PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

driving without due care and attention
scribz
post Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 10:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,480



Hi this is my first my post as i am new to this forum.

First of all i would like to apologise if this topic has already been covered, i tried to search but could not find anything that fully relates to my situation.

I have had a court summons and am being charged with;

'drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care attention'

In the full offence wording they have stated that i was driving without due care and attention, in that witnesses saw and heard me, described as at 'speed' two other cars involved were written off, injuries were sustained by these driver and the pedestrian.

My argument is that i was not speeding, the car i was driving was a VW Golf R32 and the engine/exhaust which when people hear automatically think im driving fast.

I was on the main road, which i believe is my right way, third party pulled out from a give way and obstructed my route.

Police were called to the scene and straight away members of the public got involved (some of these people were not there at the time but decided to join in) and all started saying to the police i was speeding.

The police then originally cautioned me for dangerous driving, but the letter in the post now suggests it is for driving without due care and attention,

My question first of all is:

[b]1. i was not speeding so how can they prove i was or how do i prove i wasn't?

2. surely its my right of way since im on the main road so if anyone is getting into trouble for driving without due care and attention it should be the third party that pulled out from the give way?

[/b]


3. i have no legal representation, i will be representing myself so if anyone can shed some light on how i would address this in the correct manner in court.



Your responses would very much be appreciated.

Thank you



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 54)
Advertisement
post Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 10:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 11:57
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Have the Police submitted as evidence the data on the TP's speed?

Although GPS devices can be slow to update it would be possible to work out if the TP stopped or whether they went through the give way at a speed to fast in which to stop.

there are decent site lines at the junction so unless you were doing circa 60+ I can't see how he could see you, of course if his statement says 'he was clearly speeding' then why did they pull out, he clearly didn't think you were or he would have stayed where he was!

To clear your side of the road from a stop at a give way takes less than 3 seconds, if we assume 3 seconds then at 60mph you would have been less than 88 yards away, at 30 44 yards away, both easily in sight from what I can see on GSV.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 12:33
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 22:03) *
Cross-examination is a skill that even advocates of many years experience remind themselves of before they go into court to do it. An amateur doing it is likely to be exactly that. If you hire a lawyer and win you get your costs at the legal aid rate, I believe. It’s up to you to make up any difference between the legal aid rate and any private rate your lawyer charges you.

I don't believe legal aid would be granted for a non-imprisonable summary only traffic offence, the OP would have to fund representation privately.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 12:40
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 22:03) *
Cross-examination is a skill that even advocates of many years experience remind themselves of before they go into court to do it. An amateur doing it is likely to be exactly that. If you hire a lawyer and win you get your costs at the legal aid rate, I believe. It’s up to you to make up any difference between the legal aid rate and any private rate your lawyer charges you.

I don't believe legal aid would be granted for a non-imprisonable summary only traffic offence, the OP would have to fund representation privately.

But that's not what was said. If the OP won costs could be claimed at LA rate - the difference falling on the OP. Indeed they would have to initially privately fund.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 12:50
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 22:03) *
Cross-examination is a skill that even advocates of many years experience remind themselves of before they go into court to do it. An amateur doing it is likely to be exactly that. If you hire a lawyer and win you get your costs at the legal aid rate, I believe. It’s up to you to make up any difference between the legal aid rate and any private rate your lawyer charges you.

I don't believe legal aid would be granted for a non-imprisonable summary only traffic offence, the OP would have to fund representation privately.

But that's not what was said. If the OP won costs could be claimed at LA rate - the difference falling on the OP. Indeed they would have to initially privately fund.

I stand to be corrected but I do not believe an acquitted defendant would be able to claim any legal costs, section 16A PoOA 1985 excludes this and none of the exceptions appear relevant.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 22:03) *
Cross-examination is a skill that even advocates of many years experience remind themselves of before they go into court to do it. An amateur doing it is likely to be exactly that. If you hire a lawyer and win you get your costs at the legal aid rate, I believe. It’s up to you to make up any difference between the legal aid rate and any private rate your lawyer charges you.

I don't believe legal aid would be granted for a non-imprisonable summary only traffic offence, the OP would have to fund representation privately.

But that's not what was said. If the OP won costs could be claimed at LA rate - the difference falling on the OP. Indeed they would have to initially privately fund.

I stand to be corrected but I do not believe an acquitted defendant would be able to claim any legal costs, section 16A PoOA 1985 excludes this and none of the exceptions appear relevant.

Perhaps you could have a look as (a) I don’t do legal aid work and (b) I certainly don’t do it in the summary courts of England and Wales.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:08
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 22:03) *
Cross-examination is a skill that even advocates of many years experience remind themselves of before they go into court to do it. An amateur doing it is likely to be exactly that. If you hire a lawyer and win you get your costs at the legal aid rate, I believe. It’s up to you to make up any difference between the legal aid rate and any private rate your lawyer charges you.

I don't believe legal aid would be granted for a non-imprisonable summary only traffic offence, the OP would have to fund representation privately.

But that's not what was said. If the OP won costs could be claimed at LA rate - the difference falling on the OP. Indeed they would have to initially privately fund.

I stand to be corrected but I do not believe an acquitted defendant would be able to claim any legal costs, section 16A PoOA 1985 excludes this and none of the exceptions appear relevant.

Perhaps you could have a look as (a) I don’t do legal aid work and (b) I certainly don’t do it in the summary courts of England and Wales.

I have had a look. Section 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 prevents the payment of a defendant's costs from central funds (none of the exceptions apply here), and the legal aid agency also won't pay in the circumstances unless the case raises a very complex point of law, which clearly isn't the case here. Therefore scribz would have to pay the cost of representation out of his own pocket. Having said that, I would agree that the cost of representation is likely to be a bargain compared to the cost of the fine + increased insurance premiums for five years.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:33
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:08) *
I have had a look. Section 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 prevents the payment of a defendant's costs from central funds (none of the exceptions apply here), and the legal aid agency also won't pay in the circumstances unless the case raises a very complex point of law, which clearly isn't the case here. Therefore scribz would have to pay the cost of representation out of his own pocket. Having said that, I would agree that the cost of representation is likely to be a bargain compared to the cost of the fine + increased insurance premiums for five years.

Loath as I am to take this off track but my very brief reading is that a defendant’s costs order can be made under s 16(1)(c of the POA where an information is dismissed where justices are trying a case summarily. Being found not guilty is the equivalent to a dismissal (s 9(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980). S 16 is subject to s 16A. S 16A(1) says that in general no order for legal costs may be made unless an exemption applies. One of the exemptions is that the accused is an individual and the order for costs is made under s 16(1). Following acquittal in the magistrates court any costs order would be made under s 16(1), specifically (c). So why no legal costs?

In short, doesn’t exemption A in s 16A apply?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:58
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:33) *
In short, doesn’t exemption A in s 16A apply?

On reflection, yes it does.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:11
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:58) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:33) *
In short, doesn’t exemption A in s 16A apply?

On reflection, yes it does.

I was thinking the criminal justice system had completely gone down the tubes!


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:48
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Ahem... https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news...ael-le-12139749


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:55
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 21:48) *

And?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 21:01
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Well don’t want to hijack, but £200k in legal costs not reimbursed as it was decided he could ‘afford it’ (despite the fact he clearly couldn’t which is why he’s then gone bankrupt, noting you would have to earn over £400k before deductions to pay that off), that sounds pretty down the tubes to me.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 21:17
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 22:01) *
Well don’t want to hijack, but £200k in legal costs not reimbursed as it was decided he could ‘afford it’ (despite the fact he clearly couldn’t which is why he’s then gone bankrupt, noting you would have to earn over £400k before deductions to pay that off), that sounds pretty down the tubes to me.

Oh. Well, yes, the fact that a person can be indirectly financially penalised for successfully defending themselves is outrageous.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 01:48
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



I doubt whether the Mirror's reporting can actually be taken as gospel, almost certainly his costs were eligible for reimbursement, but only a legal aid rates, leaving him heavily out of pocket. No one would have decided 'he could afford it'


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 04:38
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It’s in a lot of articles, whether they all came from Le Vell or not I don’t know. Anyway a fuller discussion should be in the flame pit.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 04:38


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:20
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here