Dangerous Driving - ADVICE PLZ
Discussion
Hi
I wonder if anyone can give me a little advice...
My partner has just rung me to tell me he was just pulled over and warned he will be receiving a court summons to appear for dangerous driving.
Basically driving home he pulled into the outside lane of the motorway realised he was far too close to the BMW infront then slowed down to try create a bigger gap. Anyways once he had overtaken the cars he wanted, to he pulled back in. A couple of mins later the BMW he had pulled up to close to in the outside lane appeared beside him with a police man telling him thru the window whilst the partner was still driving along to pull off at the next junction.
Anyways, he pulled over got out of his van and was very apologetic saying he had made a mistake and that he had tried to rectify it but they was having none of it. And informed him that he could not receive a fixed penalty points and fine but instead would be going to court for DANGEROUS DRIVING!!!! Yes I cant believe it!!! Being convincted for Dangerous driving is a obligatory disqualification, unlimited fine and upto 2 years in prison. Yet the policeman who he spoke to at the side of the road says it was gona be 3 or 6 points and a fine!!! Hmmmm.... Anyways my partner has a clean license currently so what happens now. I did not think this warrented dangerous driving as there was no intention there to tailgate it was an error!
Also if it does go to court will they bring up the fact that he was banned 6 years ago even though this is no longer on his license?
Can anyone give me some advice please.
Thanks
Jenny
I wonder if anyone can give me a little advice...
My partner has just rung me to tell me he was just pulled over and warned he will be receiving a court summons to appear for dangerous driving.
Basically driving home he pulled into the outside lane of the motorway realised he was far too close to the BMW infront then slowed down to try create a bigger gap. Anyways once he had overtaken the cars he wanted, to he pulled back in. A couple of mins later the BMW he had pulled up to close to in the outside lane appeared beside him with a police man telling him thru the window whilst the partner was still driving along to pull off at the next junction.
Anyways, he pulled over got out of his van and was very apologetic saying he had made a mistake and that he had tried to rectify it but they was having none of it. And informed him that he could not receive a fixed penalty points and fine but instead would be going to court for DANGEROUS DRIVING!!!! Yes I cant believe it!!! Being convincted for Dangerous driving is a obligatory disqualification, unlimited fine and upto 2 years in prison. Yet the policeman who he spoke to at the side of the road says it was gona be 3 or 6 points and a fine!!! Hmmmm.... Anyways my partner has a clean license currently so what happens now. I did not think this warrented dangerous driving as there was no intention there to tailgate it was an error!
Also if it does go to court will they bring up the fact that he was banned 6 years ago even though this is no longer on his license?
Can anyone give me some advice please.
Thanks
Jenny
Lol i know trust me this is not my usual hang out I just didnt think he would be too please with me using his user name.
Im not sure what paperwork he has if any as he is not home yet, he said on the phone some thing about them sending it through the post.
I really dont know what we are going to do if he loses his license everyone probably says that but I really dont. He is a self employed window fitter and needs his van otherwise he cant work and support his 13month old daughter and I as he is the sole provider.
Hmmm.... what next.
Im not sure what paperwork he has if any as he is not home yet, he said on the phone some thing about them sending it through the post.
I really dont know what we are going to do if he loses his license everyone probably says that but I really dont. He is a self employed window fitter and needs his van otherwise he cant work and support his 13month old daughter and I as he is the sole provider.
Hmmm.... what next.
Dangerous driving is a serious offence, requires a lot of evidence & is difficult to prove.
Driving without due care is still treated seriously (although obviously not as serious as dangerous driving), but is relatively easy to commit if you aren't careful & is also relatively easy to prove.
It is correct that Driving without due care & dangerous driving are not FPN offences, you have to go to court. It is not unusual when a Police officer is giving a verbal NIP (Notice of Intended prosecution) to tell you that you will be reported for one or more of the offences of dangerous/careless driving. The actual decision over which offence you are eventually summonsed for will be made after a review of the evidence.
Driving without due care is still treated seriously (although obviously not as serious as dangerous driving), but is relatively easy to commit if you aren't careful & is also relatively easy to prove.
It is correct that Driving without due care & dangerous driving are not FPN offences, you have to go to court. It is not unusual when a Police officer is giving a verbal NIP (Notice of Intended prosecution) to tell you that you will be reported for one or more of the offences of dangerous/careless driving. The actual decision over which offence you are eventually summonsed for will be made after a review of the evidence.
sexylittlejenjen said:
So how long until we find out what is going on then??
And how long do these things normally take to go to court?
And how long do these things normally take to go to court?
They have 6 months in which to start proceedings, but even after they are started, it would be sometime on top before any contested case would be heard before the court.
vonhosen said:
It is not unusual when a Police officer is giving a verbal NIP (Notice of Intended prosecution) to tell you that you will be reported for one or more of the offences of dangerous/careless driving. The actual decision over which offence you are eventually summonsed for will be made after a review of the evidence.
I believe that careless is an alternative verdict in dangerous cases, so the mag can decide that the lower charge was more appropriate if dangerous is charged.
7db said:
vonhosen said:
It is not unusual when a Police officer is giving a verbal NIP (Notice of Intended prosecution) to tell you that you will be reported for one or more of the offences of dangerous/careless driving. The actual decision over which offence you are eventually summonsed for will be made after a review of the evidence.
I believe that careless is an alternative verdict in dangerous cases, so the mag can decide that the lower charge was more appropriate if dangerous is charged.
