CPS and Police procedures

[thirdcrank]

I tried to cover this before: it was hidden away in a rambling post above, but I think it answers your queries.

I'm unaware of anything which says that a file covering the investigation of a complaint must be submitted to the CPS for a decision. The police can no longer conduct prosecutions so it follows that if they feel a case should be prosecuted, then they can only achieve that by submitting the file, when the CPS will use make their statutory decisions over adequacy of evidence and public interest. It's worth noting that the CPS public interest test is only applied after the sufficient evidence test has been passed. OTOH, the police will often decide whether it's in the public interest to look for evidence in a case of a type which is not a current priority.

OTOH, if there's something about that that's unclear, I'll do my best to clarify.
==============================================
PS

In my first reply, IIRC I linked to the Cycling Silk blog by Martin Porter. Well worth reading, not least because he has tackled the problem you now mention, but with the advantage of being a leading lawyer. Here's the link again

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/

Perhaps the most significant case of a police file not being submitted to the CPS was that of the investigation into the crash in which Michael Mason was killed. That's still ongoing.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94208

[thirdcrank]

This seems as good a place as any to post this. If anybody needs evidence of how priorities are changing, here's some:

Revenge porn prosecutions exceed 200

Although that's something of a clickbait headline (if my understanding of the expression is correct) the CPS report covered in the accompanying article quantifies a large and growing number of prosecutions for domestic violence, sexual offences and related matters. I'm not criticising this, just illustrating a substantial change in priorities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37278264

[Mistik-ka]

the CPS report covered in the accompanying article quantifies a large and growing number of prosecutions for domestic violence, sexual offences and related matters. I'm not criticising this, just illustrating a substantial change in priorities.

Surely the underlying change in priorities is the choice to put reduced taxes ahead of adequate policing.

[thirdcrank]

... Surely the underlying change in priorities is the choice to put reduced taxes ahead of adequate policing.

I'm sure you are right, but my reason for plonking this link here was to try to get across to the OP why he was having so little success with his attempts to interest the police in his reports of bad driving. Realpolitik.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

The original 2 reports that I lodged with the police are apparently still ongoing - to recap, one was accepted as valid, the other one was rejected, I then "appealed" and the police decided to investigate.

Since then, I've lodged a further 2 reports - both of which were accepted as valid and are being investigated.

Things to note:

When I sent off the one report that was initially rejected, I did not send stills from the video as I didn't have much time to get the report in and I thought it contained obviously very poor driving. For all of the other reports I did send stills.

For the last 2 reports I additionally sent slow-motion videos of the incidents. Additionally, I also added a comment to my witness statement with the words "I require that a Notice of Intended Prosecution is sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle as a matter of urgency so that this does not prejudice any court proceedings that should occur once the Police investigation has concluded". I also asked the police call-centre staff to add the NIP requirement as a comment on their records.

I lodged another report yesterday, with video, slow-motion, stills, NIP requirement in the witness statement - but forgot to tell the call-centre person to add the NIP requirement as a comment on their records. We'll see how this one goes.

I was averaging 1 or 2 reports a year - but this summer alone, I've lodged 5 reports of bad/dangerous driving during my commute - not sure what has changed, other than me getting a front camera in addition to my rear camera - I don't believe that my riding has changed.

--Jatinder

[thirdcrank]

Congratulations for your persistance.
Thanks also for reporting back like this. I hope you will continue to do so.

Also, I have recently linked to some advice from the West Midlands Police on how to use camera footage when reporting incidents of bad driving. With apologies if you have seen it already, here's the link again if you haven't

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... ra-action/

[Shootist]

I asked the manager about the 14 day NIP rule...

His response:

There are no exceptions to the 14-day rule for Notice of Intended Prosecution. However, under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 we have the authority to request that a registered keeper provide details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to do this is a separate offence.

The registered keeper has 28-days to respond. If someone other than the registered keeper is nominated, they will also be sent a requirement under Section 172. Once the driver is identified, an account from them will be requested. Once all of the information has been gathered, a final disposal option can be decided. This will either be – No further action, a warning letter/words of advice sent to the driver, an offer of a Driver Alertness Course or a direct summons to court.

There are still many things to consider with the Public Interest criteria being one of them. Consideration will also be given to anything that may undermine any case for the prosecution. For an offer of a Driver Alertness Course or a direct Summons to court, it also has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful conviction. Once a decision has been made, you will of course be notified.

--Jatinder

I can't be 100% sure but the last I recall the S.172 requirement pro forma used to contain an NIP also. One important thing with the NIP (of many) is that it is sent in time, not necessarily that the driver / owner receives it, in time or even at all. Again, in my day and probably Thirdcrank's also, any complaint of a non accident road incident would provoke an automatic dispatch of an NIP. Nowadays I'm sorry to say that I'm not entirely sure that police officers today know what an NIP is. I am quite certain that many non police call handlers or enquiry office staff haven't the faintest idea what one is.

[jatindersangha]

Yes, the fact that a NIP wasn't sent in the 14 day period is a concern for that particular report. However, the "manager" at the TPU says that it's not a hindrance to any process at the moment.

I understand and accept that there may be an element of misdirection from the police regarding this, but I can't believe that they'd tell me that they were progressing the report but not actually do anything...So I'll keep on top of this and should I discover that the driver was not contacted/interviewed by the police then I will raise an official complaint of some sort.

Of course, the easiest thing for the police to do would be to phone the driver, have a few words and then dismiss the case.

Do the police have to contact me before they dispose of the case in any way? ie. Before they tell the driver to take a course or tell him that there's no further action - so I get a chance to change their minds etc?

Thanks,
--Jatinder

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

Not that I'm a vindictive person looking to imprison people - but I do want the police to take my complaints seriously. In the past, I reported an incident to the City of London Police which resulted in them sending a refuse-truck driver (poor CCTV evidence) for an awareness course, in fact the police were very insistent that that was the correct solution rather than court. In another case (no video evidence/witnesses), the Surrey police said they had interviewed the driver, essentially told him off and that in the absence of any hard evidence the case was closed. I was reasonably happy with both conclusions.

It's not that I look for trouble either - I do my best not to use the A322 which is the quickest and most direct route to the local train station because of the hassle that I receive on that road. (The recent report that was rejected was on that road.) I Instead use a quieter, longer journey to a train station that's further away. I've now reported 3 incidents on that route - which is supposedly a council-approved quiet route.

When leisure cycling, I would normally cycle home from Chobham on the A319 - again I find myself unwilling to use that route because of the hassle that I get from motorists. I haven't used it for over a year - but I used it this weekend and again had an incident.

Was it worth reporting? Definitely. Did I report it? No. There just aren't enough hours in the day... I did archive the video onto my PC though should I ever contact my local MP/council/police re cycling.

This morning, on a road with 2.8metre wide lanes, riding around a blind bend, with traffic in the oncoming lane, I had an old Land Rover behind me, tailgating, beeping his horn and revving his engine because he couldn't get past. I wonder what a less-confident cyclist would do. The driver then overtook perfectly well as soon as the road straightened out and he could see clearly.

--Jatinder

[thirdcrank]

... I can't be 100% sure but the last I recall the S.172 requirement pro forma used to contain an NIP also. One important thing with the NIP (of many) is that it is sent in time, not necessarily that the driver / owner receives it, in time or even at all. Again, in my day and probably Thirdcrank's also, any complaint of a non accident road incident would provoke an automatic dispatch of an NIP. Nowadays I'm sorry to say that I'm not entirely sure that police officers today know what an NIP is. I am quite certain that many non police call handlers or enquiry office staff haven't the faintest idea what one is.

And as I've surely posted before, my memory goes back to the time when the police investigated many more accidents and an NIP was required even when there had been an accident.

I think a distinction has to be drawn here between the system for camera enforcement and reports from members of the public.

In the former, it's going to be largely an administrative matter unless something unusual crops up. Camera records reg plate, obtain keeper details from DVLA system, post NIP/Notice requiring driver ID and repeat that until driver is identified, then depending on the state of their licence and the recorded speed, offer chance to attend course/ pay fixed penalty or direct to summons and prosecution.

In the latter, somebody has to decide what to do from the outset. This includes considering whether, in the current way things are dealt with, it merits taking further. Bearing in mind that the general principle now is that the police don't deal with some quite serious crashes, it's hardly surprising that near misses don't rate higher than that. The NIP is a must for a prosecution in these cases, but there's no point bothering if it's going nowhere.

IME, and I suspect shootist's experience is even greater than mine (Couldn't Prosecute Satan ) the CPS are not big supporters of prosecutions for careless driving, which is largely why the typical PC soon realised they were wasting their time preparing files.

I think that one of the things with cameras is that the "no independent witness" reason for not taking action is to some extent undermined if there's corroboration from decent footage. OTOH, I've linked before to Martin Porter's blog and his comments about his unsuccessful private prosecution. Even as a leading lawyer, he hadn't realised some of the weaknesses of this type of evidence.

IMO, the only way to change this is by getting priorities changed at national and force level. Individual PC's are not in a position to change much.

jatindersangha

A couple of things from your recent posts:-

The police can't interview somebody by phone about an allegation that they have committed an offence. It's to be done in person, under caution and properly recorded and with other safeguards depending on whether or not the suspect has been arrested.

I'm only speaking generally, of course, but I do wonder about cases where it's said that the other party has been given strong advice.
=================================================================
PS

Do the police have to contact me before they dispose of the case in any way? ie. Before they tell the driver to take a course or tell him that there's no further action - so I get a chance to change their minds etc?

I don't know what current procedures are in respect of summary offences like these but I'd be surprised if it's the norm to contact people making a report as a norm. If they did, I don't think it would be to have a discussion. In practical terms, I think the only way you might take something further would be a complaint.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

I've received an update for case 1 -

Case 1 is when a driver drove his car, overtaking me at speed and leaving me with very little room. Classic close overtake. I wobbled but kept the bike upright. Lanes were 2.8metres wide. Front and rear video with stills sent to police and they're busy about to interview the driver.

The update is that the case has been closed as it is not in the public interest to continue because the driver in question has "surrendered his driving licence to the DVLA and will not be driving again in the UK".

The police won't give me any further information, eg. was the driver in his 80s with failing eyesight or health, or did he have 500 points on his licence etc.

For the life of me, I can't work out why someone would willingly surrender their driving licence without going to court unless they had caused massive harm to someone else or weren't physically capable enough to drive.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that the "driver" is taking the fall for his son/grandson...

--Jatinder

[thirdcrank]

Just as a general point, I think that one of the reasons for most criminal investigations and prosecutions being the responsibility of the police and CPS is that they are undertaken on behalf of society, society being given a legal entity in the form of The Crown. Although these things can be rather personal and the media like to present tales of survivors wanting justice for the deceased etc., that wider interest must prevail.

In this case, we seem to be talking about something that might not easily be pursued to a conviction ("bad driving" without independent witnesses) so if, for argument's sake, the driver has some physical condition - quite likely age-related - then there really may be no point in the authorities taking it further. No timely NIP would make it impossible anyway, BTW.

I can't see any requirement on the police to go into minute detail over something like this.

[Shootist]

The police won't give me any further information, eg. was the driver in his 80s with failing eyesight or health, or did he have 500 points on his licence etc.

For the life of me, I can't work out why someone would willingly surrender their driving licence without going to court unless they had caused massive harm to someone else or weren't physically capable enough to drive.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that the "driver" is taking the fall for his son/grandson...

--Jatinder

One possible is potentially a very aged driver who has indeed surrendered his driving licence. Another is that the driver is leaving the country permanently. With no injury either is possible. The older relative is also possible, but doesn't feel altogether viable.

I regret to say that if you were talking to the officer in the case then it may be possible that he is misleading you because of the absence of an NIP, which could be a problem for the officer who should have sent it. There should be no reason why you should not be told of the reason for the NFA decision. A formal written complaint should produce results.

[Vorpal]

For the life of me, I can't work out why someone would willingly surrender their driving licence without going to court unless they had caused massive harm to someone else or weren't physically capable enough to drive.

The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that the "driver" is taking the fall for his son/grandson...

--Jatinder

It's entirely possible that he had another incident that led to him surrending his driving licence in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute, or that a family member talked them into surrendering their licence because of the way they were driving.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

Just to be clear, the driver involved in incident 1 has surrendered his licence.

It was incident 2 where the police did not send a NIP in the right time frame.

As such, there's been no feedback for incident 2.

Thanks,
Jatinder