letter from police re incident
Discussion
Mate of mine (why do threads on here always start like this 
) has had a letter accusing him of driving without due care and attention and failing to stop at the scene of or report an accident. The alleged offences are said to have taken place in a services on the M40 at 1.45 where he had been at around 12.30pm on the day in question.
THe thing is he was not involved in an accident and was in no way driving without due care or attention whilst at the services. He was spending a peaceful day visiting the cotswolds by himself on the day in question, but has nobody to back up the story he has given, how should he deal with the accusation?
Thus far he has got the lawyers to write to the police to clarify the time of the offence and provide further details...
) has had a letter accusing him of driving without due care and attention and failing to stop at the scene of or report an accident. The alleged offences are said to have taken place in a services on the M40 at 1.45 where he had been at around 12.30pm on the day in question. THe thing is he was not involved in an accident and was in no way driving without due care or attention whilst at the services. He was spending a peaceful day visiting the cotswolds by himself on the day in question, but has nobody to back up the story he has given, how should he deal with the accusation?
Thus far he has got the lawyers to write to the police to clarify the time of the offence and provide further details...
If he used his mobile phone, this could be used as evidence of where he was maybe.
If he didn't do it, he should say so.
The same thing happened to a solicitor friend of mine, who bricked herself as she could lose her job if she gets a criminal record. It was a car that looked similar, and I think the police guessed at the wrong plate (often witnesses only remember one or two letters from the plate). They probably sent out a letter to all silver G plate astras in the area!!!
He should deny it. The truth will out (hopefully).
Remember that under English Law, rather than Taleban Rule, the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused ('Innocent til proven guilty'). The police will have to find evidence that you were there. Maybe they could check CCTV cams near the accident site, if there are any.
Biggest danger is that his car's identity has been stolen by thieves. ie they have nicked a same colour vehicle, spot his, and dupe his plates to make it appear 'legal'. In that case, he should deny it, tell the police/DVLA of his suspicions and they should see if any similar cars have been reported stolen in the last few months.
If he didn't do it, he should say so.
The same thing happened to a solicitor friend of mine, who bricked herself as she could lose her job if she gets a criminal record. It was a car that looked similar, and I think the police guessed at the wrong plate (often witnesses only remember one or two letters from the plate). They probably sent out a letter to all silver G plate astras in the area!!!
He should deny it. The truth will out (hopefully).
Remember that under English Law, rather than Taleban Rule, the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused ('Innocent til proven guilty'). The police will have to find evidence that you were there. Maybe they could check CCTV cams near the accident site, if there are any.
Biggest danger is that his car's identity has been stolen by thieves. ie they have nicked a same colour vehicle, spot his, and dupe his plates to make it appear 'legal'. In that case, he should deny it, tell the police/DVLA of his suspicions and they should see if any similar cars have been reported stolen in the last few months.
Simple solution, if no damage to his car then offer the plods an inspection of his car along hopefully with the other advice given below, secondly access to CCTV maybe difficult but his brief should ask the plods for reasoning why they are accusing him and what evidence they have against him
. Finally check if the plods have jurisdiction over the service station car park as this maybe classed as private land so may not be liable to a traffic offence but unfortunately a lesser criminal offence.
. Finally check if the plods have jurisdiction over the service station car park as this maybe classed as private land so may not be liable to a traffic offence but unfortunately a lesser criminal offence.I had my car broken into while I was on a company freebie to a rugby match.
While the car park has CCTV to protect the club's interests, they refused to give out copies of the tapes as they had checked them on my behalf and found no evidence of anyone near my car.
Then by the time my solicitor and the police got around to legally claiming a copy their security people claimed that company policy was to re-use the tapes after 48 hours if there was no reason to keep them.
Surely the fact that there was potential footage of the crime was sufficient reason to keep it.
Unfortunately, neither the police nor my solicitor helped out very much and suggested that I just make a claim on my insurance.
While the car park has CCTV to protect the club's interests, they refused to give out copies of the tapes as they had checked them on my behalf and found no evidence of anyone near my car.
Then by the time my solicitor and the police got around to legally claiming a copy their security people claimed that company policy was to re-use the tapes after 48 hours if there was no reason to keep them.
Surely the fact that there was potential footage of the crime was sufficient reason to keep it.
Unfortunately, neither the police nor my solicitor helped out very much and suggested that I just make a claim on my insurance.
quote:
Finally check if the plods have jurisdiction over the service station car park as this maybe classed as private land so may not be liable to a traffic offence but unfortunately a lesser criminal offence.
They will have.
I had a close friend who lived in a pub which occupied a corner plot with access from both sides to the car park. He had been drinking at dinner time and in the afternoon a dray lorry turned up with a delivery which required he moved his car from outside the shutter doors to the other side of the car park, while doing this a woman on the school run used the carpark as a shortcut to miss out the corner and hit him. End result years ban and a DD conviction. Now the facts are that even though the pub was shut so not a public house technically and as the landlord the carpark was no different to his drive and very much private land the police still had duristiction on the offence and prosecuted. The implications are that even in your own drive or if the car is in the garage you could still be done for an offence because your still in control of the vehicle.
quote:
End result years ban and a DD conviction.
Now Im confused (not that its hard). So your mate got a ban!? more like it should have been the woman for using it as a shortcut.
I know there is some rule that a public carpark (even if the place is shut) is an extension of the highway but surely!
You couldnt get done for this on ur drive could you? I thought private land you could do what you want ie race tracks, airfields etc
Hi,
I had the same problem.... I was accused of being in an accident and not stopping in the center of London, when I was sitting at work in Wokingham. The police were happy when I gave them this information but did include a statment from my manager along with a printout of work I was doing on our database with the timestamps.
What did take longer was the accident victims insurance company, after explaining it to 3 diffrent advisors in the insurance company (Direct Line) and giving them the same information (the advisors kept leaving the company so had to start again) they then gave it out to an investigation company....... it took over a year for them to stop hasseling me.
Typical insurance company draqgging it out as long as possible not wanting to pay their client.....
Chris
I had the same problem.... I was accused of being in an accident and not stopping in the center of London, when I was sitting at work in Wokingham. The police were happy when I gave them this information but did include a statment from my manager along with a printout of work I was doing on our database with the timestamps.
What did take longer was the accident victims insurance company, after explaining it to 3 diffrent advisors in the insurance company (Direct Line) and giving them the same information (the advisors kept leaving the company so had to start again) they then gave it out to an investigation company....... it took over a year for them to stop hasseling me.
Typical insurance company draqgging it out as long as possible not wanting to pay their client.....
Chris
Thanks for all the help, problem is he was in the carpark about an hour earlier than the time the offence is supposed to have taken place, so somebody has taken the plate and description and given it to the rozzers.
His lawyers have also advised on jurisdiction with regard to the car park, seems like his best defence despite not having been in any accident is that the police took longer than 14 days to issue a NIP
His lawyers have also advised on jurisdiction with regard to the car park, seems like his best defence despite not having been in any accident is that the police took longer than 14 days to issue a NIP
But hang on, if he hasn't done anything, how the hell can he be prosecuted ???!!!
Surely the lawyers would be better placed trying to establish his innocence beyond doubt rather than messing about with some technicality about when the NIP was issued ??? Do they even know what he's supposed to have done ???
All sounds very dubious to me....
Edited by Nick M (nmilton) on Thursday 6th December 10:15
Surely the lawyers would be better placed trying to establish his innocence beyond doubt rather than messing about with some technicality about when the NIP was issued ??? Do they even know what he's supposed to have done ???
All sounds very dubious to me....
Edited by Nick M (nmilton) on Thursday 6th December 10:15
Similiar thing happened to a friend. Got a visit one eveneing from the police to advise that he had failed to stop at an accident and accused him of careless driving. Apparently someone had veered in front of a car on the motorway casusing them to collide with the barrier and a "witness" several cars back had taken his number plate. Thing is, my friend did use the motorway that morning but was definitely not involved - I should know, I was in the car with him! Anyway, despite having only one witness who was miles away, the police charged him with leaving the scene of an accident and careless driving but saw sense on the day of the trial and withdrew the charges.
However, the injured party's insurers went after my friend - private investigators the lot. In the end, his insurers decided it was more cost effective to pay up, even though there was a total lack of proof other than this one "witness" and my friend had till receipts (garage and shop) proving the timing was all wrong. The whole episode took about 18 months to come to a conclusion and was very stressful. It's frightening to think how easy something like this can happen to a normal innocent person.
No advise really, just stick to your guns if your innocent and get a good lawyer. If your not happy with the one you've got, find another one who will push this.
However, the injured party's insurers went after my friend - private investigators the lot. In the end, his insurers decided it was more cost effective to pay up, even though there was a total lack of proof other than this one "witness" and my friend had till receipts (garage and shop) proving the timing was all wrong. The whole episode took about 18 months to come to a conclusion and was very stressful. It's frightening to think how easy something like this can happen to a normal innocent person.
No advise really, just stick to your guns if your innocent and get a good lawyer. If your not happy with the one you've got, find another one who will push this.
The thread is a little confusing, but there again I have only read it quickly. A few points I have picked up on though. NIP's in relation to RTA's are not required, it is only required if it is an RTA which the driver may not be aware of (ie HGV clipping parked car or a piece of bad driving which has caused an RTA in which case the driver may not realise he was the cause) A great number of offences which normally relate to RTA's do not apply to car parks as the act specify's 'ON A ROAD' due care is one such offence at onr time insurance was also in the same category this has now changed and insurance is needed 'on a road or public place'.
In respect of the drink drive offence, a pub car park is a public place but usually only durring the licencing times after that it would cease to be a public place if there was a barrier. In the example given, someone was taking a short cut so I assume that the public would have access. In adition some car parks can be classed as roads but only if there is a separate entrance/exit and a clearly defined route through, and road signs/markings. The above comments are just a brief explanation but I hope the clear up a few of the points made
In respect of the drink drive offence, a pub car park is a public place but usually only durring the licencing times after that it would cease to be a public place if there was a barrier. In the example given, someone was taking a short cut so I assume that the public would have access. In adition some car parks can be classed as roads but only if there is a separate entrance/exit and a clearly defined route through, and road signs/markings. The above comments are just a brief explanation but I hope the clear up a few of the points made
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff