Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Going Down
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
russiandoll
HI Everyone, I received a call from the police regarding an incident where I was reported by another driver and they asked to come to my house and allow me to make a written statement under caution about an incident 2 weeks prior to the call. I agreed and am now waiting the outcome of what actions will be taken but I wanted to see if anyone could give me some idea of what I can expect.

I was travelling on a single carriage rural road with national speed limit, it was around midday on a sunny afternoon and there was high visibility. I was driving less than the the speed limit for that road which was 60, because there are a few bends, dips and troughs on that road. I came behind two cars. The car in front was travelling quite slowly seemingly due to a load it was carrying mounted on a car rack.

I drove behind them for some time and when the road was straight enough to overtake the slow moving vehicle, I expected to wait for the car in front of me to overtake first but it seem he didn't intend to, and when the car didn't pass, I could see clearly that there was a safe enough distance on the straight road before the brow of the hill for me to pass one or both vehicles whilst remaining at the speed limit .

I used my indicators to show my intention to pass and moved into the oncoming lane. As I was overtaking the first vehicle I could see that there was very little gap between the first and second car. I could still see the road ahead clearly and judged that I had a safe distance to overtake the second car before my visibility of the road would be reduced owing to the brow of a hill.

As I drew alongside the car in the front, he began to pick up speed and was reluctant to allow me to pass safely. The driver continued to speed up, not allowing me to complete the manoeuvre and the second car was keeping pace so as not to let me in. I was frightened and angry by this drivers behaviour and I believe he/she created a condition of danger by speeding up and not allowing me to overtake safely. I was getting somewhat panicky and all felt like I was left with no alternative but to speed up and continue overtaking which I judged was the safer option rather than slam on the brakes which may have caused me to lose control of my vehicle and perhaps jeopardise the car I'd already overtaken.

I was finally able to pass the vehicle without incident, although another vehicle did come over the brow of the hill not long after I’d completed the manoeuvre but i’m hazy on it tbh as it all happened so fast and i was quite nervous. The police say that the oncoming vehicle had to take evasive action and pull into a layby and that they had a dash cam which showed I was driving dangerously. Looking back now, I can’t be sure, and I think that perhaps in my panic to get past the vehicle that was speeding up, I didn’t perhaps drive as cautiously as I should have or take the right action to avoid a possible collision. Although there was no collision and I carried on my way, slightly shaken.

So, thank you if you’re still with me. I’m expecting the worst now based on the PC’s comments about this being dangerous driving and the video looks very bad. I phoned one of these solicitors i found online and he said he was 90% sure he could get them to drop it. After the interview I was given no written information and he seemed to think that was important. The only problem is he wanted £600 for his services. I recently qualified for legal aid for a divorce and i’m a single parent of four and i’m self employed and use my vehicle for my work. A different solicitor said there would be no way to avoid a driving ban if I am found guilty of dangerous driving as mitigating circumstances don’t apply unless it’s a totting up situation. If anyone can think of anything I can do, I’d be very grateful. I haven’t heard yet what actions will be taken as it was only 2 days ago the statement was taken. I’ve already been told I should never have agreed to the statement under caution so I’d be grateful for advice without judgement, I feel quite wretched and hopeless as it is. Thank you for reading.
peterguk
You need to wait and see what you are charged with.

FWIW, IMHO, your mistake was putting your foot down to "win". You should have backed off and pulled in behind the 2nd car.
StuartBu
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 11:07) *
You need to wait and see what you are charged with.

FWIW, IMHO, your mistake was putting your foot down to "win". You should have backed off and pulled in behind the 2nd car.


And perhaps second mistake is to agree to a Home Visit by the Polis ...usual advice is to arrange it at the local cop-shop where you can request a duty solicitor .
Jlc
QUOTE (russiandoll @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 12:03) *
I phoned one of these solicitors i found online and he said he was 90% sure he could get them to drop it.
That's a bold statement...

Has the Police spoken to (or traced?) the cars you overtook?

Have you seen the video?

As noted, in hindsight, it is almost always safer to brake than accelerate - and is unlikely to result in the loss of control.
craig51
"about an incident 2 weeks prior to the call."

Can you give exact dates from when it happened to when the police got in touch?
Jlc
QUOTE (craig51 @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 13:06) *
"about an incident 2 weeks prior to the call."

Can you give exact dates from when it happened to when the police got in touch?

Good point, did they serve anything via post first?
russiandoll
the incident took place on 15th April and I was contacted by telephone on the 28th. I made the statement in my home on the 29th. I have received no notification on paper at any stage.
craig51
And do you have ANY thing in writing?

I ask because it seems you MAY have a get out of jail card for free!

For certain motoring offences then a NIP needs to be served on you. This can be verbal or written. A verbal NIP must be served at the time of the offence or very soon thereafer.

In your case a written one is required. Do you have one? If not, you are free and wold advise you to make no further comment.

BUT

if you were involved in an accident then this is negated. Nothing in your posts leads me to believe there was an accident.

http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm
russiandoll
I have nothing in writing. the pc said the car driver of the car in front of me which I’d passed first has been contacted and will make a statement. I haven’t seen the video yet, I was waiting to see if they are charging me, not sure if I should try to see it sooner, and yes, hindsight is a wonderful, I’m self flogging at the moment.
southpaw82
For most of the offences possible here, the police have to comply with s. 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

QUOTE
Subject to section 2 of this Act, [F1a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

© within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.


As you were not warned at the time of the incident, and have not been summonsed, they can only have complied by serving a notice (an NIP) on you within 14 days. Did they do so?
russiandoll
on the 14th day, not counting the day of incident (15th April), I was read the rights of giving a statement under caution and gave the statement at my home, and signed each page of the statement. after that, i was informed that he would be passing the info on to the powers that be, (can’t remember if that was senior police ?) and that they would make a decision as to whether to proceed with a charge. He said occasionally it could be dropped, or reduced to Careless driving, but in his opinion the video looked quite bad and it could result in a dangerous driving charge and require a court appearance.

so to clarify, i have received no written notification whatsoever of anything.
craig51
In which case, you have nothing to worry about! And this will probably be why your solicitor was quite excited

"as given no written information and he seemed to think that was important. "

I would sit tight, wait for their next move, and then state the following.

This happened on the X date
I still have not received an NIP as per the RTA
Please stop harassing me.

Or something along those lines.

And Sleep easy!
russiandoll
I’ve just seen this and am reading this text below from another post on the forum here, and I can’t recall if he said exactly this

"You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for this offence.” I don’t think i signed anything on the statement to say that I understood it was a NIP but he said they’d be in touch to let me know IF they would be prosecuting. I’m confused now.


Verbal NIP
This is the one you have to listen carefully for. Under the law it's the legal minimum that you have to receive before a summons. The words aren't clear and may confuse you. They'll be something like:

"You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for this offence."

Although there appears to be need for "consideration" and a "question" to answer you may never hear anything else from the Constabulary before you get a court summons. Make sure that if you've anything to say for yourself, you say it after the verbal NIP. If a verbal warning is given at the time, it must be shown that the defendant understood it (Gibson v Dalton [1980]). Proof that they understood the charge will lie with the prosecution.
craig51
As above,

A verbal has to be given to you at the time of the incident (or very very soon thereafter, certainly not days or weeks)

Therefore you NEED a written one. You don't have this. If you did it would be with you now.

Sleep easy.
Kickaha
Just a thought but could the other driver be making a claim due to damage sustained whilst swerving into the lay-by, and if so could this be then regarded as an accident?
russiandoll
thank you for all your help/advice Craig51 and other contributors, I will sleep easier tonight in hope and i’ll update when I hear anything.

QUOTE (Kickaha @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 14:28) *
Just a thought but could the other driver be making a claim due to damage sustained whilst swerving into the lay-by, and if so could this be then regarded as an accident?


I don’t know for sure but I don’t believe so.
peterguk
QUOTE (craig51 @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 13:24) *
And do you have ANY thing in writing?

I ask because it seems you MAY have a get out of jail card for free!

For certain motoring offences then a NIP needs to be served on you. This can be verbal or written. A verbal NIP must be served at the time of the offence or very soon thereafer.

In your case a written one is required. Do you have one? If not, you are free and wold advise you to make no further comment.

BUT

if you were involved in an accident then this is negated. Nothing in your posts leads me to believe there was an accident.

http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm


AIUI, an NIP has to be served within 14 days. Verbal or writtern. OP was interviewed under caution on day 14.

What's the "very soon after" bit???
craig51
"AIUI, an NIP has to be served within 14 days. Verbal or writtern. OP was interviewed under caution on day 14."

Wrong, see the RTA quoted above.

"What's the "very soon after" bit???"

I read somewhere 2 years ago that a verbal was given 3 hours after the event. I believe the police turned up at the house as soon as they practically could due to some reason or another and this was allowed. I cant find the particular case to reference to I am afraid, so I may very well be wrong.

However for clarity , a verbal is only valid at the time of the incident, otherwise it must be written!

southpaw82
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:15) *
AIUI, an NIP has to be served within 14 days. Verbal or writtern.


That's not what s. 1(1) says though.

peterguk
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:50) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:15) *
AIUI, an NIP has to be served within 14 days. Verbal or writtern.


That's not what s. 1(1) says though.




Thanks. I'm sure i read somewhere here that a verbal is at time of offence, or "as soon as is reasonably pratical"...
The Rookie
Just 'at the time' which is taken to mean soon after as the officer wouldn't be sat next to you as he zapped you for speeding (as an example).
Logician
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:54) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:50) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 15:15) *
AIUI, an NIP has to be served within 14 days. Verbal or writtern.
That's not what s. 1(1) says though.
Thanks. I'm sure i read somewhere here that a verbal is at time of offence, or "as soon as is reasonably pratical"...


I think that covers the case where for instance the driver speeds off and is not arrested until 30 minutes later, then medically examined an hour later and warned after that (Jollye v Hollis) but cannot possibly cover the situation where s/he was first spoken to 13 days later. Also, even if the driver of the oncoming car had crashed in the lay-by, the OP did not know that, so the exception where there is an accident would not apply. It is for the OP to raise the issue, otherwise s.1 will be presumed to have been complied with.

russiandoll
further to this, now, I’ve spoken to a solicitor and he says that because I was reported by a member of the public the NIP 14 day rule doesn’t apply to me and I will now just have to wait anything between a few weeks and a few months for a summons. If they decide to prosecute and I get the summons I was told they will then have to provide the video and I can start preparing my defence. I still don’t exactly get why the solicitor thinks this and I can only hope that he knows what he’s doing. any thoughts?
craig51
Get a new solicitor!

So what he is saying that the law only applies if the police witness it, otherwise forget the law!?!?

Logician
That solicitor does not know what he is talking about, and you should talk to a motoring specialist.

s.1 RTOA 1988:

(1)Subject to section 2 of this Act, a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless—

(a)he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

©within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i)in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii)in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.




Nothing about the date police become aware of the alleged offence, and nothing in s.2 that affects this case either. If you must stick with this solicitor, ask him to tell you why s.1 does not apply when the report is by a member of the public.




The Rookie
It's 14 days from when the police became aware AIUI, in which case the 14 day rule still applies, but not from the offence date but an unknown date when it was reported.
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 15:58) *
It's 14 days from when the police became aware AIUI, in which case the 14 day rule still applies, but not from the offence date but an unknown date when it was reported.

Can you support this assertion?
andy_foster
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 15:58) *
Nothing about the date police become aware of the alleged offence, and nothing in s.2 that affects this case either. If you must stick with this solicitor, ask him to tell you why s.1 does not apply when the report is by a member of the public.


There would seem to be an argument where the police through no fault of their own do not become aware of the offence/allegation in time to ascertain the RK's details (or the driver's details) in time to serve a NIP within the 14 days.

However, as they spoke to him on day 13 but didn't bother to serve a NIP, that can't apply in this case.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 15:58) *
It's 14 days from when the police became aware AIUI, in which case the 14 day rule still applies, but not from the offence date but an unknown date when it was reported.


There is only one 14 day rule - the one in s. 1 RTOA 1988. The one that you (and IIRC marmalade) made up doesn't count.
russiandoll
I’m starting to feel a shred of hope again. Thank you all for posting I’m very grateful. I’ll update further as/when something happens.
The Rookie
Slightly wrong in what I said earlier, but RTOA S2 para 3 says
QUOTE
(a)that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or

So if an accusation was made too late for the name and address of the RK could be found out with reasonable diligence in time, as the RD would only start when the police became aware of the alleged offence. This section is normally regarded as for when RK details are not correctly available from DVLA (recent purchase for example) but would appear to equally apply if the Police simply didn't have time to ascertain details due to becoming aware of the alleged offence too late? It certainly doesn't rule that out.
Logician
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 19:54) *
Slightly wrong in what I said earlier, but RTOA S2 para 3 says
QUOTE
(a)that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or
So if an accusation was made too late for the name and address of the RK could be found out with reasonable diligence in time, as the RD would only start when the police became aware of the alleged offence. This section is normally regarded as for when RK details are not correctly available from DVLA (recent purchase for example) but would appear to equally apply if the Police simply didn't have time to ascertain details due to becoming aware of the alleged offence too late? It certainly doesn't rule that out.


But in this case they did ascertain the name and address of the registered keeper in time, because they telephoned on the 13th day and took a statement on the 14th day. But those days were certainly not at the time of the incident, when a verbal warning would be valid, and no NIP was served, although it clearly could have been, so it appears that s.1 has not been complied with.

The Rookie
If they only found out on the 13th day (and we don't know) then RD would not have got a written NIP to the RK by the 14th, as we know, after that there is no time limit then, so a valid NIP could still be served, clearly an excessive delay may provide arguments, but the fact the RK was contacted by phone may offset any argument they were disadvantaged I think?
big_mac
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 5 May 2015 - 03:16) *
If they only found out on the 13th day (and we don't know) then RD would not have got a written NIP to the RK by the 14th

They don't have to mail it; they certainly had the opportunity to deliver it directly.
The Rookie
That depends on whether that could be said to be reasonable, although as they took a statement from him then there would certainly be a strong argument that as all they had to do was write (type and print) it they could then have provided it by hand on the 14th (I'd missed that they saw him on the 14th - my bad) in which case, yes he seems to have a strong defence.
russiandoll
I asked the solicitor why the 14 day rule would not apply and his short response was that "The police officer would have reported you “for any offences disclosed” following the interview.”

that makes no sense to me, is he suggesting that anything i might have incriminated myself for can now be reported? does the 14 days start from then or simply not apply?

is it possible that because i was advised at the time of the interview that i was under caution for the offence of possible dangerous driving, does that suffice as a NIP, although it wasn’t in writing and I never received anything in writing.

Or is it possible that because the person who reported me and provided the video, who supposedly had to take evasive action and pull into a layby, does that count as one of the exceptions to the 14 day rule “if you were knowingly in an accident at the time”. But in defence against that, I was certainly not aware that the driver had to take evasive action at the time and there was no accident by the normal definition. Can that vehicle say that he damaged his tyres or something and therefore it counts as an accident? But I didn’t know at the time so I wasn’t ‘knowingly in an accident at the time’. Still stressing.

Just saw logicians post about knowingly in an accident at the time so i think that’s answered.
The Rookie
The 14 days, as mentioned above, starts on the day of the offence, the only get out is if they couldn't, with reasonable diligence get the name and address of the driver NOR registered keeper in time, as they interviewed you on the 14th day, they clearly had the detail and just had to give you a NIP on the day, I think your solicitor is wrong.

Reporting you is irrelevant.

Interview is irrelevant, the law says told at the time or in writing (served).

Have a read
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/1

Section 2 part1 deals with if there is an accident.

and for the get out quoted above and others
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/2

russiandoll
thank you Rookie I think I can rest easier now and if I get a NIP or summons I will consult a solicitor that is a motor specialist as Logician suggested. I’m very very grateful for all your responses.
The Rookie
I wouldn't consult anyone that will cost you money until you try resolving anything yourself first, post back with updates here and if it does become sensible to engage someone then you will have saved some cash in the meantime.

You will only get costs at legal aid rates, so will be paying the difference between that rate and whatever the assistance costs you, resolve it early and you may not even be able to claim LA rates.
russiandoll
sounds sensible, will wait for police communication.
craig51
QUOTE (russiandoll @ Tue, 5 May 2015 - 11:06) *
sounds sensible, will wait for police communication.


That's a good idea!!! Wait for them to make the next move. Then come back here to report and await advice.

I certainly would get a new solicitor but for the meantime just sit it out
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.