Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Careless Driving Notice - car park scrape

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:58
Post #1357889

Hello,

I received a letter before Christmas to say my car had been reported to the police under careless driving, for not stopping at the scene of an accident. The incident is alleged to have taken place in a supermarket carpark.
My fiancé would have been driving at this time commuting back from work but has never visited the shops let alone the carpark where the incident is supposed to have occurred.

She has attended the police station with a solicitor to give her whereabouts at this time, normal driving pattern etc. We've also had our insurer assess our car and found no damage. The eyewitness gave our registration number but the description doesn't match her at all.

She is attending the police station again tomorrow as they have 'photographic' evidence now. How do people suggest we proceed? Especially if photos are vague?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:13
Post #1357895

Stick to the truth, perjury is a much more serious offence than anything else you/they are likely to face.

If she wasn’t there, she wasn’t there, it may be a similar car, similar reg or whatever so she needs to be calm and credible.

Hopefully you are getting the solicitor at legal aid rates?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:32
Post #1357902

Presumably if the description doesn't match her at all, neither will the photos. Are there any CCTV cameras that cover the car park?

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:09
Post #1357927

No CCTV as far as I could see, i.e no cameras on poles/lampposts in carpark. No Number plate recognition at enterance exit after going there later to have a look, though parked nearby and walked.

Posted by: samthecat Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 07:06
Post #1358041

If she's going back to be re-interviewed with some further evidence arrange for her solicitor to come back as well.

If you can get anything showing either she or the car were elsewhere at the relevant times that may be helpful.

Posted by: Colin_S Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:25
Post #1358054

Does she have a smart phone that tracks her location, eg Google Maps?

Posted by: Dave18 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:31
Post #1358194

She does have a smart phone but usually has location turned off to save the battery! The solicitor will be in attendance as doesn't charge till a formal interview takes place. Its a case of wait and see what the photo shows but she will act on advice of the lawyer + is fully aware of sticking to facts. After i had to go for a 'chat' at the police station as the owner of the car about I understand how they were trying to twist my words beyond saying she would have been driving at the time into an accusation it was her fault!!

Posted by: Spinstorm Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:20
Post #1358335

You can charge your phone in your car very easily.

Location services can also be turned off for certain apps but honestly unless your wife literally makes phone calls all day long then the only reason not to have location on to save battery is because she doesn’t charge the phone reguarely and properly.


Posted by: Dave18 Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:00
Post #1397256

Hello,

We have been made aware that the police did send this case to court, but the original summons was sent to our old address, even though details for car and our licenses were updated with DVLA last year when we last moved. All police correspondence has been sent to our current address so bizarre why the summons went to our old address! We have sent back the statutory declaration saying the summons was never received and are presently waiting to hear from the magistrate court about attending to swear that the summons wasn't. So far the police have only provided 3 pieces of evidence on 2 visits to a police station. A solicitor attended each visit to the police station:

1) An eyewitness description of a red car, giving our reg number (our car is red) but a description of a lady that doesn't match her. The solicitor advised that a police identity line up cannot take place and he recorded this in the post interview letter to us.
2) Evidence of my car being driven in the same town where we live at this time. It's a lagre industrial town in the East Midlands with a population of over 200,000 people so not quite sure what this proves!
3) A photo of the same make and model of our car being driven into the car park where this occured. No numberplate nor driver was visible in the photo.

Our insurer came and inspected our car after it was reported and deemed that there was no sign of a collision nor damage to our car. The last interview with the police took place 5 months and 1day after the supposed collision date. To complicate matters,

How do people suggest we proceed once this case eventually comes before the magistrate court? I'm hoping the poilce have breached the 6month limit to bring a case to court but how can we go about determining this?

Dave

Posted by: Logician Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:36
Post #1397273

For the case to be out of time, the summons you did not receive would have to have been issued in response to an information laid by the police out of time. Have you or your solicitor seen this? Was it in fact a summons as you say or a requisition, which is now more usual?

Any evidence that your car was elsewhere at the time would be useful. Does the other sighting of your car (#2) correspond with your fiancée's route? What damage is alleged to have been caused in this incident, is it plausible that it could have been caused without any corresponding damage to your car? How different is the description of the driver to your fiancée? Did the eye witness in #1 sighting claim to have seen the car hitting something?

Posted by: Mayhem007 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 16:55
Post #1398390

I was once witness to a very similar situation. I saw an old man hit the rear of someones vehicle whilst maneuvering into a parking space. The old man even inspected the rear of his car after posting a letter and then drove off. I informed the owner of the damaged vehicle and gave my details.
A couple of months later I gave a statement to the police with drawings of the position of the involved vehicles.
Two or three months later I had to go to court to give evidence. However not being privy to the court proceedings it became obvious that the prosecution were struggling with their case, as a police officer came in and took another statement from me whilst I was in the witness waiting room. I was specifically asked if I would recognize the person, to which I replied yes.
Anyway the case got dismissed. Apparently the defendants solicitor managed to convince the court that I could not possibly identify the person beyond all reasonable doubt due to the amount of time that had elapsed. Also, the defence argued that the police should have conducted a line up and requested that I identify the alleged offender soon after they were aware of the alleged offence.


Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:39
Post #1398408

QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:55) *
Also, the defence argued that the police should have conducted a line up and requested that I identify the alleged offender soon after they were aware of the alleged offence.

And they’d be right. How could any dock identification be relied upon?

Posted by: thisisntme Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 18:36
Post #1398416

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 18:39) *
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:55) *
Also, the defence argued that the police should have conducted a line up and requested that I identify the alleged offender soon after they were aware of the alleged offence.

And they’d be right. How could any dock identification be relied upon?


You mean it's not like in the Perry Mason films where the Prosecutor asks:

"is the assailant in this courtroom?"

"Yes." says the witness, pointing at the defendant, "He's over there!!"

Surely not wink.gif

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 19:06
Post #1398420

QUOTE (thisisntme @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 19:36) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 18:39) *
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:55) *
Also, the defence argued that the police should have conducted a line up and requested that I identify the alleged offender soon after they were aware of the alleged offence.

And they’d be right. How could any dock identification be relied upon?


You mean it's not like in the Perry Mason films where the Prosecutor asks:

"is the assailant in this courtroom?"

"Yes." says the witness, pointing at the defendant, "He's over there!!"

Surely not wink.gif

I know, right?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 20:15
Post #1398453

Surely could have cobbled together a line up with a few of the ushers and magistrates. People need to use their initiative more.

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:00
Post #1398468

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:15) *
Surely could have cobbled together a line up with a few of the ushers and magistrates. People need to use their initiative more.

I think there may be a few practical difficulties with that seeing as an ID parade should consist of (I think) eight other people who resemble the suspect in terms of gender, age, height, ethnicity, etc. A bit more importantly, I doubt that such a procedure with comply with PACE! Or are we back to Perry Mason!?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:59
Post #1398492

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 22:00) *
I think there may be a few practical difficulties with that seeing as an ID parade should consist of (I think) eight other people who resemble the suspect in terms of gender, age, height, ethnicity, etc. A bit more importantly, I doubt that such a procedure with comply with PACE! Or are we back to Perry Mason!?

Entirely serious. Obviously the magistrates will need to come down into the courtroom and muck in, it would be obvious if they remained on the bench and everyone had to stand whilst they take their places in the parade.

They could keep a fancy dress box out back so they could be prepared for any unidentified defendant.

It's called streamlining the criminal justice system. Let me know how you're going to pay my consultancy fees.

Posted by: StuartBu Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 02:07
Post #1398514

Do they still conduct ID Parades in that way...I remember years ago being being stopped in Glasgow near a Cop Shop and asked if I'd be available to take part in a parade but I couldnt do it as I was working. Dont they use images of the suspect and other similar looking persons now instead of dragging folk in off the street.... I'm sure I saw that on telly.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 06:01
Post #1398517

They so still do it like that, yes.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:30
Post #1398599

QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 03:07) *
Do they still conduct ID Parades in that way...I remember years ago being being stopped in Glasgow near a Cop Shop and asked if I'd be available to take part in a parade but I couldnt do it as I was working. Dont they use images of the suspect and other similar looking persons now instead of dragging folk in off the street.... I'm sure I saw that on telly.



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 07:01) *
They so still do it like that, yes.

I believe video ID procedures are becoming more commonplace.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 11:53
Post #1398610

QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 03:07) *
Do they still conduct ID Parades in that way...I remember years ago being being stopped in Glasgow near a Cop Shop and asked if I'd be available to take part in a parade but I couldnt do it as I was working. Dont they use images of the suspect and other similar looking persons now instead of dragging folk in off the street.... I'm sure I saw that on telly.

http://www.viper.police.uk/

Posted by: Ocelot Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 15:50
Post #1398722

I'm surprised the police even go to the bother of investigating car park scrapes, let alone identity parades. When my car was vandalised 2 years ago they didn't want to know.

Posted by: nigelbb Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 06:40
Post #1398844

QUOTE (Ocelot @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:50) *
I'm surprised the police even go to the bother of investigating car park scrapes, let alone identity parades. When my car was vandalised 2 years ago they didn't want to know.

It depends on the police force. The Met couldn't care less but as I know from bitter experience small rural forces with nothing better to do will often initiate proceedings for careless driving with a simple car park scrape.

Posted by: Mayhem007 Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 09:05
Post #1398867

QUOTE (Ocelot @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 15:50) *
I'm surprised the police even go to the bother of investigating car park scrapes, let alone identity parades. When my car was vandalised 2 years ago they didn't want to know.

Its just not car park scrapes the alleged offences are a bit more severe in that you are normally charged with 3 counts
1. Leaving the scene of an accident
2. Not reporting the accident to the police within 24 hours
and
3. Driving without due care and attention


Given Southpaws reply, the OP might want to use the information in my post to his solicitor, not that it is binding in any way. However, your solicitor may be able to use the info as a good argument for your defence.

Posted by: NewJudge Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 11:03
Post #1398896

QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:05) *
Its just not car park scrapes the alleged offences are a bit more severe in that you are normally charged with 3 counts
1. Leaving the scene of an accident
2. Not reporting the accident to the police within 24 hours
and
3. Driving without due care and attention

Yes and numbers one and two carry a maximum sentence of six months' custody (two of the comparatively few motoring offences which can attract custody). Never a remote possibility in these circumstances, but nonetheless the offences carry a minimum of five points

Posted by: skidder Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 20:56
Post #1399251

QUOTE (Spinstorm @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:20) *
You can charge your phone in your car very easily.

Location services can also be turned off for certain apps but honestly unless your wife literally makes phone calls all day long then the only reason not to have location on to save battery is because she doesn’t charge the phone reguarely and properly.


Sometimes like my old phone no matter how often you charge it the battery dies very quickly. It's normally a new battery that's needed that sometimes is not easy to replace.(iphones). Some people don't want location services on. It's a personal preference. I think you presumed way too quickly.

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 13:08
Post #1412037

Update since I last posted. My fiancee attended court yesterday to give her statutory declaration that the letter wasn't received and a new date has been set for December. In the mean time we plan to speak to our solicitor and I presume we'll receive some kind of formal summons document setting out what being prosecuted for and what the evidence is? After she gave her statutory declaration she was advised a sentence of 8 points + £600 fine was passed in her absence. Would this have been inflated due to her being absent? She is very nervous to attend court so my present thinking is to ask our solicitor to approach prosecuting solicitor for an out of court settlement.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 13:23
Post #1412046

The fine wouldn’t include the discount for a guilty plea, otherwise no the sentancing is based on the version of events put before the court (and obviously accepted as true as there was no challenge).

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 13:24
Post #1412047

QUOTE (Dave18 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 14:08) *
an out of court settlement.

What sort of out of court settlement do you envisage? This isn’t a civil matter.

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 13:41
Post #1412055

I've seen other topics on this forum with similar circumstances which discussed approaching the other party to pay for damages and avoid going to court. Is this not the case? My bad for using the wrong terminology.

Posted by: NewJudge Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 15:09
Post #1412092

QUOTE (Dave18 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 14:41) *
I've seen other topics on this forum with similar circumstances which discussed approaching the other party to pay for damages and avoid going to court. Is this not the case?

No it is not. The other party is not the one taking the action. This is a criminal prosecution brought by the Crown. You cannot "buy" your way out of it!

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 15:44
Post #1412104

QUOTE (Dave18 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 14:41) *
I've seen other topics on this forum with similar circumstances which discussed approaching the other party to pay for damages and avoid going to court. Is this not the case? My bad for using the wrong terminology.

That is before it has gone to court, effectively the police have no interest in prosecution and leave the parties to sort it out. Too late for that now, as the police have decided to prosecute.

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 16:41
Post #1412117

I see, so our solicitor I presume will assess the evidence and determine whether we have a defence and what our next steps would be. I'll make sure mayhem's post gets mentioned. Anything else we should be highlighting to our solicitor?

[quote name='Mayhem007' date='Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 17:55' post='1398390']
I was once witness to a very similar situation. I saw an old man hit the rear of someones vehicle whilst maneuvering into a parking space. The old man even inspected the rear of his car after posting a letter and then drove off. I informed the owner of the damaged vehicle and gave my details.
A couple of months later I gave a statement to the police with drawings of the position of the involved vehicles.
Two or three months later I had to go to court to give evidence. However not being privy to the court proceedings it became obvious that the prosecution were struggling with their case, as a police officer came in and took another statement from me whilst I was in the witness waiting room. I was specifically asked if I would recognize the person, to which I replied yes.
Anyway the case got dismissed. Apparently the defendants solicitor managed to convince the court that I could not possibly identify the person beyond all reasonable doubt due to the amount of time that had elapsed. Also, the defence argued that the police should have conducted a line up and requested that I identify the alleged offender soon after they were aware of the alleged offences

Posted by: samthecat Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 18:42
Post #1412139

QUOTE (Dave18 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 14:41) *
I've seen other topics on this forum with similar circumstances which discussed approaching the other party to pay for damages and avoid going to court. Is this not the case? My bad for using the wrong terminology.


Why would you consider this if she was no where near the incident and not responsible for it?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 19:46
Post #1412148

The bit you may have seen on other threads is a plea bargain. That's where you offer to plead guilty to one offence in exchange for dropping another more serious offence.

However it only works if you are guilty of an offence. Here you say you are not guilty and so you simply plead not guilty and absent of extraordinary coincidence they will not have evidence to convict.

Posted by: Dave18 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 22:31
Post #1412198

So I can get some more quotes for solicitors, any in the Northamptonshire area that can be recommended? I've seen a list somewhere on the forum but can't find it now!

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 12:09
Post #1412318

The often recommended on on here is Bobby Bell of BB Law as relatively cheap and very effective.

It may in your case be worth waiting until after the case management hearing before instructing a solicitor. Your defence is very simple, it is mistaken identity and in that case the CPS are very likely to have poor or no evidence.

The CPS may well drop it at that stage when the prospect of a conviction becomes poor. Or you may well feel it will be simple to represent yourself in court. Solicitors are valuable but you will not be fully recompensed for their fees.

Yours, after all, is not a technical defence that relies on nuances of law.

Posted by: Dwaynedouglas Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 06:45
Post #1412592

QUOTE (samthecat @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 19:42) *
QUOTE (Dave18 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 14:41) *
I've seen other topics on this forum with similar circumstances which discussed approaching the other party to pay for damages and avoid going to court. Is this not the case? My bad for using the wrong terminology.


Why would you consider this if she was no where near the incident and not responsible for it?


OP - is there any reason for the above? Has your wife remembered something?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)