I met a friend over the weekend who said that the police were taking him to court for dangerous driving. I was surprised by his story as apparently he had overtaken a car on a blind corner and the said car (that was overtaken) had reported him to the police and this was the basis of the ploice's prosecution.
What is my friends best course of action? It seems that is his word against the other drivers and that there are no other witnesses.
For the record he is convinced that he did no dangerous driving as he was taking along his girlfriend (if that clears him!!). He thinks that because he drives an Impreza with a big tail pipe that the people he overtook took exception. Nice to see that the police in north Scotland have nothing better to do!!
|
|
He will only be convicted if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I am surprised that the police believe that one person's word against another's is likely to achieve this. What is his defence?
|
He doesn't have a defence as he is still a little surprised. Talking to him though I suppose that his defense will be one person's word against anothers.
I might move to this area as it seems that it is a nice safe area where the police have no burglars/rapists/murderers etc to catch.
|
I think this is *exactly* how the police should behave.
If there no evidence (which is how it sounds to me) then he will be found not guilty.
About time the police took dangerous driving as seriously as they take speeding.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Does the charge state where the alleged offence took place?
Is it convenient to go back to this place and take photographs?
Is the person who gave the information an 'expert' on driving?
Do they need glasses and were they wearing them at the time?
Did they have a passenger with them?
Was there a double white line at the location?
Etc Etc Etc. If you think you are innocent go to court and good luck to you
|
|
|
|
The question is, if he has overtaken on a blind bend and said that "It wasn't dangerous, so I'm not guilty," he is likely to have incriminated himself. No problem under the HRA as he had a right not to, he just failed to use it.
|
|
|
|
Does he remember the incident? Is it a blind corner?
|
The person he overtook was driving with his wife. He said that he woould not have overtaken on this particular blind corner as he knows the road very well and there is a long straight just after the blind corner. IIRC he said that he did overtake before the corner but he did say that it is not something that you really store in your memory as he did not expect to be prosecuted.
The whole thing seems strange. If you dislike someone and recognise their car, what is to stop you reporting them if you see them on the road?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all that uncommon for the likes of this. Basically, the prosecution hope is that your friend confesses all and admits the charge. As Joe says, the case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I sat through a case some years ago involving someone I knew slightly. He was accused of driving with due consideration etc after finding himself held up by a dawdling lady driver at whom he allegedly screamed abuse during overtaking and also after overtaking while slowing her down in turn. Knowing him to be a fairly volatile character, I had little doubt he would have done just this (and he admitted as much to me after the case) but he appeared before the magistrates in a smart business suit, volunteered a clean driving licence and recounted clearly a much more subdued chain of events. The prosecution witness, on the other hand, was easily confused about matters such as speed, how long the incident lasted, and couldn't say precisely what he was supposed to have shouted at her. The charge was dismissed.
Assuming your friend's companion supports his case, it boils down to who are the most credible witnesses. Since it may be before a sheriff in Scotland, it's harder to pull the wool over his/her eyes than lay magistrates but there's no reason to suppose your friend won't get the result he wants, provided he is confident and straightforward. It'll take some effort but presumably the insurance implications alone of a conviction make fighting the case worthwhile.
|
CM
It is not the Police that are taking your friend to Court but Crown Prosecution Service. Plod reports the matter to them and it is they who decide whether or not to prosecute aftyer vetting the evidence.
I doubt very much they would run a case on a one against one basis as they only authorise if there is s very high probabilty of a conviction.
If your friend has been served with a summons then I would suspect there is a bit more evidence than your friend is letting on to you.
Still many strange things happen....
DVD
|
It happens all the time round here (East Yorkshire). There is the 'army school of mechanical transport' that has 100's if not 1000's of 'L' plated lorries out on the road each day dawdling along at max 45mph, hill starts (up and down) on blind apex's etc. From what I've read in the local paper, the instructors report other mortorists on a regular basis.
Martin
|
That will be the Army School of Muddle and Trouble (ASMT get it?)
At 45MPH must have had a back wind as well. Yes they are somewhat tiresome.
You do not have a relative that works for the HDM do you?
|
|
|
|
DVD
This appears to be a Scottish case so no CPS involvement. Instead it would be handled through a procurator fiscal who generally has a more locally-focussed attitude than the CPS. Additionally, if this case involves Grampian Constabulary, it is not at all strange it is being pursued, although I agree there may be more information that hasn't been revealed.
|
Its not unusual at all. I had a case today (on a guilty plea) where a motorcylcist had overtaken a car on double white lines. The driver took his number and reported it to the Police. The Police recorded a statement of evidence and the rider was summoned. He was fined and pointed.
Hearsay Evidence is when, had I been a friend of the above driver, had phoned the Police and I had made a statement outlining what my friend had seen and told me about.
|
So is it actually worth reporting some of the idiots we see on the road? I've always put up with it and bemoaned the lack of a traffic cop when you need one...
That said, I can see how it could be abused as well as being very difficult to get a conviction. Out of interest, how likely would the police or CPS be to take of mitigating circumstances? There have been 1 or 2 occasions where I've taken small risks out of frustration. Nothing like as bad as some mentioned here, but more than I would normally take. One for example was when I was following a BMW back from Whitchurch to the M56. Anything moderately twisty and he was down to 25, but anywhere I might have been able to get past, he was straight up to 60 - 65. I finally kept an eye out for what looked like a straight stretch coming up (watching trees and headlights) and was ready to pounce before he could react. Not as safe as it could be, but I did rather want to get home that night...
|
|
I may be wrong, but don't Scottish courts require corroboration of the evidence? I would have guessed this was the major difficulty in this instance.
|
|
PU
One against one and a Guilty plea?
Presumably the defendant coughed loud and true.
What is it like to be in the presence of a of a Saint....
DVD
|
One against one and a Guilty plea? Presumably the defendant coughed loud and true.
DVD?s trusty old lead filled hosepipe is as compelling as ever!
It?s news to me that double whites apply to bikes. I thought like bus lanes and traffic lights we were exempt! ;-)
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
It?s news to me that double whites apply to bikes. I thought like bus lanes and traffic lights we were exempt! ;-)
I thought double whites were a narrow bike lane ;-) ;-)
Martin
|
|
|
|
Yes he did....! He is a decent, hard working, chap who got carried away on a nice day. Being an old fashioned (albeit fast) type, he coughed the lot when stopped by the cops about 6 miles down the road. He got reported for summons as the Cop was following the letter of the law on FPT issue. He got fined £60.0)
quid and three points, hopefully me speaking up for him made a differnece. As he said to me If they'd have seen him earlier and the speed he was going at it would have been a bit more than £60.00.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
