Police enquiry at home

[DanL]

the mac said:

So an update, got a phone call today and arranged to go see them as opposed to them coming to see me again, officer apologised for the late call but apparently was told to by their boss, and apparently the reason they didn’t get back to me is because they were dealing with a prisoner. The reason they wanted to speak me that was “nothing to worry about” was to charge me with careless driving! Apparently back in May I overtook another car at speed and caused them to brake hard. This seemingly falls under careless driving and is exempt from the 14 day rule, I’ve made a couple of calls for legal advice and apparently this is correct! I can fight it if I wish but costs are roughly £2000 +vat! Or accept a fixed penalty of £100. I have no recollection of the event but they have two witness statements albeit from people in the same car and apparently this is sufficient.

Worth taking some advice at least - outside of two people saying they saw you do it, what proof is there?

Alternatively: do you drive in such a way that it’s possible?

I’d fight it, but I’d be pretty darn certain I wasn’t guilty of the offence…

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Nibbles_bits said:

Oh dear

Aren't you glad the Officer didn't leave a note saying "I called to report you for a driving offence but you weren't in. I'm now not available until Thursday. Have a nice weekend"

Just so we're clear.......is it unreasonable for the Police to speak with a suspected offender at midnight??

A minor offence a month ago? No.

[Llew]

I'd be demanding evidence and contesting heavily until it can be proven.

[the mac]

I’ll look at my options, it’s 3 points and I’ve a clean license.
Bearing in mind this allegedly took place in May then I still think the midnight call was uncalled for. I still think this is an unreasonable time to be questioning someone! If it’s something that supposedly happened 6-7 weeks ago it’s hardly urgent.

[lb3nson]

Llew said:

I'd be demanding evidence and contesting heavily until it can be proven.

They must have more evidence than just 2 people in the same car said so, I suspect a dash cam.
Otherwise anyone could call up and report someone they don’t like for careless driving.

[V8covin]

Without dashcam footage I don't see how they could find you guilty in court, it's their word against yours

[the mac]

lb3nson said:

They must have more evidence than just 2 people in the same car said so, I suspect a dash cam.
Otherwise anyone could call up and report someone they don’t like for careless driving.

I asked exactly that! So just the two in the car is all they need and no dashcam! So yeah you and your mate could effectively do this to anyone really. I was always under the impression that witnesses had to be independent and not in the same car, as they are hardly impartial. But according to cops that’s all they need to proceed then if you want to contest it feel free.

[Retro.74]

I always thought you needed an independent witness for something like this , not someone in the same car, surely a bias conflict of interest.

Edited by Retro.74 on Wednesday 29th June 13:35

Edited by Retro.74 on Wednesday 29th June 13:37

[the mac]

V8covin said:

Without dashcam footage I don't see how they could find you guilty in court, it's their word against yours

Looking at my options but a call to a motoring lawyer reckoned I could definitely fight it at a cost of a few thousand and then obviously potentially a higher punishment or suck it up!
Will think it over I have 28 days to pay or not.

[Watchthis]

Yeah you should contest it. It will get flung out by the procurator fiscal. I'd bet good money on it

[Nibbles_bits]

the mac said:

Bearing in mind this allegedly took place in May then I still think the midnight call was uncalled for. I still think this is an unreasonable time to be questioning someone! If it’s something that supposedly happened 6-7 weeks ago it’s hardly urgent.

You would say this, you're the one being investigated.

Shoe on other foot - Would you be happy if the Police told you they haven't made progress because it was too late to call on the suspected offender?

[the mac]

Nibbles_bits said:

You would say this, you're the one being investigated.

Shoe on other foot - Would you be happy if the Police told you they haven't made progress because it was too late to call on the suspected offender?

Well yeah, why could it not wait till you were back on days or back shift? If it’s been 7 weeks then a few days won’t make any difference will it?
You obviously won’t agree and that’s your call however you will agree the vast majority felt it was an unreasonable time to be calling over a non urgent matter. I said I would update when I knew what was happening and now we know. I think most will still agree there was no requirement for the midnight call! You will never see that the public obviously find this unreasonable so I’m not going to try and change your mind.

