Police enquiry at home

[XCP]

Nibbles_bits said:

Nibbles_bits said:

XCP said:

( may take a bit longer now they are working to rule)

• ***Only in Scotland*****

Isn't this case in Scotland?

[caziques]

blueg33 said:

One of the risks is that the evidence isn’t disclosed until the last minute just before the hearing. A depressingly common occurrence. That makes it too late to get legal representation.

The Secret Barrister talks about this issue a lot.

Evidence disclosed at the last minute is inadmissible.

[blueg33]

caziques said:

blueg33 said:

One of the risks is that the evidence isn’t disclosed until the last minute just before the hearing. A depressingly common occurrence. That makes it too late to get legal representation.

The Secret Barrister talks about this issue a lot.

Evidence disclosed at the last minute is inadmissible.

Happens frequently and magistrates courts are a bit more relaxed about it.

If you haven’t read the secret barrister I would recommend it. It’s actually quite worrying.

[matchmaker]

Canon_Fodder said:

Super Sonic said:

Think they're making you sweat, hoping you'll incriminate yourself. Go to court, and when neither witness turns up, and the police drop the charges, claim costs.
Sometimes the procedure is the punishment.

Call their bluff

You can't claim costs.

[Greendubber]

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

[eldar]

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

They're cheaper, and tell you what you want to hear. What more could you want?

[Greendubber]

eldar said:

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

They're cheaper, and tell you what you want to hear. What more could you want?

What could possibly go wrong....

[matchmaker]

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

That's always been the case on this forum, though, hasn't it?

[Johnnytheboy]

matchmaker said:

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

That's always been the case on this forum, though, hasn't it?

The 'policing experts' don't do themselves any favours though, with stuff like rallying round the appropriateness of a non-urgent midnight house call.

[Greendubber]

Johnnytheboy said:

matchmaker said:

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

That's always been the case on this forum, though, hasn't it?

The 'policing experts' don't do themselves any favours though, with stuff like rallying round the appropriateness of a non-urgent midnight house call.

Just because the usual noise makers don't agree with it doesn't mean it was wrong. The legal 'advice' being offered on the other hand is simply ridiculous.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Greendubber said:

Just because the usual noise makers don't agree with it doesn't mean it was wrong. The legal 'advice' being offered on the other hand is simply ridiculous.

These threads reach peak-Colombo when kestral appears and starts dispensing legal advice.

[matchmaker]

Greendubber said:

Johnnytheboy said:

matchmaker said:

Greendubber said:

The policing experts have now been replaced with budding arm chair legal eagles it seems.

That's always been the case on this forum, though, hasn't it?

The 'policing experts' don't do themselves any favours though, with stuff like rallying round the appropriateness of a non-urgent midnight house call.

Just because the usual noise makers don't agree with it doesn't mean it was wrong. The legal 'advice' being offered on the other hand is simply ridiculous.

We don't know what is going to happen so the "advice" is premature. The police will send a report to the Procurator Fiscal and that official will decide whether or not to proceed and if so, how to proceed. I don't think that the police can issue a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty for careless driving except at the roadside, but as I'm retired I'm not now up to date with the legislation and am open to correction!

Edited by matchmaker on Saturday 2nd July 13:28

[Nibbles_bits]

Just tell the court you were "traveling" not "driving".

Works without fail

[KingNothing]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I suggested that earlier, if I had to guess I would say the type of people who would actually take the time to report someone for overtaking are the exact same type of people who likely speed up to try and block overtakes.

[BrabusMog]

The problem is with some gavvers they just act in such a superior way that it rubs people up the wrong way and then colours their judgement against all gavvers. Look at that episode of the police car show recently where the guy put his blues and twos on to go and talk to someone up the road his colleagues had pulled over after an alleged incident on his day off. It was genuinely jaw-dropping to someone that has never had interactions with law enforcement.

[ED209]

BrabusMog said:

The problem is with some gavvers they just act in such a superior way that it rubs people up the wrong way and then colours their judgement against all gavvers. Look at that episode of the police car show recently where the guy put his blues and twos on to go and talk to someone up the road his colleagues had pulled over after an alleged incident on his day off. It was genuinely jaw-dropping to someone that has never had interactions with law enforcement.

Gavvers?

[Gareth79]

KingNothing said:

So if there's no footage of the alleged offence, how was the registration of the car recorded and reported, if they didn't catch up and photo it after the fact then that adds in the fact they could have recorded or even just remembered it incorrectly, did both remember it independently? Who reported it to the police, both of them, or one of them? Did the police ask the second person what was the registration, or did they tell them what the first person said and ask for confirmation? Maybe they have a photo after the fact but that doesn't prove anything other than your car (or a cloned car) was there when they took the photo after an alleged offence was committed.

I imagine that the road stated that it happened on was one which OP has driven on, and that that the description of the vehicle matches the registration plate they remembered?

Durzel said:

I just think as a general rule being prosecuted solely from testimony from a member of the public, with no corroborating empirical evidence of any kind, is sketchy. As said above I'm surprised the Police even left the station with this one.

People are often convicted of far more serious offences based on the sole testimony of one person. As mentioned it's up to the court to decide.

That said, given the OP doesn't remember any incident at all it either means that a) OP does sketchy overtakes all the time thinking it is fine, or b) it was an overtake that was perhaps a little marginal and the occupants of the other car were overly flustered.

Either way I am also surprised that they sent somebody out given there was no video evidence, given that we see videos of extremely dangerous overtakes where the police filed as NFA!

[Peter3442]

the mac said:

... Apparently back in May I overtook another car at speed and caused them to brake hard. ....

Presumably, if the OP, or whoever the offending driver was, overtook the other car 'at speed,' he was going much faster than them. In that case, why did they need to brake hard to avoid a vehicle in front of them that was moving faster than they were? It makes no sense and their evidence should be discounted.

If they claimed that he had cut in too early when overtaking them, they might have an argument, but from what OP writes that's not the case.

As OP says he has no recollection of the incident, he should have every right to ask the police to provide him with all the information they have. There must be at least the full written statements from the occupants of the other car. And, if they subsequently produce something else damning in court, shouldn't he ask them why they wasted everyone's time and money by not showing it to him earlier.

I would imagine that courts are aware of the value of the evidence/opinions of two people in a car. Many years ago, I was driving around a roundabout at normal speed and following a correct line. Another car entered the roundabout at the entrance after mine and drove into the side of my car. The two occupants stated to their insurance company that I had driven in front of them and that I shouldn't have entered the roundabout when they were approaching! In the end, their insurance paid for my repairs and also my costs.

[The big yin]

Is it a possibility the op and complainer were ina queue of slow ish traffic and the op overtook a few vehicles and pulled in to a not space in front of the complainers and they had to brake to let him in but only because they had not left enough space .
I think I would be wanting to see any evidence before deciding whether guilty or not.

[eldar]

ED209 said:

BrabusMog said:

The problem is with some gavvers they just act in such a superior way that it rubs people up the wrong way and then colours their judgement against all gavvers. Look at that episode of the police car show recently where the guy put his blues and twos on to go and talk to someone up the road his colleagues had pulled over after an alleged incident on his day off. It was genuinely jaw-dropping to someone that has never had interactions with law enforcement.

Gavvers?

Caravan dwelling nomad speak for police, apparently.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ga...