Careless driving - police no further action?
Discussion
Had a crash where somebody drove into the back of my stationary car in a NSL country lane when I had stopped due to a jogger in the road and an on coming car and it was not safe to pass.
The other driver behind me was going about 40mph but the Impact speed was about 15mph.
My car was damaged and had 1x child go to A &E later that date and diagnosed with whiplash, another child and I ache but are ok. Other driver fine.
Insurance details exchanged at the scene.
I inform the police due to injury involved and they subsequently confirm that they have written to the other driver to give " a warning letter for driving without due care & attention".
I have challenged this as initially they said it did not warrant a prosecution.
The case director then responds;
I have considered the circumstances of the incident and available evidence.
Mr xx has caused the collision by following your vehicle and being unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
I note your reference to CPS guidance – driving inappropriately close to another a vehicle.
These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving.
CPS Charging Practice advice also states:
The manner of driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which it took place (for example; amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc.). The circumstances in every case will be unique and must be considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate charge.
The standard of driving in this case amounts to a momentary lapse of concentration by Mr xx, this does not warrant a prosecution.
The written warning reflects Mr xx culpability and will be taken into account should there be a future collision in which he is involved in.
This ensures a proportionate and graduated response to incidents.
I am sorry that you are disappointed with the outcome, but hope this explanation assists in your understanding as to the rationale for this decision.
I again challenge this as its an error in law as the threshold for s3 RTA has been exceeded.
I would also highlight that Driving without reasonable consideration s.3ZA(4) RTA 1988 threshold has been exceeded.
The guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council also highlight that more charges should be given for careless driving to try and improve the standard of driving.
Magistrates’ Courts Sentencing Guidelines - Careless driving does include A momentary lapse of concentration.
The sentencing council indicate it would be a category 2 offence https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
It is very clear that the threshold for Careless driving has been exceed as stated by the Road Traffic Act. I would respectfully ask that this is again reconsidered as I believe you are mistaken in law and the guidance issued by various bodies by your conclusion in your review. The standard of Mr xx driving was bad and certainly falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
Case director ;
"Having re read my email I may not have made myself clear, we find Mr xx culpable of driving without due care & attention.
Our decision and use of the written warning is an approved disposal method for Police decision makers for this offence."
If feels like they cant be bothered to give a FPN or to do anything on it which is very frustrating and I believe wrong.
From my perspective with a damaged car and injured daughter needing a & e
The police saying his was driving without due care and attention
A foward facing video of the impact (not rear facing)
the other driver emailed and confirmed he was at fault and was driving too close.
The threshold under the Road traffic act clearly has been met.
I dont understand why they wont prosecute. I studied law and to me - its a slam dunk case is it not and if there was injury involved then should not just be brushed away? If there was no injury then fine I dont care but there was and I do.
what other steps are there - complain about the case directors decision , private prosecution?
The other driver behind me was going about 40mph but the Impact speed was about 15mph.
My car was damaged and had 1x child go to A &E later that date and diagnosed with whiplash, another child and I ache but are ok. Other driver fine.
Insurance details exchanged at the scene.
I inform the police due to injury involved and they subsequently confirm that they have written to the other driver to give " a warning letter for driving without due care & attention".
I have challenged this as initially they said it did not warrant a prosecution.
The case director then responds;
I have considered the circumstances of the incident and available evidence.
Mr xx has caused the collision by following your vehicle and being unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
I note your reference to CPS guidance – driving inappropriately close to another a vehicle.
These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving.
CPS Charging Practice advice also states:
The manner of driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which it took place (for example; amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc.). The circumstances in every case will be unique and must be considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate charge.
The standard of driving in this case amounts to a momentary lapse of concentration by Mr xx, this does not warrant a prosecution.
The written warning reflects Mr xx culpability and will be taken into account should there be a future collision in which he is involved in.
This ensures a proportionate and graduated response to incidents.
I am sorry that you are disappointed with the outcome, but hope this explanation assists in your understanding as to the rationale for this decision.
I again challenge this as its an error in law as the threshold for s3 RTA has been exceeded.
I would also highlight that Driving without reasonable consideration s.3ZA(4) RTA 1988 threshold has been exceeded.
The guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council also highlight that more charges should be given for careless driving to try and improve the standard of driving.
Magistrates’ Courts Sentencing Guidelines - Careless driving does include A momentary lapse of concentration.
The sentencing council indicate it would be a category 2 offence https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
It is very clear that the threshold for Careless driving has been exceed as stated by the Road Traffic Act. I would respectfully ask that this is again reconsidered as I believe you are mistaken in law and the guidance issued by various bodies by your conclusion in your review. The standard of Mr xx driving was bad and certainly falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
Case director ;
"Having re read my email I may not have made myself clear, we find Mr xx culpable of driving without due care & attention.
Our decision and use of the written warning is an approved disposal method for Police decision makers for this offence."
If feels like they cant be bothered to give a FPN or to do anything on it which is very frustrating and I believe wrong.
From my perspective with a damaged car and injured daughter needing a & e
The police saying his was driving without due care and attention
A foward facing video of the impact (not rear facing)
the other driver emailed and confirmed he was at fault and was driving too close.
The threshold under the Road traffic act clearly has been met.
I dont understand why they wont prosecute. I studied law and to me - its a slam dunk case is it not and if there was injury involved then should not just be brushed away? If there was no injury then fine I dont care but there was and I do.
what other steps are there - complain about the case directors decision , private prosecution?
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 14th July 15:49
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 14th July 16:01
On the face of the description, the guy was travelling at a reasonable speed (40mph) but was distracted at the critical moment and was unable to stop.
