Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: being asked to the police station
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
big gav
i have been visited by an officer saying i will be invited to the station to clear a matter up.

there was an alleged arguement between myself and another driver. name calling / shouting etc. the other driver claims i 'struck' their v!ehicle causing damage. which is 100% untrue.

should i attend this chat/interview ?


any advice appreciated.
southpaw82
Depends. If you don't then you could be arrested. Do you feel lucky?

If you do go, arrange for a lawyer (on the legal aid contract) to meet you at the police station. This is free.
Logician
The police and possibly in due course the courts tend to think that an innocent person will wish to clear their name. Refusal to cooperate or a no comment interview look like the actions of a guilty man.
Be honest with your lawyer, even if you do not feel particularly proud of what you did.
mynamegoesinhere
Would be a huge coincidence, but I saw something along these lines in the morning of Thursday or Friday last week (Friday I think).
I couldn't see exactly what had annoyed the following driver, but they leapt out of their car and whacked the driver's side window of the car in front a couple of times.

Very much doubt it's the same incident - what are the odds!

ETA: this was in Ewell, Surrey.
Atomic Tomato
QUOTE (mynamegoesinhere @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 12:59) *
Would be a huge coincidence, but I saw something along these lines in the morning of Thursday or Friday last week (Friday I think).

It does sound like the other half of topic 90634
mynamegoesinhere
QUOTE (Atomic Tomato @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (mynamegoesinhere @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 12:59) *
Would be a huge coincidence, but I saw something along these lines in the morning of Thursday or Friday last week (Friday I think).

It does sound like the other half of topic 90634


Now that would be a coincidence. Certainly not the incident I witnessed.
sgtdixie
I think it is this topic they mean.
big gav
My alleged incident is from the second week in May.
sgtdixie
Without any details we can't say much more.

Is this an allegation of collision damage or criminal damage? If the latter you would almost certainly be arrested of you don't go voluntarily.
The Rookie
QUOTE (big gav @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 00:09) *
the other driver claims i 'struck' their v!ehicle causing damage. which is 100% untrue.

Which bit is untrue, that you struck it, or that the striking caused damage?
big gav
That i caused damage, i slapped the bodywork from my seat.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (big gav @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 15:49) *
That i caused damage, i slapped the bodywork from my seat.

That is criminal damage so if you don't go in they will lift you.
Logician
QUOTE
name calling / shouting etc

There could also be a public order offence
Spenny
I would add that it might be that you simply have to admit to a bad tempered argument and that it will end up in a "local resolution".

It is highly unlikely that this would turn into a prosecution, it is too low level, unless you aggravate the situation at the police station by being too self-righteous. So the thing to do is apologise for what you did do, deny what you didn't do. You cannot necessarily deny damaging the car if you hit it, but things like did you make a fist or simply slap it are relevant.

It is possible that a hard hit on bodywork might cause perceptible damage, so you better listen carefully to what is alleged. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that there was pre-existing damage. If there is genuine damage, then it is best to admit it and deal with the consequences, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument.

Normally, I'd expect this to turn into both parties apologising for their behaviour and some sort of understanding about resolving the alleged damage. If you stick to your guns and the police decide that there is evidence that your slap did damage, then they may decide it is appropriate to pass it on to the CPS.

So, be clear about what did and didn't happen, don't assume that because the other person was being a berk that this entitles you to behaving as you did.
sgtdixie
The PC who interviews you won't be the one making the decision; but his recommendations may well be crucial. Keeping him onside is a good idea. As always the advice is to either tell the truth or say nothing.
big gav
please believe me when i say i am not proud of what i did. the other person hit me with a racist remark, then made a threat towards myself and my 4 year old son, i lost my rag and slapped their rear window/bodywork. as i left the scene in my vehicle they chased me in their car for a couple of miles through town flashing their lights and driving very aggressively.

right or wrong i wasnt allowing my lad to get anymore threats. and right or wrong my reactions were ones of genuine concern for our safety.

i know now that i should have done absolutely nothing, but in the heat of the moment it doesnt always work like that.

this is my first offence.
Spenny
QUOTE (big gav @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 22:46) *
please believe me when i say i am not proud of what i did. the other person hit me with a racist remark, then made a threat towards myself and my 4 year old son, i lost my rag and slapped their rear window/bodywork. as i left the scene in my vehicle they chased me in their car for a couple of miles through town flashing their lights and driving very aggressively.

right or wrong i wasnt allowing my lad to get anymore threats. and right or wrong my reactions were ones of genuine concern for our safety.

i know now that i should have done absolutely nothing, but in the heat of the moment it doesnt always work like that.

this is my first offence.

Interesting you mention the racist comment. That gains 4 points in the matrix and makes it quite likely that the CPS would prosecute the other party if there is another offence committed by the other driver. The racist comment will hit all sorts of buttons down the police station. Be very clear about what was said.
big gav
I attended today and was cautioned , had my interview and i will be reported to the cps for criminal damage.

i admitted striking the vehicle but i made it clear how genuinely fearfull for our safety i was and how shocked i was at the racist remark.

time will tell what is next

thank you all for the advice.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (big gav @ Wed, 28 May 2014 - 21:18) *
I attended today and was cautioned , had my interview and i will be reported to the cps for criminal damage.

i admitted striking the vehicle but i made it clear how genuinely fearfull for our safety i was and how shocked i was at the racist remark.

time will tell what is next

thank you all for the advice.

Did you have a solicitor present?
peterguk
QUOTE (big gav @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 00:09) *
the other driver claims i 'struck' their vehicle causing damage. which is 100% untrue.


QUOTE (big gav @ Wed, 28 May 2014 - 21:18) *
i admitted striking the vehicle


Why admit something you didn't do?

Or did you "forget" you had struck the vehicle when you started the thread? Difficult to give best advice when given incorrect information.
sgtdixie
Also not sure how hitting a car helps if you feel your safety is threatened.
big gav
yes i had a solicitor present sgtdixie

and peterguk, i clarified earlier in the thread that i slapped the bodywork but i saw no damage.


there is quite a lot more detail than just the racist remark, arguing etc

but as always we the joe public are advised not to disclose all the nitty gritty online as we never know who is reading ?

after two seperate incidents of verbal exchange the other party partially blocked the road , forcing me to pass extremely close, whilst i did so we were threatened and i struck out.

not proud of it, but that is what occurred .
sgtdixie
Sommewhat surprised they didn't look at a caution for a minor damage and 1st offence which you admit to in interview.
big gav
My solicitor had a similar opinion.
Logician
I thought you admitted to striking the vehicle but not to causing any damage?
peterguk
QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 28 May 2014 - 23:41) *
I thought you admitted to striking the vehicle but not to causing any damage?


OP says he saw no damage. Would appear BiB have evidence to the contrary?
The Rookie
QUOTE (big gav @ Tue, 27 May 2014 - 00:09) *
which is 100% untrue.

Perhaps a lower percentage would have been a better guess.
big gav



that is correct, but the person claims there is a large dent on the rear side of her car at least 6" wide.
The Rookie
There may be, but depending on the panel and shape, that would would usually require the use of a fist, a slap wouldn't do it.....so the question would be was that you, or already there.
big gav
During disclosure from the police they said there was no cctv evidence of the 'slap' but , as i had done wrong and without trying to sound holier than though
I didnt want to go in there and lie.
The Rookie
Know, that could have got you in a world of hot water, especially as evidence of the slap exists (this thread), it's effect may be in debate.
thisisntme
This will have to pass the 'In the public interest' test. One could argue that punishing you for reacting to threats of violence, however misguided might be rewarding the person committing racial abuse (have you made a formal complaint about this it would be aggravated racial abuse which is a criminal and recordable offence?) and therefore not in the public interest.

I'm not a solicitor, but might be worth asking the question of your lawyer whether it might be in your interests to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of the other driver. In my view (albeit non legal) if it's a serious enough complaint that a reasonable person would react to, then a reasonable person would make a formal complaint about it.
peterguk
IMHO, it would be in the public interest to prosecute for racial abuse and road rage. Neither are acceptable forms of behaviour.
thisisntme
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 29 May 2014 - 22:12) *
IMHO, it would be in the public interest to prosecute for racial abuse and road rage. Neither are acceptable forms of behaviour.


But would that pass the old man on the no 10 omnibus test?

Man A threatens Man B and his family, I think a reasonable man (the proverbial man on a No10 bus) would understand why Man B reacts in the way he does.
big gav
very valid points. i didnt report it at the time as i only had the colour of the vehicle. no index or make.

i will call tomorrow.
southpaw82
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Thu, 29 May 2014 - 22:30) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 29 May 2014 - 22:12) *
IMHO, it would be in the public interest to prosecute for racial abuse and road rage. Neither are acceptable forms of behaviour.


But would that pass the old man on the no 10 omnibus test?

Man A threatens Man B and his family, I think a reasonable man (the proverbial man on a No10 bus) would understand why Man B reacts in the way he does.



I doubt provocation will cause an allegation of criminal damage to fail the public interest test. It may be mitigation, which would properly be a matter for a court. Other means of disposal are available.
big gav
What other means are there ?
Mattd
Caution, conditional caution or Local resolution. All of which are dependant on the circumstances of the case and any aggravating factors and the offenders previous history.
sgtdixie
Matt, can you explain local resolution as I was only aware of this in relation to misconduct not criminal proceedings. Fully accept things change and would like to know as it has come up on a recent thread.
Mattd
Sorry mate- local resolutions are also known as community resolutions and have been heavily pushed over the lasts year or so. They are effectively a very low level way of dealing with a job by an agreed outcome...a good example would be a young lad who has damaged a fence as a way of making up for it after making an admission fixes the fence. Anything reasonable can be an outcome as long as it is proportionate.

They sit below a caution in terms of disposal, the offender is shown as having the offence detected against them at a local level but it does not go on PNC in the same way as a caution/conditional caution does. So they only show up on an enhanced CRB
Spenny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepRJC1DVCM...yMbCRVZ_a1NhNkw

I was surprised this was a "local resolution"
Unzippy
What happens if he doesn't fix the fence, how is it governed?
sgtdixie
QUOTE (Spenny @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 16:00) *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepRJC1DVCM...yMbCRVZ_a1NhNkw

I was surprised this was a "local resolution"

You have to take emotion out of decision making. All I know about this case is what the you tube video and commentary shows. But it appears at it's heart to be a common assault. Ultimately the offender admitted the assault and had no previous convictions. As such he fitted the guidelines for a caution or in this case a local resolution.

Unfortunately it is hard to take emotion out of this as an outsider. The fact the offender lied initially in interview doesn't change the offence or make his offending worse. The fact it was a cyclist doesn't make it worse just because many cyclists are on the end of driver behaviour. Calling it road rage doesn't change what it was. What this comes down to is the criminality. He hit the victim several times which is a common assault in all likelyhood. Take out the emotion and that is all it is. I can understand how a victim may well not be happy this didn't go to court but the criminal justice system is designed to take the penalties out of the hands of victims and make it independent and consistent.
The Rookie
Just to play devils advocate though SD, if this was a white man assaulting a black man and using racist language (a so called hate crime, though I hate that expression) would it have been different? So if driver assaults a cyclist using anti cyclist language is that different?

Just throwing it in to provoke so me thought, but there are are some (on both sides of the fence) who's anti-cycling or anti-car 'passion' borders on an "ism".
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 18:03) *
Just to play devils advocate though SD, if this was a white man assaulting a black man and using racist language (a so called hate crime, though I hate that expression) would it have been different? So if driver assaults a cyclist using anti cyclist language is that different?

Just throwing it in to provoke so me thought, but there are are some (on both sides of the fence) who's anti-cycling or anti-car 'passion' borders on an "ism".


But not a protected "ism" in the eyes of the law.
crashdetective
Here's a clue - It's got something to do with 'race' albeit cycle 'race' doesn't qualify! It's the law that dunnit!
Spenny
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 16:37) *
You have to take emotion out of decision making. All I know about this case is what the you tube video and commentary shows. But it appears at it's heart to be a common assault. Ultimately the offender admitted the assault and had no previous convictions. As such he fitted the guidelines for a caution or in this case a local resolution.

I think what I was surprised at was that the system views common assault quite low on the scale. I've talked through this with a magistrate who is well known to me (sitting <---- there) and the lack of premeditation, how sustained etc. make it a low level offence. That is what surprised me.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (Spenny @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 21:51) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 16:37) *
You have to take emotion out of decision making. All I know about this case is what the you tube video and commentary shows. But it appears at it's heart to be a common assault. Ultimately the offender admitted the assault and had no previous convictions. As such he fitted the guidelines for a caution or in this case a local resolution.

I think what I was surprised at was that the system views common assault quite low on the scale. I've talked through this with a magistrate who is well known to me (sitting <---- there) and the lack of premeditation, how sustained etc. make it a low level offence. That is what surprised me.

Assault is graded on severity of injury at this level. Hitting someone 10 times in an ambush may still be a common assault if the level of injury is commensurate with that offence.
Noodles71
QUOTE (Spenny @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 16:00) *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepRJC1DVCM...yMbCRVZ_a1NhNkw

I was surprised this was a "local resolution"



I'm surprised it even got as far as the police spending time on it. My experience in London is the Police would say they don't have the resources to follow it up.

While the assault itself is pretty ugly I'd like to make a point about slamming on the brakes and swinging the door out which if you see the on-coming car ahead it could have been a whole lot worse had it happened a few seconds later or the cyclist not as proficient at swerving. Plenty of us punters have come here looking for help on situations they have been pinned for which is a lot less serious than this hard stop. I'm sure a lot of you in the job or retired have had words to educate over much less dangerous driving (forgetting the assault).

I sympathise with the OP as having close to a ton of metal being thrown irresponsibly about in front of you does make it hard to stop the red mist descending. Those who haven't had similar close calls might think I'm being precious but deliberate irresponsible driving I see in the same boat as throwing a knife at someone. Both are deadly weapons and sometimes there is no luck. I really hope for you the person interviewing you has cycled before and not the type to start the conversation asking if you ran a red light.
Mattd
QUOTE (Unzippy @ Fri, 30 May 2014 - 16:19) *
What happens if he doesn't fix the fence, how is it governed?


Then he hasn't completed the resolution and he get at summonsed or charged to court.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.