Nervous request |
Nervous request |
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 15:35
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 25 Sep 2020 Member No.: 109,898 |
Hello,
I hope this forum can help. I am seeking help for initial understanding of process etc but I have read too much should not be given away in case it can be used against someone later. (If there is no such risk on this forum can someone please advise?) In addition the forum's origins arose from unfair processes, and where legal interpretation may differ. Let's assume a theoretical worst case of dangerous driving. If so are members still happy to help? - much of what is on the site seems to be speeding related - Assuming someone is willing, initial questions are below (I have looked here and on other sites but cannot find definitive answers, or am confused by contradictions). 1). If Police witness Dangerous Driving but do not stop, and no accident occurred, will an 'interview' always then be requested if a prosecution is to proceed? 2). Does this apply if a Police car was seen to take avoiding action (e.g. emergency stop)? 3). If no 'interview' in the above circumstances is a NIP necessary for future prosecution? 4). Can a summons for Dangerous Driving be raised without a NIP, or it's equivalent, e.g. interview? 5). Is there a time limit for action on a Dangerous Driving case? (I have read there is no limit and a summons can be raised at any time, even without a NIP) 6). If the police leave a scene and briefly flash their lights and siren does this indicate they (probably) have a 'video' of what happened from buffered camera recording? Thank you |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 15:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 15:46
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
If there was no stop at the time, the first thling the police must do is get the driver identified. So most likely a NIP/S172 request to the registered keeper would be the first step.
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 15:55
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
1. Who knows? Who cares? It is not a legal requirement.
2. In the context of question 1, the relevance of this is somewhat lost on me. The only relevance would be if it constituted an accident there would be no requirement for a NIP. 3. The requirement for a warning (sections 1 & 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988) applies to dangerous driving. Interviews after the event have no bearing whatsoever on this requirement. 4. The driver cannot be convicted if (the court finds on the balance of probabilities that) the requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988 have not been met (subject to s. 2). 5. Off the top of my head, it is indictable and therefore not subject to the 6 month time limit for summary offences. 6. 'Hypothetical' questions in an active cases forum generally don't generate much sympathy. Asking us to guess what will happen tends to generate even less. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 16:11
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,074 Joined: 17 Nov 2015 Member No.: 80,686 |
You description is too vague...so the answers are necessarily vague.
People post on here without necessarily being the driver so howsabout a summary of what actually happened - that doesn't incriminate the unknown driver unless acting as a witness........... |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 18:06
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
You are likely to receive a NIP if you weren't stopped, otherwise they wouldn't know who was driving. However, if the Police aren't able to send a NIP within 14 days because they weren't aware of the offence until later, and some evidence came forward, such as dashcam footage, the 14 day limit wouldn't apply, AIUI.
I'm not 100% sure about the 6 month time limit. Whereas there is no time limit for prosecution of an indictable offence, I understand DD is an 'either-way' offence, so this adds to the ambiguity. It would be interesting to know for sure. This thread would be better in the Flame Pit. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 19:35
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I'm not 100% sure about the 6 month time limit. Whereas there is no time limit for prosecution of an indictable offence, I understand DD is an 'either-way' offence, so this adds to the ambiguity. It would be interesting to know for sure. The six month time limit doesn’t apply to offences triable on indictment (which DD is). -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 20:08
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 258 Joined: 9 Aug 2020 Member No.: 109,369 |
However, if the Police aren't able to send a NIP within 14 days because they weren't aware of the offence until later, and some evidence came forward, such as dashcam footage, the 14 day limit wouldn't apply, AIUI. The Operation Snap / 'upload your dashcam footage' mini-sites run by regional forces usually state that the police have the legal obligation to identify and inform the driver suspected of the alleged offence within 14 days of the incident, and that they can usually only continue with submissions received within 7 to 10 days of the incident (example here, in the FAQ section under 'are there any time limits I must adhere to': https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/OpSnap). However, I don't know if certain offences are deemed to be exceptions to this. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 20:14
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The police advice is, to put it politely, bollocks. (Working link https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/contac...shcam-footage/)
They have to inform the driver OR registered keeper, as they don’t know who was driving it’s easy to guess who they do inform. Anyway as detailed in a number of posts above, it doesn’t apply to dangerous anyway. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 20:15 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 20:54
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 21:19
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
It appears that more than one village has a diminished population at the moment...
As much as we can piece together from the OP's 'hypothetical' attempt to avoid incriminating himself by providing insufficient information to provide much in the way of meaningful advice, the incident was witnessed by the occupant(s) of the police car which was forced to take avoiding action. I do not believe that the fact I'm struggling to see any relevance to questions concerning dash cam footage submitted by members of the public, is an indication of a lack of understanding on my part. As this thread will almost certainly end up in the Flame Pit shortly anyway, I see little harm in briefly exploring the issue touched upon. There is a statutory exception to the 14 day rule in cases where the identity of the RK and driver could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence. This is widely understood to mean reasonable diligence by the police, but I am not aware of any case law regarding incidents reported by aggrieved parties too late for a NIP to be issued. I would argue that it cannot be right that a protection given by Parliament to the accused can be removed by a party to the prosecution. Clearly the advice one of our more 'gifted' members sought to post a "working link" to (clue - always leave a space either side of a URL) is inaccurate to the extent both that the requirement can be satisfied by serving a NIP on the driver or the RK (which adds little in the way of clarity to the argued need to submit footage in a timely manner), and that the requirement is not "strict" in that there are statutory exceptions. Regular viewers will no doubt be aware of the propensity of some of our more 'gifted' members to purport to agree with previous posters whilst stating something contrary to what they are purporting to agree with. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 09:09
Post
#11
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 25 Sep 2020 Member No.: 109,898 |
Dear all,
Thank you for your replies I have found them very helpful. I am sorry my original post is vague. There is still nervousness of posting on a public forum. So far no follow up action from any party. I will update FYI if that changes, or if nothing happens too. FYI the 'video' mentioned would be from the police car. It appears this thread has moved to the 'flame Pit' as I was editing. I will try to understand why and correct my posts if an error on my part BTW not sure if / how this site allows people to publicly recognise helpful input, else I would particularly have thanked andy_foster This post has been edited by angst: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 09:20 |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:31
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Dear all, Thank you for your replies I have found them very helpful. I am sorry my original post is vague. There is still nervousness of posting on a public forum. So far no follow up action from any party. I will update FYI if that changes, or if nothing happens too. FYI the 'video' mentioned would be from the police car. It appears this thread has moved to the 'flame Pit' as I was editing. I will try to understand why and correct my posts if an error on my part BTW not sure if / how this site allows people to publicly recognise helpful input, else I would particularly have thanked andy_foster You could send him a personal message, but I think you have thanked him already -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:30
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
BTW not sure if / how this site allows people to publicly recognise helpful input, The question of having some kind of rating/likes system was discussed some years ago. It was decided that it would be unwise for the site as a whole to be seen to be certifying the accuracy of the advice provided by any given member. Arguably our best qualified and most knowledgeable member is known to provide accurate but somewhat curt responses, which aren't always appreciated - particularly when the answer is the one that the OP didn't want. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 16:25
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Arguably our best qualified and most knowledgeable member is known to provide accurate but somewhat curt responses, which aren't always appreciated - particularly when the answer is the one that the OP didn't want. Don’t talk yourself down. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 27 Sep 2020 - 12:25
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
It appears this thread has moved to the 'flame Pit' as I was editing. I will try to understand why and correct my posts if an error on my part The main reason is that the Speeding and other Criminal Offences forum is for where there is a real case in play. You are talking about a hypothetical case (or so you say:), which belong squarely in the Flame Pit. |
|
|
Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 09:06
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: 28 May 2010 From: Sussex Member No.: 37,839 |
It appears that more than one village has a diminished population at the moment... -------------------- Better to be 20 minutes late in this life than 20 years early into the next one !
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 17:10
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
I'm not 100% sure about the 6 month time limit. Whereas there is no time limit for prosecution of an indictable offence, I understand DD is an 'either-way' offence, so this adds to the ambiguity. It would be interesting to know for sure. The six month time limit doesn’t apply to offences triable on indictment (which DD is). If the case can be held at a magistrates court, could this still make it indictable? |
|
|
Mon, 28 Sep 2020 - 17:46
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I'm not 100% sure about the 6 month time limit. Whereas there is no time limit for prosecution of an indictable offence, I understand DD is an 'either-way' offence, so this adds to the ambiguity. It would be interesting to know for sure. The six month time limit doesn’t apply to offences triable on indictment (which DD is). If the case can be held at a magistrates court, could this still make it indictable? I’m not sure I understand your question. DD is an offence triable on indictment, where it is actually tried doesn’t alter that. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:14 |