I understand that OP is looking at the consequences and feeling let down, but the careless action (being distracted) is so commonplace that there would be no one left with an unsuspended licence if every occasion was detected and prosecuted. All of us make mistakes and by recognizing them we can avoid making so many; nearly every time, nothing else happens at the same time to turn the mistake into an accident. It's luck. So I can also understand the police decision.
OP- what would you gain by pursuing this as a criminal matter? Personally I would feel more forgiving, but, that's me.
I understand that OP is looking at the consequences and feeling let down, but the careless action (being distracted) is so commonplace that there would be no one left with an unsuspended licence if every occasion was detected and prosecuted. All of us make mistakes and by recognizing them we can avoid making so many; nearly every time, nothing else happens at the same time to turn the mistake into an accident. It's luck. So I can also understand the police decision.
OP- what would you gain by pursuing this as a criminal matter? Personally I would feel more forgiving, but, that's me.
superlightr said:
I dont understand why they wont prosecute.
If it's not in the public interest they won't spend the time and money on it. The court system is already jam-packed.In the case of an incident like this it is hard to see how it would make anything better other than to satisfy your apparent need to see the driver who caused the incident punished.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not every accident warrants a prosecution IMO. They're called accidents, and often they are just that.
In Police world they haven’t been called accidents for about 15 years. They’re collisions. It was changed from accident on the basis that very few collisions are ‘accidents’… normally someone is culpable. Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not every accident warrants a prosecution IMO. They're called accidents, and often they are just that.
I think because the police have agreed it has passed the threshold for careless driving and the fact that it injured my daughter is the key part. If there were no injuries then yes I would feel that the police may want to use their discretion but it feels that despite having a clear case of careless driving involving injury, written admission from the other driver they just cant be bothered to action it.
Its not a normal part of driving to drive into the back of another. Its not a parking scrape or at manovering accident.
I would like the other driver to be prosecution for careless driving to reflect the manner of his bad driving and to have points on his licence to help focus his mind in future.
IME you are less likely to see a prosecution resulting from, what amounts to Sec 3 driving, where the end result is a relatively minor collision.
You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
superlightr said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not every accident warrants a prosecution IMO. They're called accidents, and often they are just that.
I think because the police have agreed it has passed the threshold for careless driving and the fact that it injured my daughter is the key part. If there were no injuries then yes I would feel that the police may want to use their discretion but it feels that despite having a clear case of careless driving involving injury they cant be bothered to action it.
Its not a normal part of driving to drive into the back of another. Its not a parking scrape or at manovering accident.
I would like the other driver to be prosecution for careless driving to reflect the manner of his bad driving and to have points on his licence to help focus his mind in future.
He will already have to pay financially as a result of his mistake.
vonhosen said:
IME you are less likely to see a prosecution resulting from, what amounts to Sec 3 driving, where the end result is a relatively minor collision.
You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
Thank you - could they just issue a FPN then?You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
Im sure the other driver would accept it.
superlightr said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not every accident warrants a prosecution IMO. They're called accidents, and often they are just that.
I think because the police have agreed it has passed the threshold for careless driving and the fact that it injured my daughter is the key part. If there were no injuries then yes I would feel that the police may want to use their discretion but it feels that despite having a clear case of careless driving involving injury they cant be bothered to action it.
Its not a normal part of driving to drive into the back of another. Its not a parking scrape or at manovering accident.
I would like the other driver to be prosecution for careless driving to reflect the manner of his bad driving and to have points on his licence to help focus his mind in future.
Has the other parties insurance paid out for the injury?
vonhosen said:
Your motive appears to rooted in vengeance, not education.
He will already have to pay financially as a result of his mistake.
Correct.He will already have to pay financially as a result of his mistake.
I used to send similar cases to the relevant body all the time.
Generally the response would be " No proceedings. Resolved by civil remedy "
superlightr said:
vonhosen said:
IME you are less likely to see a prosecution resulting from, what amounts to Sec 3 driving, where the end result is a relatively minor collision.
You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
Thank you - could they just issue a FPN then?You are more likely to see disposal action such as a FPN, where there was sufficient evidence of Sec 3, but no resulting collision.
The rationale being there has already been a negative association with the driving behaviour & negative financial impact for the driver who had a collision. In the second case, where there was no resulting collision, there is a need to provide a negative outcome/consequence to associate with the poor driving, hence the issuing of FPN in that case.
Not every case can result in a FPN/Prosecution, so you have to be selective.
Im sure the other driver would accept it.
They don't have the emotional (or any other) involvement that you have vested in obtaining a particular outcome, so what they see as appropriate may be different to what you'd consider appropriate.
efcgriswold said:
superlightr said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not every accident warrants a prosecution IMO. They're called accidents, and often they are just that.
I think because the police have agreed it has passed the threshold for careless driving and the fact that it injured my daughter is the key part. If there were no injuries then yes I would feel that the police may want to use their discretion but it feels that despite having a clear case of careless driving involving injury they cant be bothered to action it.
Its not a normal part of driving to drive into the back of another. Its not a parking scrape or at manovering accident.
I would like the other driver to be prosecution for careless driving to reflect the manner of his bad driving and to have points on his licence to help focus his mind in future.
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 14th July 16:52
Terzo123 said:
vonhosen said:
Your motive appears to rooted in vengeance, not education.
He will already have to pay financially as a result of his mistake.
Correct.He will already have to pay financially as a result of his mistake.
I used to send similar cases to the relevant body all the time.
Generally the response would be " No proceedings. Resolved by civil remedy "
Small breached of law or minor infractions I would agree discretion should be used. This just doesn't sit right with me - it feels wrong it doesn't tie up with the CPS guidelines or other published guidance. I think the case director is making a mistake.
The issue is the injury as that pushes it in my mind that it should be pursued as careless driving as that threshold was clearly passed and the injury and thus not appropriate to use discretion.
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 14th July 16:58
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff