PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Police Witness Statement, False Corroboration
ben1974
post Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 11:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,203



Hi

I have pled not guilty for allegedly doing 101mph on the M1.
I wasn't speeding and therefore know the police have no evidence to use against me.
I have received my date to appear in court which is 09 March 2018.
I have called the CPS to request evidence of the alleged offence and they said that I should contact the police to get the evidence.

Any advice on how to move forward would be great

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 11:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 19:53
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



By the way, do police vehicles have tachographs?

Might want to check the exact location mentioned on the paperwork. OP could have clocked the police car only after the alleged speeding incident had already occurred (but he did say he'd passed the police car that later stopped him, which is difficult to reconcile with that theory). Only the OP knows if he was previously driving 100+ mph, but if he was, it will be much harder to succeed with any defence.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 20:40
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 19:53) *
By the way, do police vehicles have tachographs?


Certainly not in a standard patrol car
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ben1974
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:28
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,203



Hi All,

I have a court case comming up in March for speeding (102 MPH). I know I was doing nowhere near this speed, and when I recieved the NIP I stated that I intended to plead not guilty. I had to contact Met Police directly to request that they send through the evidence of the alleged offence, in order to prepare my defence.

I have just recieved the 'evidence' through the post, and it consists of a 'Witness Statement' signed by the officer who stopped me, and corroborated by a 'Supervising Officer' . The rank/grade of the corroborating officer is shown as 'SP', which I think stands for Sargent. I am fairly sure the officer who has corroborated the witness statement was not at the scene of the alleged incident, and has signed it back at the station as an exercise in bureaucracy.

No photo or video evidence was taken of the alleged offence, because it didn't happen.

I now need to know how to move forward.

I think I need to request that both officers who signed the witness statement come to court and give a verbal statement so I can cross examine them and try to highlight the fact that corroborating a witness statement without being at the scene is making a false statement.

Any good advice always greatfully recieved

Thanks

: 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:36
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



It was 101 in This thread. Been caught twice?


--------------------
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
southpaw82
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:36
Post #25


Member


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



I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that there are two signatures on the same statement, or two statements by different people?


--------------------
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
StuartBu
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:37
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



Is the 2nd Cop you refer to signing it as a witness to the 1st Cop having signed it or is he/she signing it as being a witness to the content. What is written above the 2nd Cops signature to show what he is signing to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ben1974
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:51
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,203



JLC, yes but same offence, I meant to say over 101mph but didn't have the police report on me, speed on witness statement says 102mph.

Southpaw: The statement is signed by the officer who stopped me and who's rank is PC/RTPC
Underneath his signature it says 'checked by supervising officer' which is signed by someone else and 'Officer Corroborating Evidence' Rank/Grade PS

Stuartbu: Above the 2nd signature it says 'checked by supervising officer'

This post has been edited by ben1974: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mdann52
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:56
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,499



QUOTE (ben1974 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
JLC, yes but same offence, I meant to say over 101mph but didn't have the police report on me, speed on witness statement says 102mph.

Southpaw: The statement is signed by the officer who stopped me and who's rank is PC/RTPC
Underneath his signature it says 'checked by supervising officer' which is signed by someone else and 'Officer Corroborating Evidence' Rank/Grade PS

Stuartbu: Above the 2nd signature it says 'checked by supervising officer'


So sounds like they've signed to say they've checked over the paperwork, rather than to corroborate directly, unless there's something else gone amiss here.

This thread will probably be merged with the previous one in due course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:59
Post #29


Member


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



First things first, one case, one thread, don’t start new threads about the same case.

Secondly, I’ve not seen a "corroborating officer" in an English case before. Perhaps you could post a picture of the signatures so we can see what’s going on. Either way, it’s unlikely to be fatal to the officer's evidence (the one who stopped you) and I doubt this is a magic bullet for you.


--------------------
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
ben1974
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:13
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,203



Photo links of signatures:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1p-00j1RSQ...KQTKAAf2fc0fxcy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iNEHrC4Ti...NW-dTTvV_FH3Tud
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:22
Post #31


Member


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



So it’s been signed by the officer making it then checked by a supervisor. So what?


--------------------
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
mdann52
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:52
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,499



Looking at that, the "Officer Corroborating evidence" section appears to be below the line, where two officers were in the car - as this is blank, I think all looks ok from that point of view. I imagine all the supervisor has done is double-check the numbers and make sure the statement conformed to standards.

The only possible thing here is whether the 0.175 m means (kilo)meters or miles. If meters, then 102kph would work out as around 64mph. If it does mean miles, however, the maths does seem to check out - however it may be difficult to prove either way if that is the extent of the statement given - I presume there is more than that given to yourself?

Unfortunately, I'm not legally qualified enough to judge all the evidence, just making an observation - I can't tell you how reliable this is!

This post has been edited by mdann52: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:57
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:52) *
Looking at that, the "Officer Corroborating evidence" section appears to be below the line, where two officers were in the car - as this is blank, I think all looks ok from that point of view. I imagine all the supervisor has done is double-check the numbers and make sure the statement conformed to standards.

The only possible thing here is whether the 0.175 m means (kilo)meters or miles. If meters, then 102kph would work out as around 64mph. If it does mean miles, however, the maths does seem to check out - however it may be difficult to prove either way if that is the extent of the statement given - I presume there is more than that given to yourself?

Unfortunately, I'm not legally qualified enough to judge all the evidence, just making an observation - I can't tell you how reliable this is!


It will be miles
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mdann52
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:09
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,499



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:52) *
Looking at that, the "Officer Corroborating evidence" section appears to be below the line, where two officers were in the car - as this is blank, I think all looks ok from that point of view. I imagine all the supervisor has done is double-check the numbers and make sure the statement conformed to standards.

The only possible thing here is whether the 0.175 m means (kilo)meters or miles. If meters, then 102kph would work out as around 64mph. If it does mean miles, however, the maths does seem to check out - however it may be difficult to prove either way if that is the extent of the statement given - I presume there is more than that given to yourself?

Unfortunately, I'm not legally qualified enough to judge all the evidence, just making an observation - I can't tell you how reliable this is!


It will be miles

Thought as much - I've got into the habit of m being meters!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:50
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:09) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:57) *
QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:52) *
Looking at that, the "Officer Corroborating evidence" section appears to be below the line, where two officers were in the car - as this is blank, I think all looks ok from that point of view. I imagine all the supervisor has done is double-check the numbers and make sure the statement conformed to standards.

The only possible thing here is whether the 0.175 m means (kilo)meters or miles. If meters, then 102kph would work out as around 64mph. If it does mean miles, however, the maths does seem to check out - however it may be difficult to prove either way if that is the extent of the statement given - I presume there is more than that given to yourself?

Unfortunately, I'm not legally qualified enough to judge all the evidence, just making an observation - I can't tell you how reliable this is!


It will be miles

Thought as much - I've got into the habit of m being meters!


To be picky ..It's Metres not Meters .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mdann52
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:00
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,499



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:50) *
To be picky ..It's Metres not Meters .

Unfortunately, my American laptop appears to think differently wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:25
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:50) *
To be picky ..It's Metres not Meters .

Unfortunately, my American laptop appears to think differently wink.gif


Under "settings" - select "proper English" as opposed to "foreign English". biggrin.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:26
Post #38


Member


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



Off topic.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



OP if you are cross examining in court you need to avoid the trap of getting bogged down in signatures and focus on your speed.

From what it appears the police either did a follow check (using their speedo) or used a time/distance device like ProVida. Both are normally fairly accurate methods of measuring speed when used correctly. Certainly it would be unusual for them to be out by 30mph, or for a police officer not to notice they are out by 30mph.

From your point of view the police are mistaken, not fitting you up, and you are sure you were doing 70mph.

If you cast reasonable doubt on the police's version of events you will be found not guilty. A lot of this will be down to the perceived credibility of yourself and the police officer.

Not getting sidetracked is the key here, the only numbers that matter are 102 and 70, not the numbers of signatures on a piece of paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:00
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



As mentioned previously, that stretch of road has hard shoulder and gave the police plenty of opportunity to stop the OP quite safely if req. I see no need to have waited till getting to the north circ. where it is much busier.


QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:56) *
From what it appears the police either did a follow check (using their speedo) or used a time/distance device like ProVida. Both are normally fairly accurate methods of measuring speed when used correctly.

From your point of view the police are mistaken, not fitting you up, and you are sure you were doing 70mph.

If you cast reasonable doubt on the police's version of events you will be found not guilty. A lot of this will be down to the perceived credibility of yourself and the police officer.


Exactly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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 - 12:48
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