Yes, but where under review there isn't deemed sufficient evidence of dangerous for a likely conviction that offence wouldn't get to the magistrate, it would have been a summons for careless instead.
They have to determine how far the driving fell below acceptable standards by more reasoned "numpties" 
Did he move into L3 .. or did he join from slip road and go straight to L3 at a speed which caused him to close in to near to the BMW? Und then back off ...
How far above 70mph was he? They can run a DD if well over the ton in this country ..depends a lot on the evidence und how far below standard as to whether "dangerous v careless" und burden of proof.
As for his previous ban on a tot-up. Should not be factor in the evidence provided against him ..he ist on trial for this offence und he has already served ban und fines under the tot up. It would matter very much if he's already been banned for drink driving or other dangerous charges though und be taken into account when sentencing.
Did he move into L3 .. or did he join from slip road and go straight to L3 at a speed which caused him to close in to near to the BMW? Und then back off ...
How far above 70mph was he? They can run a DD if well over the ton in this country ..depends a lot on the evidence und how far below standard as to whether "dangerous v careless" und burden of proof.
As for his previous ban on a tot-up. Should not be factor in the evidence provided against him ..he ist on trial for this offence und he has already served ban und fines under the tot up. It would matter very much if he's already been banned for drink driving or other dangerous charges though und be taken into account when sentencing.
WildCat said:
They have to determine how far the driving fell below acceptable standards by more reasoned "numpties"
How far above 70mph was he? They can run a DD if well over the ton in this country ..depends a lot on the evidence und how far below standard as to whether "dangerous v careless" und burden of proof.
How far above 70mph was he? They can run a DD if well over the ton in this country ..depends a lot on the evidence und how far below standard as to whether "dangerous v careless" und burden of proof.
It appears that in this past year or two the courts have (rightly IMHO) been rejecting the notion of a very high speed of itself amounting to dangerous driving.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
If charged with DD get a good solicitor and instruct him to speak with the CPS lawyers to say that his client will fight DD with a 'not-guilty' all the way to appeal if necessary. However, his client might plead guilty to Driving Without Due Care as an alternative and do this without taking up any court time. Unless the driving was really dangerous and, normally, involved an accident as part of the evidence, it's 99% likely that the CPS will run the Driving Without Due Care which should equal 3 or 4 points for a 'guilty' plea.
Remember, your solicitor will be stressing that no collision happened, no other vehicles were involved, caused to take avoiding action (if all is as you say), or placed in significant danger. It's just the work on one person with no 3rd party witnesses (presumably). DD is very serious and a court may well not be willing to take just one or two persons (in the same car) word without corroborating evidence.
I shouldn't worry too much. It just may cost a bit in lawyers charges.
Remember, your solicitor will be stressing that no collision happened, no other vehicles were involved, caused to take avoiding action (if all is as you say), or placed in significant danger. It's just the work on one person with no 3rd party witnesses (presumably). DD is very serious and a court may well not be willing to take just one or two persons (in the same car) word without corroborating evidence.
I shouldn't worry too much. It just may cost a bit in lawyers charges.
DD does seem a bit OTT for a brief bit of tailgating...So, he got close to a car in front, then pulled back. Then pulled over when it was clear? Hardly sounds like plod would bother..
I don't suppose he sat up their a**e whilst flashing, waving his arms etc.. and swerving wildly about? That is my experience of the white van man driving on a motorway.
Perhaps he needs to make sure of exactly what he did that day? Any plod on here who would honestly pull someone for driving close, who then pulled back to a safer distance?
I don't suppose he sat up their a**e whilst flashing, waving his arms etc.. and swerving wildly about? That is my experience of the white van man driving on a motorway.
Perhaps he needs to make sure of exactly what he did that day? Any plod on here who would honestly pull someone for driving close, who then pulled back to a safer distance?
One side - description is likely bollox. Sorry "jenjen" but that the score.
Other side : Policemen like to call on the "I will have you done for DD" as they know full well it puts the fear of god into people.
In reality, DD is very hard to prove and chances of CPS running with it are slim. There have been cases recently where someone who was drunk and driving on the pavement was deemed not dangerous.
If they charge, lawyers letter to the CPS going for careless should work.
Other side : Policemen like to call on the "I will have you done for DD" as they know full well it puts the fear of god into people.
In reality, DD is very hard to prove and chances of CPS running with it are slim. There have been cases recently where someone who was drunk and driving on the pavement was deemed not dangerous.
If they charge, lawyers letter to the CPS going for careless should work.
ohopkins said:
One side - description is likely bollox. Sorry "jenjen" but that the score.
Other side : Policemen like to call on the "I will have you done for DD" as they know full well it puts the fear of god into people.
In reality, DD is very hard to prove and chances of CPS running with it are slim. There have been cases recently where someone who was drunk and driving on the pavement was deemed not dangerous.
If they charge, lawyers letter to the CPS going for careless should work.
Other side : Policemen like to call on the "I will have you done for DD" as they know full well it puts the fear of god into people.
In reality, DD is very hard to prove and chances of CPS running with it are slim. There have been cases recently where someone who was drunk and driving on the pavement was deemed not dangerous.
If they charge, lawyers letter to the CPS going for careless should work.
I'm sorry, completely inaccurate!; the real world works in exactly the reverse.
I am trying to find time to finish a resume and post it on here of what is the worst case I have ever been involved in, a charge of DD in the most outrageous circumstances and the accused was convicted and lost his licence and his livelihood on the unsupported testimony of one officer in Scotland: absolutely outrageous.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff