save identification issues at a later date.
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, but why wouldn't the person be stopped 100 times out of 100 in order to stop him/her from more dangerous driving?
It could be argued that if police witnessed, what they considered was Dangerous Driving, enough to prepare a prosecution file but not stop the offender at the time,then allowing the offender to continue doing so could be "Aiding and Abetting" the continued offence?
It may weaken their prosecution case that the offender was driving dangerously if, they didn't take reasonable steps to stop the offender, being in plain clothes/unmarked car then they could've called up for a marked unit to stop the offender for them.
Likewise, if the offender is permitted to continue unchallenged on his drive from hell and then has an accident, how would it look to the court if it could be shown that the accident could have been prevented had the police stopped him when the chance presented itself earlier.
>> Edited by phillipj on Thursday 16th February 15:26
>> Edited by phillipj on Thursday 16th February 15:26
It may weaken their prosecution case that the offender was driving dangerously if, they didn't take reasonable steps to stop the offender, being in plain clothes/unmarked car then they could've called up for a marked unit to stop the offender for them.
Likewise, if the offender is permitted to continue unchallenged on his drive from hell and then has an accident, how would it look to the court if it could be shown that the accident could have been prevented had the police stopped him when the chance presented itself earlier.
>> Edited by phillipj on Thursday 16th February 15:26
>> Edited by phillipj on Thursday 16th February 15:26
For aiding and abetting offence Phil one has to prove the offender aided, abetted, counselled or procured the offence non of which apply to a Plod witnessing dangerous driving.
Ther may however be something under Police Discipline Regs depending and I repeat DEPENDING on the circumstances but it would have to be something very blatant....
dvd
Ther may however be something under Police Discipline Regs depending and I repeat DEPENDING on the circumstances but it would have to be something very blatant....
dvd
DVD, I was thinking that by allowing him to continue to drive in the same manner as they witnessed could be arguably "aiding" him to continue by not actively taking steps to stop him? "to knowingly Use, Cause or Permit" the offender to commit an offence?
I admit it is perhaps, a bit too technical perhaps, I don't know, worth thinking about though.
I agree that the BiB in these circumstances might be asking for Reg 9 for "neglect of duty" or "misconduct in public office" though.
>> Edited by phillipj on Friday 17th February 09:13
I admit it is perhaps, a bit too technical perhaps, I don't know, worth thinking about though.
I agree that the BiB in these circumstances might be asking for Reg 9 for "neglect of duty" or "misconduct in public office" though.
>> Edited by phillipj on Friday 17th February 09:13
phillipj said:
DVD, I was thinking that by allowing him to continue to drive in the same manner as they witnessed could be arguably "aiding" him to continue by not actively taking steps to stop him? "to knowingly Use, Cause or Permit" the offender to commit an offence?
I admit it is perhaps, a bit too technical perhaps, I don't know, worth thinking about though.
I agree that the BiB in these circumstances might be asking for Reg 9 for "neglect of duty" or "misconduct in public office" though.
>> Edited by phillipj on Friday 17th February 09:13
If this is the case then surely the scameras are in the same position. They photograph you let you go on your way and send you notice up to 14 days later through the post. Just a thought!
If it's a civvy manned mobile scamera then they have no power to stop you. BUT I suppose if the Aiding and Abetting offence was ever tested in court, and upheld (in respect of my earlier thread) then I suppose, a police officer zapping you for dangerous speed per say, might be duty bound to stop you from continuing to drive at said dangerous speed.
He'd be a very busy Bib having to drive after each speeder or call up another to do it for him.
He'd be a very busy Bib having to drive after each speeder or call up another to do it for him.
flemke said:
Sounds about right but from experience and for the offence of Dangerous driving 99.9 times out of 100 the person would be stopped at the time to save identification issues at a later date.
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, but why wouldn't the person be stopped 100 times out of 100 in order to stop him/her from more dangerous driving?
Good question.
There are always going to be times when its impossible to stop them. I could be doing something more important.........do you get the picture?
However, its better to stop speak and report at the time, saves a lot of unecessary hassle later.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff