Dangerous driving, In a country park, car park Birmingham |
Dangerous driving, In a country park, car park Birmingham |
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 11:02
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 16 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,185 |
Hi, I tried to post yesterday, not sure what happened. Hopefully the post will show up and I can merge it.
I have given advice to someone and I am slightly confused Can you be charged for dangerous driving if you have not received an NIP? The person was stupid enough to attend a voluntary interview 2 months after the event and he forgot to point out that a power lead is needed for a dash-cam to work in a police station. Can you be invited for a voluntary interview and if the interview is changed to an interview under caution and be told you can leave at any time, leave and not be penalized? 3 months after the event, he was referred to the CPS and 7 months after the event, without any paperwork, he was told on the phone he will be charged for dangerous driving in 1st gear, fleeing from a person whom first attempted a head on collision but cars did not touch due to extra witnesses, then russian-youtube style the person tries to jump onto his bonnet but he turns his car away and in first gear drives away. The other person at no point touches his car. He stops once on the road and out of the car park and gets out of the car and walks back but is then chased back into his car by this person whom has got up from the floor with several dogs commanded to attack. So he speaks briefly to a bystander and drives further down the road, stops again then drives off. Without anything in paper, the police told him as they cannot get hold of his solicitor, he needs to go immediately to the police station to give DNA and fingerprints. Can the police do that? He did not initially report the incident as no car crash happened, the other guy totally missed his car as he turned further away and the dogs did not bite him. He initially wanted to post the video on youtube but I told him to wait 14 days and then post it - which he did not. When the police first interviewed him, without any charges, the police told him he 'had to' report the interview and concerns to his employers. I told him to complain as the police were well out of order to demand that. He was also wearing his seatbelt, in an almost empty car park and had control of his car - so not sure how driving away from a fat eastern european man is dangerous driving. I think like recently, in Five ways this is a 'cash for claim/crash for cash' gone wrong as if the witnesses were not present, there would have been a head on crash with 3 cars eventually involved. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midla...-slams-15746334 Further, at the police station, the police show a picture of a pensioner wearing the same clothes with a light 'dog bite' (small wounds from different angles) on his hands as being injuries that were caused. The white haired short pensioner is clearly not a fat eastern european looking man whoes stomach was falling out from the dashcam footage. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 11:02
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 11:16
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Your post is very confused and difficult to follow.
But at least the basics. There is no requirement for a NIP for dangerous driving. The police can ask him to come immediately to a police station. They can't compel him without arresting him. From what you've posted they have the video anyway so there is little doubt about what happened. Dangerous driving is when driving falls "far below the standard acted of a careful and competent driver". The court could take into account duress of circumstance - essentially that the driver was in immediate danger and they drove only insofar as was required to escape the situation. It would probably be questioned even if duress of circumstance applied why their standard of driving - driving only in first gear - was so poor, and also why they got out and confronted the driver rather than drive far enough away to call the police. If they have a solicitor who has the full facts of the case defer to them. Certainly any case would need to be presented to the court in a much more coherent fashion. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 11:34
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
I thought a NIP was required for dangerous driving, unless there was an accident ?
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 12:53
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Your post is very confused and difficult to follow. No kidding. QUOTE There is no requirement for a NIP for dangerous driving. Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 applies to dangerous driving. So, subject to the normal exceptions an NIP is required. If an accident occurred that would be an exception. QUOTE If they have a solicitor who has the full facts of the case defer to them. Certainly any case would need to be presented to the court in a much more coherent fashion. This. -------------------- 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, 17 Mar 2019 - 14:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 16 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,185 |
Your post is very confused and difficult to follow. But at least the basics. There is no requirement for a NIP for dangerous driving. The police can ask him to come immediately to a police station. They can't compel him without arresting him. From what you've posted they have the video anyway so there is little doubt about what happened. Dangerous driving is when driving falls "far below the standard acted of a careful and competent driver". The court could take into account duress of circumstance - essentially that the driver was in immediate danger and they drove only insofar as was required to escape the situation. It would probably be questioned even if duress of circumstance applied why their standard of driving - driving only in first gear - was so poor, and also why they got out and confronted the driver rather than drive far enough away to call the police. If they have a solicitor who has the full facts of the case defer to them. Certainly any case would need to be presented to the court in a much more coherent fashion. There is no CCTV, the police confirmed that to him during the interview. The police refused to take the dashcam footage, so there is no footage of dangerous driving as it was stated during the interview, only photos afterwards in another location of the claimant showing a dog bite. It was unusual to hear that. I was under the impression from reading the other threads, that for dangerous driving charges there needs to police officers present or video evidence and one police officer. I am probably wrong, as I was about the NIP, thanks for the clarification of that. I did not want to write out the specifics because I will probably get it wrong. Essentially this he was trying to leave a car park and the other driver failing to cause an accident was clearly trying to cause harm again. If he had steered into the other driver, that is dangerous, but he was driving away and then steered further away and put his foot down whilst still in first gear - hence the fat eastern European guy missed the car as he tried to jump on it and fell on the floor. He hurt no one, caused no damage and had as I understand full control of the car. He even had his seat belt on and he was in a car-park not a public road. I suspect the charges will change by the time it goes to court, clearly it is Wet Midlands Police knowing they cannot charge him in a certain way so they have upped the steaks to clear red tape (that is there for a reason) - the courts will take an impartial view. I have grown up in the West Midlands and have seen on countless occasions, Police accepting bribes or ignoring certain gang members. Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 applies to dangerous driving. So, subject to the normal exceptions an NIP is required. If an accident occurred that would be an exception. Thanks for the really simple clarification, it's what I wanted to know. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 14:39
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, a police officer as a witness may carry no more weight than a member of the public, your assumption is very wide of the mark.
Who’s dashcam evidence did they refuse to take? If it shows innocence then it’s valuabke evidence whether the police chose to take it or not. I’m not sure how you think Seat belt being on and in a car park is relevant, but they aren’t. Why was the other driver trying to cause an accident? Insults and racist add ons do you no favours.weight and ethnic origin aren’t relevant. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 16:27
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
To clarify, I was working on the assumption that "an accident occur[ed] owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed".
It might be an interesting argument in court as to whether a collision where one person jumps onto the car is an accident within the meaning of S2 RTOA. However, also probably a high risk one. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 18:03
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It's impossible to give any meaningful advice as the opening post is a jumbled up mix of incoherent assertions. However, from what little I can make out there may be some interesting parallels with Mohmed v Barnes & Anor [2019] EWHC 87 (QB).
I can give King312 this advice: Don't give anyone any sort of legal advice, sorry to be blunt but giving people legal advice is not for you and you just risk making things worse. If your friend has a solicitor, he should take advice form his solicitor. If your friend wants a second opinion, he should post on here himself. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 18:57
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It might be an interesting argument in court as to whether a collision where one person jumps onto the car is an accident within the meaning of S2 RTOA. However, also probably a high risk one. It is, it’s pretty much identical to the established case law where a pedestrian (a police constable) leant on a car to keep her balance and was deemed an accident within the meaning of the statute, I’ll dig out the case name. EDIT, it’s R v Currie http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...m/2007/926.html This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 19:02 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:38
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
EDIT, it’s R v Currie http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...m/2007/926.html Thanks for that. An interesting read. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:40
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The Mohmed vs Barnes case was about negligence and the judge found the defendant had been subjectively reasonable.
I think it would be quite possible that someone could be subjectively reasonable but objectively - driving your car at someone assuming they will move out the way - dangerous. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 19:23
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The Mohmed vs Barnes case was about negligence and the judge found the defendant had been subjectively reasonable. I think it would be quite possible that someone could be subjectively reasonable but objectively - driving your car at someone assuming they will move out the way - dangerous. The defendant in that case had, however, been acquitted at his criminal trial. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 00:00
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The Mohmed vs Barnes case was about negligence and the judge found the defendant had been subjectively reasonable. I think it would be quite possible that someone could be subjectively reasonable but objectively - driving your car at someone assuming they will move out the way - dangerous. The defendant in that case had, however, been acquitted at his criminal trial. But was it a court of record? |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 12:35
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The Mohmed vs Barnes case was about negligence and the judge found the defendant had been subjectively reasonable. I think it would be quite possible that someone could be subjectively reasonable but objectively - driving your car at someone assuming they will move out the way - dangerous. The defendant in that case had, however, been acquitted at his criminal trial. But was it a court of record? If it’s [2019] EWHC 87 then it was heard in the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court, so yes. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:11
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
M v B
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/87.html EDIT, that’s the civil case, it appears the criminal one was won by the defendant at trial, as there doesn’t appear to have been an appeal it won’t be binding. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:17 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:14 |