I must have posted somewhere before that once upon a time it was "Send NIP first, ask questions later." Looking in from the outside, I can see that things have changed and the normal procedure is that the NIP is only sent when proceedings are seriously being considered, which is probably extremely rare. It's an approach which will always risk NIP problems, especially if those involved are unfamiliar with their importance.
Shootist has suggested a complaint and if you decide on that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) seems the best way to start. You can even do it online.
https://secureforms.ipcc.gov.uk/Pages/f ... laint.aspx
I think they will refer it to the police force concerned but it puts down a marker.
I'd think through what you want to achieve before deciding what to do next. A complaint will not, for example, wind back the NIP clock. A prosecution for careless/ dangerous driving is simply impossible without the timely NIP or an exception such as an accident.
It's possible, but unlikely, that there was some sort of quirk of circumstances like a lightning strike that stopped the mail reaching the pillar box. More likely, somebody decided it wasn't worth pursuing and going back to your thread title and OP, that needn't be at the CPS. I suspect you will get a version of my sentence preceding this one, but in more formal lingo. Any frustration you feel now may even be stronger.
If you want to change the general carry on, then your friendly local Police and Crime Commissioner is the person with more influence over policy, but don't raise your hopes.
CPS and Police procedures
-
jatindersangha
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am
Re: CPS and Police procedures
As case 1 is now closed - (the driver handed in their driving licence), here are the (shortened) videos:
Front: action happens approx. 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6051SE069p4
Rear: again, 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLp5aYZ5_ZU
Thanks,
--Jatinder
Front: action happens approx. 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6051SE069p4
Rear: again, 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLp5aYZ5_ZU
Thanks,
--Jatinder
-
jatindersangha
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am
Re: CPS and Police procedures
I've had a response to case 2 now.
The police say that it "failed the evidential test", ie. "Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". The driver was interviewed but that's all as far as I know.
The edited video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjXko7ykMVY
What do others think?
I'd like to take this further and lodge an official complaint as I believe the video clearly shows tailgating, overtaking dangerously, causing an obstruction etc.
--Jatinder
The police say that it "failed the evidential test", ie. "Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". The driver was interviewed but that's all as far as I know.
The edited video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjXko7ykMVY
What do others think?
I'd like to take this further and lodge an official complaint as I believe the video clearly shows tailgating, overtaking dangerously, causing an obstruction etc.
--Jatinder
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: CPS and Police procedures
I've edited the following since I first posted it.:
========================================
I'm not sure if you want the opinions of others on the alleged bad driving, the decision not to prosecute, or the merits of the procedure for complaining but I'd suggest that if you want to complain, get on with it. Complaints against the police are here:-
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints
In the (probably unlikely) event that the decision was formally taken by the CPS, you would have to address that quarter.
On the subject of evidence, sufficient or otherwise, I think it's important to understand that your two clips (front and rear cameras) would normally be treated as corroboration of your own evidence. If that evidence has already been gathered, it will be in the form of a written statement of your account of what you were doing and then saw and heard. Anybody commentating on footage is only commenting on a part of the evidence. Your opinions about how others should have behaved are not evidence, except possibly they might be used by the defence to undermine your evidence, eg by portraying you as being obsessed or a vigilante.
Although the suspect ie the driver of the van, is "not obliged to say anything" and if they do their explanation can be used in evidence, any explanation they do give can be a useful guide to a prosecutor about any defence which they may eventually offer at court. We don't know what they said.
The investigating officer is expected to alert the prosecutor to the credibility of prosecution witnesses. That's a vague area but a witness who was more concerned to crusade than stick to the admissible evidence would be a liability. When I get to the end of your link, I'm offered more footage which I didn't watch. If I were to be a solicitor preparing to defend a cycling headcam case, I'd research the other stuff they'd posted then seek to present them in court in that light.
One question raised by the suspect's conduct and which isn't apparent from the vid is what caused them to brake suddenly? I'm not trying to condone bad driving such as slamming the brakes on to inconvenience or endanger a cyclist, whether in response to provocation or otherwise, but if there were to have been provocation such as crude gesturing, it would tend to undermine the credibility of the prosecution evidence.
I'm writing this from the POV of having considered loads of police prosecution files and with a fair bit of prosecution evidence pre-CPS (all pre-headcam, of course.)
From the accounts posted by others, I think you have simply experienced the par for the course. Are you aware, for example, that when Ms Suzette Davenport, now a chief constable, who is the ACPO (as was) lead on "roads policing" gave evidence to the Hupper's charade she made some comment about headcam footage being useless? (My wording)
viewtopic.php?p=872223#p872223
========================================
I'm not sure if you want the opinions of others on the alleged bad driving, the decision not to prosecute, or the merits of the procedure for complaining but I'd suggest that if you want to complain, get on with it. Complaints against the police are here:-
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints
In the (probably unlikely) event that the decision was formally taken by the CPS, you would have to address that quarter.
On the subject of evidence, sufficient or otherwise, I think it's important to understand that your two clips (front and rear cameras) would normally be treated as corroboration of your own evidence. If that evidence has already been gathered, it will be in the form of a written statement of your account of what you were doing and then saw and heard. Anybody commentating on footage is only commenting on a part of the evidence. Your opinions about how others should have behaved are not evidence, except possibly they might be used by the defence to undermine your evidence, eg by portraying you as being obsessed or a vigilante.
Although the suspect ie the driver of the van, is "not obliged to say anything" and if they do their explanation can be used in evidence, any explanation they do give can be a useful guide to a prosecutor about any defence which they may eventually offer at court. We don't know what they said.
The investigating officer is expected to alert the prosecutor to the credibility of prosecution witnesses. That's a vague area but a witness who was more concerned to crusade than stick to the admissible evidence would be a liability. When I get to the end of your link, I'm offered more footage which I didn't watch. If I were to be a solicitor preparing to defend a cycling headcam case, I'd research the other stuff they'd posted then seek to present them in court in that light.
One question raised by the suspect's conduct and which isn't apparent from the vid is what caused them to brake suddenly? I'm not trying to condone bad driving such as slamming the brakes on to inconvenience or endanger a cyclist, whether in response to provocation or otherwise, but if there were to have been provocation such as crude gesturing, it would tend to undermine the credibility of the prosecution evidence.
I'm writing this from the POV of having considered loads of police prosecution files and with a fair bit of prosecution evidence pre-CPS (all pre-headcam, of course.)
From the accounts posted by others, I think you have simply experienced the par for the course. Are you aware, for example, that when Ms Suzette Davenport, now a chief constable, who is the ACPO (as was) lead on "roads policing" gave evidence to the Hupper's charade she made some comment about headcam footage being useless? (My wording)
viewtopic.php?p=872223#p872223
-
jatindersangha
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am
Re: CPS and Police procedures
Hi thirdcrank,
When I posted the message above, I did want the opinions of others on the alleged bad driving, decision not to prosecute etc as I felt that the police weren't treating it seriously enough.
Since then, I've had a long conversation with a senior traffic officer/decision maker where we talked about all the cases that I've reported to the police so far this year - 11 in total.
Case 1 (at the beginning of this thread) had the driver handing in their licence. Still no clearer to understanding why.
Case 2 (white van above) - I firmly believe that the police tried to initially fob me off by saying that there wasn't enough evidence in the video. After I complained they revised their opinion (after the 14 day NIP time) and did end up identifying and contacting the driver. The driver apparently took this very badly and has raised a complaint against the police for suggesting that he may have been "prosecuted". My bad driving case against this person was dropped as having failed the evidential test because at the beginning of my journey home that night (10 mins prior), I rode on the pavement for 30metres, following a car that was driving half-on the pavement to get past a traffic jam - this would appear to undermine the case if it went to court.
However, I'm OK with the way this case was eventually handled - my biggest gripe was that, with some of my previous reports, the police had either blamed my "poor cycling" or tried to find any reason to show that nothing dangerous had happened. I can definitely say, that the police investigated and at least the driver is now aware that driving like that may end up in a prosecution.
To be clear - I didn't make any gestures or swear etc at the driver of the white van at any time. In the video, I can be clearly heard shouting "double-white lines! Don't overtake!" twice. After he had slowed down in front of me (but hadn't quite stopped) was when I first shouted it. He then stopped and I shouted it again as I passed him. So, no, I can't think of any reason why he wanted to slow down right after overtaking me.
With the other 9 cases:
One wasn't investigated as the police review was that nothing had really happened. To be fair, it wasn't as close as other passes - so fine. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one.
Another one wasn't investigated, as again, about 15 minutes prior to the incident, I rode on the pavement for 50metres to get around some police cars and an ambulance that had blocked the road whilst attending a road-traffic collision. This close pass was pretty serious - but I suppose I ought to learn not to ride on the pavement, ever! (Or at least, not send that part of the video to the police
The remaining 7 cases were all investigated, and the drivers were sent "letters of advice". The police told me that they're effectively warning letters but they're not allowed to call them that. The rationale for "letters of advice" rather than prosecution was that the incidents were minor lapses of judgement, didn't result in any injuries/damage and were "first offences". I haven't put any of these videos on youtube - but one of them was the closest incident I've had on a bike and I was certain a prosecution would be forthcoming...
So, out of 11 reports, 2 were dismissed, the rest were investigated - 1 licence surrendered, 1 dismissed and 7 cases "actioned" with "letters of advice".
Other things we talked about -
- none of the drivers was actually spoken to in-person - everything was done by post
- one of the drivers wasn't insured
- that Surrey police get a lot of these videos from a number of cyclists on a regular basis
- they were aware of the West Midlands "undercover" cyclists initiative but couldn't even begin to think of doing the same in Surrey as the numbers of traffic police have been decimated over the last few years
- to have priorities changed it would be best to write to the Chief Constable
I have no desire to be a vigilante or anything like that - all I want to do is ride my bike without being endangered by people driving motor vehicles in a careless/dangerous manner.
There was a lull of a few weeks cycling that were completely incident-free - but this week I've made a further 3 reports (2 attempted left-hooks) and another close-pass on an otherwise empty road.
My plan is to write to the Chief Constable, Surrey PCC and the Woking/Surrey Heath councils so that they're all more aware of the issues and perhaps do something concrete to reduce the potential for danger.
On a side-note, there's a pub on a corner near where I live - no pavement near the pub strangely. Many motorists will turn right onto the main road at the pub. Over the years, the management of the pub occasionally puts an advertising board out which blocks the line of sight that drivers need when turning right. It only takes 1 call to the police and they send a PCSO (and sometimes a real officer) out to have a word with the pub owner and have the board removed.
The pub has now changed hands and is being converted to a number of houses - with a large fence blocking the line of sight. 1 call to the police and a PCSO arrived there a few days later talking to motorists and the builders. Another call to the council and the planning officer is heading out there to re-confirm the lines of sight and enforce restrictions on the type, position and height of the fencing...
And all this because of the *possibility* that there may be an accident because a motorist can't easily see if the road is clear...
When I posted the message above, I did want the opinions of others on the alleged bad driving, decision not to prosecute etc as I felt that the police weren't treating it seriously enough.
Since then, I've had a long conversation with a senior traffic officer/decision maker where we talked about all the cases that I've reported to the police so far this year - 11 in total.
Case 1 (at the beginning of this thread) had the driver handing in their licence. Still no clearer to understanding why.
Case 2 (white van above) - I firmly believe that the police tried to initially fob me off by saying that there wasn't enough evidence in the video. After I complained they revised their opinion (after the 14 day NIP time) and did end up identifying and contacting the driver. The driver apparently took this very badly and has raised a complaint against the police for suggesting that he may have been "prosecuted". My bad driving case against this person was dropped as having failed the evidential test because at the beginning of my journey home that night (10 mins prior), I rode on the pavement for 30metres, following a car that was driving half-on the pavement to get past a traffic jam - this would appear to undermine the case if it went to court.
However, I'm OK with the way this case was eventually handled - my biggest gripe was that, with some of my previous reports, the police had either blamed my "poor cycling" or tried to find any reason to show that nothing dangerous had happened. I can definitely say, that the police investigated and at least the driver is now aware that driving like that may end up in a prosecution.
To be clear - I didn't make any gestures or swear etc at the driver of the white van at any time. In the video, I can be clearly heard shouting "double-white lines! Don't overtake!" twice. After he had slowed down in front of me (but hadn't quite stopped) was when I first shouted it. He then stopped and I shouted it again as I passed him. So, no, I can't think of any reason why he wanted to slow down right after overtaking me.
With the other 9 cases:
One wasn't investigated as the police review was that nothing had really happened. To be fair, it wasn't as close as other passes - so fine. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one.
Another one wasn't investigated, as again, about 15 minutes prior to the incident, I rode on the pavement for 50metres to get around some police cars and an ambulance that had blocked the road whilst attending a road-traffic collision. This close pass was pretty serious - but I suppose I ought to learn not to ride on the pavement, ever! (Or at least, not send that part of the video to the police
The remaining 7 cases were all investigated, and the drivers were sent "letters of advice". The police told me that they're effectively warning letters but they're not allowed to call them that. The rationale for "letters of advice" rather than prosecution was that the incidents were minor lapses of judgement, didn't result in any injuries/damage and were "first offences". I haven't put any of these videos on youtube - but one of them was the closest incident I've had on a bike and I was certain a prosecution would be forthcoming...
So, out of 11 reports, 2 were dismissed, the rest were investigated - 1 licence surrendered, 1 dismissed and 7 cases "actioned" with "letters of advice".
Other things we talked about -
- none of the drivers was actually spoken to in-person - everything was done by post
- one of the drivers wasn't insured
- that Surrey police get a lot of these videos from a number of cyclists on a regular basis
- they were aware of the West Midlands "undercover" cyclists initiative but couldn't even begin to think of doing the same in Surrey as the numbers of traffic police have been decimated over the last few years
- to have priorities changed it would be best to write to the Chief Constable
I have no desire to be a vigilante or anything like that - all I want to do is ride my bike without being endangered by people driving motor vehicles in a careless/dangerous manner.
There was a lull of a few weeks cycling that were completely incident-free - but this week I've made a further 3 reports (2 attempted left-hooks) and another close-pass on an otherwise empty road.
My plan is to write to the Chief Constable, Surrey PCC and the Woking/Surrey Heath councils so that they're all more aware of the issues and perhaps do something concrete to reduce the potential for danger.
On a side-note, there's a pub on a corner near where I live - no pavement near the pub strangely. Many motorists will turn right onto the main road at the pub. Over the years, the management of the pub occasionally puts an advertising board out which blocks the line of sight that drivers need when turning right. It only takes 1 call to the police and they send a PCSO (and sometimes a real officer) out to have a word with the pub owner and have the board removed.
The pub has now changed hands and is being converted to a number of houses - with a large fence blocking the line of sight. 1 call to the police and a PCSO arrived there a few days later talking to motorists and the builders. Another call to the council and the planning officer is heading out there to re-confirm the lines of sight and enforce restrictions on the type, position and height of the fencing...
And all this because of the *possibility* that there may be an accident because a motorist can't easily see if the road is clear...
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: CPS and Police procedures
What I was first trying to explain is the type of evidence needed for a successful prosecution. I don't know if you have read the stuff I linked to earlier by Martin Porter QC about his unsuccessful private prosecution of an overtaking driver where headcam footage played a big role in the prosecution evidence.
MP had his footage analysed by an expert who then gave evidence about things like the speed of the vehicles involved. In his own analysis of what went wrong with the prosecution, MP noted how much the initial impression of watching the footage must have influenced the jury, in spite of the detailed expert explanation they were given.
I have some experience of this type of footage myself although I'd not claim to be an expert. One significant effect of a wide angle lens is that apparent distances are increased: just like looking in a convex mirror. Now, I fancy that the van driver came up much closer behind you than your rear-mounted camera seemed to show and when he did his emergency stop in front of you, he was again much closer than he appeared in the footage. I think it would be hard to get that across in court. Another effect of that increase in apparent distances is that the camera appears to be moving faster than is the case (apparently greater distance being covered in same time.) Your speed here is important because if it's under 10mph, a driver may cross double white lines to overtake a cyclist. Remember also that as the defendant he has the right to the benefit of any doubt.
The second point I was trying to make is that the better the prosecution evidence, the more vigorous will be the attempts by any half-decent defence advocate to cast doubt on it. You mention shouting at the other driver that he had crossed the double white lines. A defence solicitor might probe that along the lines of what had that to do with you? Depending on how you reacted, the suggestion that you had been riding well out in the road with the sole intention of using those lines to thwart his client's progress might be raised. And hackles raised in some quarters as I type this, which is just what a defence lawyer hopes for: a prosecution witness who can be needled into getting angry. Police officers who have experience of giving evidence can still fall for this tactic.
Read some of my old stuff on video evidence and I've made the point that any suggestion of wrongdoing by the cameraman is an open goal for the defence.
Don't take any of this personally: it's just my experience of how the legal system runs.
MP had his footage analysed by an expert who then gave evidence about things like the speed of the vehicles involved. In his own analysis of what went wrong with the prosecution, MP noted how much the initial impression of watching the footage must have influenced the jury, in spite of the detailed expert explanation they were given.
I have some experience of this type of footage myself although I'd not claim to be an expert. One significant effect of a wide angle lens is that apparent distances are increased: just like looking in a convex mirror. Now, I fancy that the van driver came up much closer behind you than your rear-mounted camera seemed to show and when he did his emergency stop in front of you, he was again much closer than he appeared in the footage. I think it would be hard to get that across in court. Another effect of that increase in apparent distances is that the camera appears to be moving faster than is the case (apparently greater distance being covered in same time.) Your speed here is important because if it's under 10mph, a driver may cross double white lines to overtake a cyclist. Remember also that as the defendant he has the right to the benefit of any doubt.
The second point I was trying to make is that the better the prosecution evidence, the more vigorous will be the attempts by any half-decent defence advocate to cast doubt on it. You mention shouting at the other driver that he had crossed the double white lines. A defence solicitor might probe that along the lines of what had that to do with you? Depending on how you reacted, the suggestion that you had been riding well out in the road with the sole intention of using those lines to thwart his client's progress might be raised. And hackles raised in some quarters as I type this, which is just what a defence lawyer hopes for: a prosecution witness who can be needled into getting angry. Police officers who have experience of giving evidence can still fall for this tactic.
Read some of my old stuff on video evidence and I've made the point that any suggestion of wrongdoing by the cameraman is an open goal for the defence.
Don't take any of this personally: it's just my experience of how the legal system runs.
Re: CPS and Police procedures
blackbike wrote:Three years ago an angry motorist assaulted me and I was injured - a grazed knee.
There was an independent witness who, according to the constable dealing with my case, gave exactly the same account of the incident as I did.
However, the constable rang me to say that his sergeant had decided on a caution rather than a prosecution. No reason was given to me.
I find it surprising that a relatively junior member of the police force is allowed to decide if a person should face prosecution or not.
But that's the way it seems to be.
The reason being it's a waste of police and court time and time going through with a prosecution for such a minor injury.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Re: CPS and Police procedures
blackbike wrote:
Three years ago an angry motorist assaulted me and I was injured - a grazed knee.
There was an independent witness who, according to the constable dealing with my case, gave exactly the same account of the incident as I did.
However, the constable rang me to say that his sergeant had decided on a caution rather than a prosecution. No reason was given to me.
I find it surprising that a relatively junior member of the police force is allowed to decide if a person should face prosecution or not.
But that's the way it seems to be.
Is that not the whole point of a police caution. A means of dealing with less serious crimes without the need to spend the time investigating and collating evidence for a report to the CPS.
Al least a caution is on his criminal record and may affect him in future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22016225
Re: CPS and Police procedures
jatindersangha wrote:As case 1 is now closed - (the driver handed in their driving licence), here are the (shortened) videos:
Front: action happens approx. 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6051SE069p4
Rear: again, 45seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLp5aYZ5_ZU
Thanks,
--Jatinder
Those vids seem to be reasonable evidence for a public order offence, threatening or abusive words or behaviour.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Re: CPS and Police procedures
jatindersangha wrote:My plan is to write to the Chief Constable, Surrey PCC and the Woking/Surrey Heath councils so that they're all more aware of the issues and perhaps do something concrete to reduce the potential for danger.
On a side-note, there's a pub on a corner near where I live - no pavement near the pub strangely. Many motorists will turn right onto the main road at the pub. Over the years, the management of the pub occasionally puts an advertising board out which blocks the line of sight that drivers need when turning right. It only takes 1 call to the police and they send a PCSO (and sometimes a real officer) out to have a word with the pub owner and have the board removed.
The pub has now changed hands and is being converted to a number of houses - with a large fence blocking the line of sight. 1 call to the police and a PCSO arrived there a few days later talking to motorists and the builders. Another call to the council and the planning officer is heading out there to re-confirm the lines of sight and enforce restrictions on the type, position and height of the fencing...
And all this because of the *possibility* that there may be an accident because a motorist can't easily see if the road is clear...
If you haven't already done so, it may be worth your while to join the Cycling UK Right to Ride network. I don't know what they are actually calling Right to Ride representatives these days, but joining the network gives you strategies for dealing with stuff like this, a network of fellow campaigners who do the same sorts of things, and the resources of Cycling UK to draw upon. Some things may mean a bit more coming from a campaigner on Cycling UK letterhead, than that whinger who calls to complain all the time
Also, there may be other people campaigning in your area, and they may have contacts or know to whom it seems to be most effective to send comments and complaints.
I joined the network when I was doing things like that (I was sending the county council letters about various farcilities) and found it useful.
Good luck in any case.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
-
jatindersangha
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am
Re: CPS and Police procedures
Hi all,
I reported an incident to the City of London police on Tuesday...they insisted that I attend the local police station and make a formal report with a police officer - and I gave them my video evidence on a DVD the following day.
It was an incredibly close pass/overtake at a staggered junction and what with a set of traffic lights every 400m or so on my London commute(!), I caught up with the driver easily enough and had a polite word with him. He had a dash-cam and insisted that he gave me plenty of room, so it will be interesting to see the outcome of this incident.
I asked the (non-traffic) officer about the 14-day period for the NIP - he replied that they have 6 months to identify the driver under section 172. Again, this may be because I caught up with the driver and spoke to him - so he was obviously aware that an incident had taken place.
--Jatinder
I reported an incident to the City of London police on Tuesday...they insisted that I attend the local police station and make a formal report with a police officer - and I gave them my video evidence on a DVD the following day.
It was an incredibly close pass/overtake at a staggered junction and what with a set of traffic lights every 400m or so on my London commute(!), I caught up with the driver easily enough and had a polite word with him. He had a dash-cam and insisted that he gave me plenty of room, so it will be interesting to see the outcome of this incident.
I asked the (non-traffic) officer about the 14-day period for the NIP - he replied that they have 6 months to identify the driver under section 172. Again, this may be because I caught up with the driver and spoke to him - so he was obviously aware that an incident had taken place.
--Jatinder
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: CPS and Police procedures
AFAIK he was talking rubbish.
It's explained in some detail in one of the threads I linked to earlier so I won't dig it out again. OTOH, if you were able to testify that you gave a verbal notice of intended prosecution to the driver at the time of the offence, the way might be open for a prosecution without a further NIP from the police. Technically. Or not.
It's explained in some detail in one of the threads I linked to earlier so I won't dig it out again. OTOH, if you were able to testify that you gave a verbal notice of intended prosecution to the driver at the time of the offence, the way might be open for a prosecution without a further NIP from the police. Technically. Or not.
-
jatindersangha
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 23 Jun 2015, 11:19am
Re: CPS and Police procedures
Well, the audio on my video is pretty clear - I tell the driver that "I will be reporting you to the police" - maybe that counts as a verbal NIP?
The officer that I spoke to was not a traffic officer so may well have been wrong.
In any case, they've got all they need to send a NIP within the 14 day period.
--Jatinder
The officer that I spoke to was not a traffic officer so may well have been wrong.
In any case, they've got all they need to send a NIP within the 14 day period.
--Jatinder
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: CPS and Police procedures
If you have read the other stuff to which I have linked, you will know that you are not the first poster on this forum who has been given the six months waffle, which is the general time limit for laying the information in summary proceedings, ie applying for a summons and has nothing to do with NIP's.
The requirement for an NIP is set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and its relative importance is shown by its being in section 1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/1
The legislation only refers to being warned "that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration" so it's a question of interpretation. The police mantra is ""You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for ............" but I don't think that's been prescribed verbatim.
======================================================================
PS If this gets to the point of being considered by somebody familiar with the law, their first consideration should be the NIP. Were that consideration to be within the period when the NIP provisions could still be complied with AND if they thought it was going to court, then they would have a written notice served PDQ. Of that, I have no doubt. If it reached them after 14 days, they might have no way of knowing you felt you had complied with the NIP procedure on the police's behalf. After the 14 day period nobody is likely to be ploughing through evidence in a case they think is doomed to failure on procedural grounds.
That's all set against the background of forum members' experience when they have reported cases of bad driving.
The requirement for an NIP is set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and its relative importance is shown by its being in section 1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/1
The legislation only refers to being warned "that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration" so it's a question of interpretation. The police mantra is ""You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for ............" but I don't think that's been prescribed verbatim.
======================================================================
PS If this gets to the point of being considered by somebody familiar with the law, their first consideration should be the NIP. Were that consideration to be within the period when the NIP provisions could still be complied with AND if they thought it was going to court, then they would have a written notice served PDQ. Of that, I have no doubt. If it reached them after 14 days, they might have no way of knowing you felt you had complied with the NIP procedure on the police's behalf. After the 14 day period nobody is likely to be ploughing through evidence in a case they think is doomed to failure on procedural grounds.
That's all set against the background of forum members' experience when they have reported cases of bad driving.
Re: CPS and Police procedures
If a person suffers a dangerously close pass that causes shock then it's quite possible that it could then be regarded as an injury. Shock can be considered an injury in assault cases. If you can convince the police that this is the case then you might be in with a chance of them being able to work around the NIP. Somehow I doubt it.
Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."
[George Orwell]
[George Orwell]