Driving without Due care
Discussion
You can be reported for many like offences covering the same circumstances at once. You can be charged with many like offences covering the same circumstances at once. CPS will decide which offences are summonsed or which are laid before the court. They may well use some of the charges as a lever to plea bargain by dropping one or two of the minor ones for a guilty plea on a more serious offence. If that is not successful, then all charges may go before the bench for their decision. The Bench may find some of the charges not proved but others relating to the circumstances proved if a number of like offences are heard by them.
Its like having two bites at the cherry!
If the prosecution go for only one offence and that is found to be not proved, they have lost everything. By having a backup offence to fall on, they can get a conviction for something if the bench agree that the evidence to support the charge has been met, even if that offence is a lesser evil with a lesser penalty. Hence three possible charges for holding a phone whilst driving. The suspect could be charged with all or any alternative of the following.
1. Due Care
2. Failing to maintain proper control
3. Using a mobile phone whilst driving
Its like having two bites at the cherry!
If the prosecution go for only one offence and that is found to be not proved, they have lost everything. By having a backup offence to fall on, they can get a conviction for something if the bench agree that the evidence to support the charge has been met, even if that offence is a lesser evil with a lesser penalty. Hence three possible charges for holding a phone whilst driving. The suspect could be charged with all or any alternative of the following.
1. Due Care
2. Failing to maintain proper control
3. Using a mobile phone whilst driving
Thanks for that mg6b, but doesn't it just show up how random the justice system is at mags court level, where the CPS treat the whole thing like a game of poker and bluff away whatever their first dealt hand looks like? If they think it's important to 'get something' out of 'it' this can only be because of feckwit BLiar's incompetent government and their obsession with targets. Never mind if the targets are meaningless and counter-productive. If any of the likely charges are insupportable they should be dropped...oh hang on, in everything except motoring offences they are.
This is what you get when the country is run by folk who go from membership of 'young socialists' to university where they march on anti-capitalist and anti-government demos so that MI5 keep a file on them, then join CND and the communist party, go in for local politics in some inner city pinko republic, then 'progress' to westminster where they pontificate on everything using bonkers ideology in place of the realism that has eluded them due to their insular lives. Not a proper job in sight, and life experience so restricted it would make a hermit recluse look informed.
Only High Court Judges could possibly be more removed from reality.
This is what you get when the country is run by folk who go from membership of 'young socialists' to university where they march on anti-capitalist and anti-government demos so that MI5 keep a file on them, then join CND and the communist party, go in for local politics in some inner city pinko republic, then 'progress' to westminster where they pontificate on everything using bonkers ideology in place of the realism that has eluded them due to their insular lives. Not a proper job in sight, and life experience so restricted it would make a hermit recluse look informed.
Only High Court Judges could possibly be more removed from reality.
One could argue about the legitimacy of bringing in new legislation such as mobile phone use prohibition if careless and reckless driving was already in place to deal with it.
I'm not a particular fan of this letting the courts decide which is the appropriate charge to hear or sentence on. It seems to me that once it is before the court, there is more of an inclination to make the prosecution worthwhile. Not good.
I'm not a particular fan of this letting the courts decide which is the appropriate charge to hear or sentence on. It seems to me that once it is before the court, there is more of an inclination to make the prosecution worthwhile. Not good.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Duplicity Mg6b - three offences from one single act?
dvd
But you know how it works in practice DVD 
Only last week I was in court for a Section 4 POA and Assault police (punch to the body armour), both out of the same incident. CPS plea bargained the assault police for a guilty section 4.
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 19th March 10:25
mg6b said:I'm not a legal beagle or plod but to me this is a corrupt practice.
Duplicity Mg6b - three offences from one single act?
dvd
Only last week I was in court for a Section 4 POA and Assault police (punch to the body armour), both out of the same incident. CPS plea bargained the assault police for a guilty section 4.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Sad day indeed mg6b when assault on police becomes less serious that a Section 4?
dvd
What right minded defence solicitor would not accept a plea on guilty for a section 4 rather than risk a conviction for assault police?
CPS were approached by defence decided this was the correct way to proceed!
Dwight VanDriver said:
Sad day indeed mg6b when assault on police becomes less serious that a Section 4?
dvd
Sorry for the long post, but this is very relevant - It's already happened.
I know a youngster that had his car stolen from outside a nightclub. While in the club his paging car alarm went off so he left the club to investigate. He was well over the limit but had no intention of driving home as he and his friends took it in turn to drive to the club, then they would get a cab home, and his friend would take him back the next day to collect his car. They did this every week.
As he was on the outside and just leaving the front of the club, he saw his car driving off down the side road towards a dead end (clearly the idiot that took his vehicle had no idea where he was going). He shouted at the doorman for support, but the doorman was unable to leave his post (but rang the police and later gave a statement to this effect). The guy chased the car down the road and a few minutes later, he found the car at the end of an alleyway, engine running but no one there. His keys were in the car, and later it was noted that his jacket which he had handed into the cloakroom (still had the cloak ticket to prove) had been stolen along with his keys. He drove the car 20 feet to take it out of danger (was blocking a vehicular access and was left not secured) to the back of the shops, then took the keys out and locked the car. As he was walking away from the car, the police turned up in response the call from the bouncer. It was one officer on his own. As the officer approached the youth in his panda car, the youth (now realising that he was 'in control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol' panicked and threw the keys on the floor. Unfortunately for him, the sharp observational skills of the officer saw him do so, and then tried to arrest the kid for 'TDA'. The youth who was fuelled with alcohol, and also very upset because his car had been stolen was trying to explain to the officer that he was the legal owner of the car - but the officer was not having any of it. The youth had his licence and insurance etc on his person, but when he went to produce them, a scuffle broke out. The officer tried to take the lad down, but the lad was very angry. The officer then clumped the kid in the face causing a large bruise, and the kid clumped the officer back in self defence. At this point, half the local constabulary turned up and he was arrested for TDA. They called the duty doctor, who being very Police biased, just made notes that he was arrested for drink-driving (which he was later charged with) and that he was very angry - due to being drunk.
They interviewed him then released him on bail to attend the court in a few weeks. Now they formally charged him with excessive drink and driving, and also assaulting a police officer. They dropped the TDA, and did not ask him to produce any docs as they were all in order. The lad got a lawyer, and the lawyer started to make his defence by contacting the night club and asking for the footage of the CCTV. Fortunately for him, they had a very high quality system, and not only did it show him shouting at the outside doorman, but at the same time it captured his car on another camera driving down the side of the club, with him talking to the doorman. There was also a theft report for a number of people who had lost items in the cloakroom that night - this was recorded in the managers' log and the Head-doorman's log too. In view of this, they went to court; the lawyer said that he was under no doubt that he could walk away from the DD as the evidence was crystal clear. Also the CCTV equipment had to be certified as not tampered with, and they proved that the footage was legit using a digital watermark, which the system produced. All of this at expense to the defendant.
On the day in question, 10 seconds before they were due to go in, the prosecution approached the lad and told him they were willing to 'make a deal'. The lad thought he was going to get all the charges quashed, but they offered him a 'plea bargain'. Having never heard of that he explained that this was basically where you plead to one offence and the prosecutor drops another. The prosecutor then told him that they would drop the assaulting a police officer if he pleaded guilty to the drink driving
After a few minutes to consult with his lawyer, and taking on board that it was 'damage limitation' and that he would be driving again in a few years, he opted to do this. This also would mean that he would not get a criminal record for assaulting a police officer. His lawyer then made it clear to the prosecutor that he wanted to 'air' his mitigating circumstances, and go guilty, but with the evidence released to the court, so they understood. Naturally, the prosecution decided that this was no an option (because it looked so corrupt as such a feck up) and so they told him that they would accept the plea bargain IF it was a straight guilty plea. Sadly that is what he chose to do. Two years ago the lad was a funny, outgoing guy with a good social life and a steady job. Since that ruling he has become a hermit and now he signs on. He also suffers clinical depression. And all for what? Because one officer didn't have the balls to admit he had made a mistake and didn't want to lose face. Also the idiot that stole his vehicle is probably still out there stealing other peoples cars, and if the officer had bothered to listen to him, they may have actualy caught them
It ain't right.
edited to add, the crux of this moan is about these 'plea bargains'. They used to say that the British legal system is the best in the world. Now getting justice is more like trying to buy some cheap jewelry from a market trader, and having to barter your case
>> Edited by ultimasimon on Sunday 19th March 17:51
ultimasimon said:
the crux of this moan is about these 'plea bargains'. They used to say that the British legal system is the best in the world. Now getting justice is more like trying to buy some cheap jewelry from a market trader, and having to barter your case
Legal beagle friend, family full of top barristers including criminal work...doesn't make them infallible but their view has to be worth listening to...reckon magistrates courts represent "justice by the yard". They're right, though a yard seems too generous, by the inch would be better.
