CPS and Police procedures

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

I've recently sent 2 reports of careless or dangerous driving to the Surrey Police.

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.

Case 2, I had a van driving right behind me for 15 seconds, trying to overtake into the face if oncoming traffic. He eventually managed to overtake even though there was a car in the oncoming lane. He then slowed down in front if me and then stopped in order to shout at me. This was on a road with 2.8metre wide lanes and double white lines on the centre of the road. I was travelling at approx 18mph. Sent video to police. They sent me a letter saying there was no public interest so we're basically ignoring it.

I phoned them and the operator said that initially the road was wide enough to overtake! I asked them to reconsider and created some stills from the video which I sent to them. They reviewed it again saying that the driver spent a significant period of time behind me before finding a safe place to overtake. I then sent the police an email telling them that the video clearly shows the driver trying aggressively to overtake over the double white lines immediately from the moment he comes up behind me and was prevented by 8 cars in the oncoming lane. He spent a total of 15seconds behind me before overtaking and then stopping his van in front of me. They're supposedly reviewing it again but I suspect I know what their answer will be.

Does anyone have any guidance on how and when the police do not need to send a case to the CPS? Or indeed any advice on how to take this further with them?

Thanks,
Jatinder

[thirdcrank]

The short answer about official procedures is that you have been fobbed off, which is by no means unusual.

Here are a couple of bits of background reading:-

First, a thread on the subject of "How to complain about bad driving" started by shootist (a retired police officer with considerable experience of what is now called "Roads policing.) That was started almost four years ago, so some of it may be a bit dated but if so, it's only because things have got worse in the interim.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69901

One important bit of procedure in these cases and covered in that thread is the importance of the timely serving of a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP.) You don't say when your incidents occurred but if no NIP has been served within 14 days, the general rule is that no prosecution for bad driving can follow.

Part the next will follow for if the police fail in their duty, for then they must be taken to task.

I don't think shootist ever gave his detailed advice on how to do that, but the Independent Police Complaints Commission might be a starting point. I've no experience of the organisation.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

Martin Porter QC - "The Cycling Silk" is well-known in this connection and is mentioned in that thread. His blog gives plenty of insight here.

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

(Edited to remove a misplaced welcome to the forum - didn't pay proper attention to the post count and date of joining. )

Remember when you read of his experiences over several years of trying to get official action when he's been involved in cases broadly similar to those you recount, he is one of the country's top lawyers. What hope for the rest of us?

[landsurfer]

If i understand this correctly;
You where not injured.
You where not assaulted.
You suffered no loss.
You believe you suffered Transient Assault, ( when the man shouted at you).

Maybe the police are operating their version of triage.

Follow up your complaint or add the resource to preventing people trafficking, domestic assaults, supply of class a drugs to minors and possibly stopping the local shopping centre being raized.
I am truly not being cynical or sarcastic, but i'm sure you are aware of the lack of resources in modern policing.
Inspector Knacker and his lads will wait until you are a smear of jam on the highway, (having been hit by a speeding tractor, no doubt, see "Harvest Home" ), before they will even look at your home movies.
I suspect.

[The utility cyclist]

If i understand this correctly;
You where not injured.
You where not assaulted.
You suffered no loss.
You believe you suffered Transient Assault, ( when the man shouted at you).

Maybe the police are operating their version of triage.

Follow up your complaint or add the resource to preventing people trafficking, domestic assaults, supply of class a drugs to minors and possibly stopping the local shopping centre being raized.
I am truly not being cynical or sarcastic, but i'm sure you are aware of the lack of resources in modern policing.
Inspector Knacker and his lads will wait until you are a smear of jam on the highway, (having been hit by a speeding tractor, no doubt, see "Harvest Home" ), before they will even look at your home movies.
I suspect.

Fear for ones safety even if just in the mind is an assault under UK law, it is very explicit about this and is referred to as a common assault. On the high street this could possibly be at the least a public order offence where someone is threatened/feeling fearful or worse.
Or are you of the opinion that striking fear of death or serious injury is all okay. just curious? If someone is swinging a baseball bat within inches of your head for 15 seconds whilst you go about your business down the street how would you/police react, how is that any different to using a motorvehicle which can and does do much worse damage than a baseball bat?

[landsurfer]

Fear for ones safety even if just in the mind is an assault under UK law, it is very explicit about this and is referred to as a common assault. On the high street this could possibly be at the least a public order offence where someone is threatened/feeling fearful or worse.
Or are you of the opinion that striking fear of death or serious injury is all okay. just curious? If someone is swinging a baseball bat within inches of your head for 15 seconds whilst you go about your business down the street how would you/police react, how is that any different to using a motorvehicle which can and does do much worse damage than a baseball bat?

So you didn't actually read my post ?
Transient Assault describes all the points you have made.
Before you post maybe you should actually read the post you are commenting on.
Why didn't you ? Just curious......

[mjr]

So that says they weren't assaulted but were assaulted? Can anyone tell why readers of that might get confused?

[landsurfer]

Transient Assault ... if you Feel threatened, are frightened by someone else actions or in fear of your life , even though no physical contact occurs, you've been assaulted..... you couldn't make it up ...!!!
Very much in the mould of ..
"The crashing airplane nearly hit the school full of children" ... it didn't.
The train nearly hit the bus full of pensioners" ... It didn't.
and so on....

[blackbike]

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.

[irc]

One important bit of procedure in these cases and covered in that thread is the importance of the timely serving of a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP.) You don't say when your incidents occurred but if no NIP has been served within 14 days, the general rule is that no prosecution for bad driving can follow.

An exception is where a road accident has occurred. In that case a Notification of Intended Prosecution is not required.

Section 2 RTOA 1988 states that the prosecution does not have to comply with section 1 if, owing to the presence on a road of a vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed, an accident occurred at the time of the offence or immediately afterwards. However, a notice is still required if the defendant was unaware that there had been an accident: see Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... P344_37188

So had the OP, for example, lost his balance because of the close overtake and fallen off and grazed his knee/hand etc it then becomes an injury road accident. No NIP required. At the risk of stating the obvious there does not need to be a collision for it to be a road accident. Another example being bad driving cause a bus to do an emergency top causing a passenger in the aisle to fall and suffer injury.

[nosmarbaj]

IANAL (whenever that acronym appears it means some legal opinion will follow... )

The CPS web pages say that Common Assault is "where a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force", but no (or trivial) injury occurs. (If there's injury it becomes Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm).

I would think the close passes would likely not qualify (how do you prove "intentionally or recklessly"); they might be careless driving, though. The shouting might qualify if the shouter threatened the OP with violence, but otherwise probably not.

Disourtesy/rudeness is not a crime.

In an ideal world there would be no close passes, but given the limited police resources, it's unlikely they'll follow up any further.

[jatindersangha]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Re the NIP - I was specifically told on 2 occasions that a NIP did not need to be sent within 14 days as long as the other party was "aware that an incident had occurred" - once within the 14 days and again yesterday. The police told me that the fact that the van driver slowed down and then stopped to shout at me is sufficient to prove an incident took place and that the van driver may "expect a notice from the police at some time".

I have now had a response from the "manager" of the traffic officer who initially reviewed the case. The manager said that "more could have been done" and has re-opened the case. He says that "this is the minimum standard I expect in cases such as this" and the response from the driver "may assist in deciding the final disposal option". He also mentions public interest criteria and no guarantee of prosecution etc.

So, I'm pleased that the case will be investigated further. Given that the van drivers name and mobile phone number are clearly displayed on his van - then I'd expect them to be able to contact him relatively quickly

I can't help feeling though, that the police have obviously tried to fob me off twice and only after me emailing them saying "that their inaction in cases like this just means that they're waiting for people to be killed or injured" and asking how to make an official complaint did they get the "manager" to review it who promptly replied with the above response. Were the initial reviews incompetent? How much (if any) of this delay was deliberate (as the incident took place on Aug 2nd - 21 days ago) - I can't tell.

As the driver of the van was shouting "do you really need all the [rude word removed] road?" then I think I can see where this conversation is headed and will get my tuppence-worth in first when I respond to the manager.

I will re-iterate the points about the narrow lanes, double white lines, tailgating, beeping, fear for my life based on his driving ("transient assault"), fear that when he stopped he was going to physically assault me, and of course best practice from bikeability (I've passed my bikeability level 3 "test") - which tells me to stay away from the kerb, especially when going around bends.

Anything else I should put in there?

For "fans" of my videos, I'm thinking of putting these two up (privately on youtube) shortly and I've even managed to learn how to crop them to the interesting bits only Or as these 2 cases are ongoing - would putting them on youtube be a bad idea?

Thanks,
--Jatinder

[jatindersangha]

IANAL (whenever that acronym appears it means some legal opinion will follow... )
...
I would think the close passes would likely not qualify (how do you prove "intentionally or recklessly"); they might be careless driving, though. The shouting might qualify if the shouter threatened the OP with violence, but otherwise probably not.
...

I would have thought that a deliberate action that was knowingly careless or dangerous would be "reckless"?

ie. Deliberately overtaking across double white lines when the HC says you "MUST NOT cross a solid white line ..."

--Jatinder

[nosmarbaj]

But crossing a solid white line is a driving offense; it's not assault. To be assault, the driver would have had to be intentionally or recklessly causing you to fear a physical attack. He quite likely didn't even think about your feelings. To be reckless he'd have to think "this will probably scare the cyclist but I don't give a ****" - and to be convicted of assault, this would have to be proved. But as IANAL I won't comment further.

[jatindersangha]

I'm not a lawyer either...I was just attempting to show that he performed a deliberate action (resulting in a traffic offence) and one that he knew (or ought to know) *could* cause considerable distress to a vulnerable road user.

--Jatinder

[The utility cyclist]

Surely a prosecution in cases like this is VERY much in the public interest. Surely if motorists/people behind the wheel of a motorvehicle think there is a likely chance of being prosecuted then they're less likely to offend in the first instance,isn't that what a deterrant punishment is about, to keep the peace which the police have all sworn to do on oath/attestation?

"I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent ALL (my highlight) offences against people and property"

Ignoring it doesn't prevent increasing frequency of such crimes, it can also lead to to more serious crimes, people going that one step further because they can get away with it, broken windows theory and all that?

Either way the police failed in their duty both to deal with a criminal offence in line with their sworn oath and also failed in restorative justice which is clear by the OPs description of how they felt.