[Bigends]

Nibbles_bits said:

the mac said:

Bearing in mind this allegedly took place in May then I still think the midnight call was uncalled for. I still think this is an unreasonable time to be questioning someone! If it’s something that supposedly happened 6-7 weeks ago it’s hardly urgent.

You would say this, you're the one being investigated.

Shoe on other foot - Would you be happy if the Police told you they haven't made progress because it was too late to call on the suspected offender?

This wasnt though - the call was in relation to a month old, victimless driving matter.
If the OP had been smacked i the mouth in a pub earlier that evening and the offenders address was known then of course a midnight knock would be appropriate (secure evidence etc)

[Antony Moxey]

Nibbles_bits said:

the mac said:

Bearing in mind this allegedly took place in May then I still think the midnight call was uncalled for. I still think this is an unreasonable time to be questioning someone! If it’s something that supposedly happened 6-7 weeks ago it’s hardly urgent.

You would say this, you're the one being investigated.

Shoe on other foot - Would you be happy if the Police told you they haven't made progress because it was too late to call on the suspected offender?

Well, it was a couple of weeks after the alleged offence so another day's hardly going to make much difference is it? As has been said many times on here, and something the resident plod seem unable to grasp, it's either urgent or it isn't: if it's urgent call as soon as you see fit, if not then don't call in the middle of the night. I'm not sure why the BiB seem to have so much difficulty with such a simple concept that everyone who isn't BiB seem to think fairly obvious.

[The Count]

Wow. All very odd. A midnight call, several weeks after the event?

You also 'overtook another car at speed and caused them to brake hard'. How does that work then?

No dashcam, two non independent witnesses; i would contest it.

May i ask, do you think you may have inadvertently upset someone with links to the police?

[Nibbles_bits]

You're right, you won't.
If there are no emergency calls and nothing urgent to progress, what do you expect the Police to do, just sit about like Fire??

As others have said. If you're adamant you aren't responsible for what you're being accused of - contest it.

[Fastdruid]

Look at it from the police perspective. It can go two ways.

1) They threaten, you accept a FPN. The flimsy evidence doesn't matter.
2) They threaten, you say "no, I'll go to court please". The Procurator Fiscal (I think, it being Scotland it's a bit different) then takes a look at it and decides if its worth taking to court.

Odds are with that little evidence they're going to throw it out. Little more than hearsay evidence, no video evidence, no proof it was you or even your car.

Personally I would play the odds and choose option 2 and would represent myself, at this point you have nothing to lose other than a slightly higher fine and a very good chance they will drop it.

If it goes as far as court you have the identity issue along with just plain going down the "I have no recollection of it".

I would also argue that they need to make the case for what you were accused of is actually DWDCA rather than the other party just being idiots and braking because they were doing (for example) 20 in a 60 and someone came past them quickly!

ie someone braking "because you overtook them" by itself is not DWDCA **UNLESS** they had to for example brake because of something else in front of them that "you" had put them in conflict with. For example overtaking someone *just* before they were going to overtake a cyclist.

Or cut in so quickly that they had to brake to avoid hitting you.

[eldar]

Watchthis said:

Yeah you should contest it. It will get flung out by the procurator fiscal. I'd bet good money on it

There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.

[Durzel]

Where is this "flimsy evidence" assumption coming from?

Has it been confirmed that there is no dashcam footage? I'd assume there is if they're even trying to progress the case at all. They're not going to show their cards until the OP pleads not guilty.

If the OP can't remember the event it could either be that he routinely drives "enthusiastically" or that it's a mountain out of a molehill. Given the Scots seem to charge for dangerous driving at a lower threshold than England, it could be either.

If it were me I'd have a good think about whether I would want a court to see this video (i.e. consider the manner of my driving generally, how often I get negative reactions, etc) before deciding to go NG.

[lb3nson]

eldar said:

There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.

But was there evidence they were not innocent?
I can’t see how anyone can be convicted of a criminal act without evidence?