Two other people I know very well became involved in another case that highlights this crappy system for what it is...one, accused of assault, the other a 'senior' magistrate. After being arrested for the alleged assault mate number one was offered the chance to be 'bound over' and had it explained to him that this involved something like an acknowledgement of wrong-doing rather than an admission of guilt (??) and pressure was applied to him on the basis that "it will all end here and now". Friend, 100% not guilty, says no way, wanting his day in Court (risky). So he's charged and bailed.
Before the first hearing, he sees a legal aid brief and tells them that on the day in question he can prove beyond any doubt that he and the alleged victim were about 250 miles apart all day on the date of the alleged assault. Disclosure follows in exchanges. No worries say the police/CPS (whatever) we'll just change the details to "a date between X and Y it makes no difference". Friend is slightly perturbed that this sign of clear bollocktalking by the accuser doesn't stop the case there and then, gets more determined to have his day.
Later, in a room of the magistates court, he and his brief are chatting away about the case when the CPS solicitor want to have a word. Brief goes out for the chat and returns, re-stating the offer to be bound over. Mate says no way, was offered this before and will not do anything that is other than proclaiming total innocence. Mate and brief walk into court, CPS solicitor stands up and says that the prosecution offer no evidence. Matey is puzzled and whispers to brief what the hell is going on, brief says you can go now, the case will be dismissed and you're fre to go, bail conditions now zapped as well. Free man, no stain on charcter etc etc.
Outside, friend asks brief what went down inside, and is told that the CPS were trying to salvage something from a lost cause, the 'something' being my friend getting bound over. Bent over and shafted more like.
At a polite tea party with this friend and the senior mag present, matey tells his story. Wow, says senior mag, I never thought of the offer of being bound over as being used in this way. WTF?
It truly is poker not justice. If matey had lost his nerve...
That's disgusting. The guy I mentioned, has since deeply regretted admitting to something that he didn't do. Even if he won his DD case (which he would have), he thinks that he would rather have been found guilty of assaulting an officer, than have to lose his social life for two years (it may have been more, I cannot remember). Meanwhile the true perpetrator is free to commit more crime.
In either of these instances how could a plea bargain be of any use to the CPS? What possible good comes from it?
Why do they do it ?? It doesn't help crime or justice in any way and it looks makes the legal system look like its being run by people that don't have a clue.
In either of these instances how could a plea bargain be of any use to the CPS? What possible good comes from it?
Why do they do it ?? It doesn't help crime or justice in any way and it looks makes the legal system look like its being run by people that don't have a clue.
justinp1 said:
Both of these cases are really sad and very wrong.
What about instead of contacting the defence ten minutes before trial and offering a bargain, they were just honest and say 'This case is rubbish, sorry for wasting your time!'
I think you have hit the nail on the head. If the officer had been man enough to just say sorry at the station when he had found that the drivers' account was correct i.e. he had the correct documentation and therefore had not stolen his own car, a simple apology might have gotten him his ears chewed off at worse, but justice would have been done.
Instead, its a big cover up, and they have destroyed someones' life
NOTE: This is not about slagging off Police officers, they have a job and a half to do.
As for the plea bargain bit, I fail to understand how this can be tolerated when a court case is all about following up every shred of evidence to the letter of the law... and yet a CP can 'play God' with any offences he sees fit and then throw out or bargain with whatever offences he has in his hand.
Prosecution Poker anyone?
Ballistic Banana said:
So should someone charged with these two offences plead not guilty hoping they might get bargaining and only charged with One?
BB
If you are not guilty, then you should plead not guilty. I have done this on two occasions and have a 50% record of justice being served.
i would have thought that even if the CPS brought both offences to court, the clerk should advise the grounds on which the magistrates need to work on for each offense, and they would find you guilty of the worse of the two if you technically be found guilty of both.
It would depend on the circumstances of the case also. If the evidence given is that whilst you were being observed you were guilty of driving without due care, and in addition to that you were on the phone then a suppose that *is* two offences. However, if it is merely the fact that you were on the phone, but apart from that your driving gave no cause for concern, it could be argued that the more relevant offence would be the using the phone one.
It would depend completely on the wording of the witness statement(s).
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 20th March 00:24
justinp1 said:
If you are not guilty, then you should plead not guilty. I have done this on two occasions and have a 50% record of justice being served.
I take it that means a score of 1 each (1 conviction, 1 acquittal)?
Why is that 50% record of justice served? The conviction was not justice?
Do you mean justice is only served when you are let off/found not guilty?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff