Police Witness Statement, False Corroboration |
Police Witness Statement, False Corroboration |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 11:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 20:40
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 951 Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,849 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:56
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:13
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 39 Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,203 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 19:57
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 951 Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,849 |
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 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:09
Post
#34
|
|
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! It will be miles Thought as much - I've got into the habit of m being meters! |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:50
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
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 . |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:00
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:25
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
To be picky ..It's Metres not Meters . Unfortunately, my American laptop appears to think differently Under "settings" - select "proper English" as opposed to "foreign English". -------------------- |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:48 |