Warrington cyclist killed

[reohn2]

Whilst travelling with my girlfriend on the motorway, she saw a lorry driver talking on the mobile. If only she had been driving, if only the camera was not in the boot; that picture would have been with the police faster than you could say, "three penalty points."

Which begs the question, has anyone 'shopped' a motorist for this offence?

Alan

Would the police be interested if they did?

I've "shopped" three motorists now two for aiming theirs cars at us(we were on the tandem)one of whom got our and threatened violence,and one for driving like a complete and utter lunatic(I was in my car on that occasion) with details for all three reg no etc,etc.A total waste of time.
see below v

[Si]

Do they allow a photograph taken by a member of the public to be used as their main evidence for a prosecution?

[JohnW]

Whilst travelling with my girlfriend on the motorway, she saw a lorry driver talking on the mobile. If only she had been driving, if only the camera was not in the boot; that picture would have been with the police faster than you could say, "three penalty points."

Which begs the question, has anyone 'shopped' a motorist for this offence?

Alan

Be careful Alan - they have the means to kill you, and a man doing something "shopable" is a bad man.

[thirdcrank]

Do they allow a photograph taken by a member of the public to be used as their main evidence for a prosecution?

For evidence to be acceptable in a prosecution it has to be 'admissible'.

The rules on what is admissible have been relaxed in all sorts of ways over the last 50 or so years, many to accommodate technology. (For using a mobile phone when driving, the phone company's computer produced records are an example - not so long ago they would have been exculded.)

For a photograph to be accepted as evidence of anything (and I'm not talking about speed cameras etc) it would have to be proved by the person who took it. By this I mean that a witness would have to include in their evidence that they took the photograph and that what was being shown to the court had not been tampered with. In most circumstances they would have to give evidence of what they saw and any photograph would be corroboration of their evidence. They say the camera cannot lie but the defence can object if any evidence poduced is unfair and I cannot see how one still photo could tend to prove that somebody had been using a mobile.

The evidence of one witness would be enough, and in a case like that that would normally be a police officer who would deal with the driver there and then. The real issue here would be whether or not it was cost effective to go through the rigmarole of tracing the car, serving a notice on the driver to ask who was driving (and I'm assuming that using a phone is one where that applies) then sending a police officer to conduct an interview, based on the statement of a third party. If it was after a serious accident, then it might be different. I do know that prevention is better than cure but I just cannot see that complaints about a mobile being used are going to be followed up in most cases.

[jan19]

I think it would be very difficult to prove. Didn't every cyclist's best friend Mr Jeremy Clarkson get photographed on his mobile recently? Although the people who shot the photo said he was travelling on a motorway at the time, the police said he was just photo'd on his phone - and they couldn't prove he was moving.

Jan

[thirdcrank]

If a member of the public was able to give evidence that they saw somebody famous like Jeremy Clarkson driving his car and that he was using a mobile phone (or committing any other offence) , then that would be enough to prove the case (in the sense of being sufficient to secure a conviction if not disproved.)

The fact of the car being driven on the motorway could be proved by a credible witness saying 'At (time day and date) I saw such and such a car being driven on the M XX towards Roadhogville.' Any photo would just tend to corroborate the identity of the driver. (Obviously, if it got as far as a disputed hearing, the defence would try to disprove that evidence.

Whether the police would investigate that sort of allegation is a bit of a different matter.

A case which received a lot of publicity at the time (30 odd years ago) had no photographs, but involved a public figure, Sir Gerald Nabarro MP. He was one of those people who are sometimes described as 'colourful'. An absolutely stereotypical Tory MP: booming voice, handlebar moustache, bowler hat and so on. He had several big cars, possibly Rollers, with the plates NAB 1, NAB 2 etc, long before that sort of thing was fashionable and he was something of a motorists' champion.

I cannot now remember all the details but a member of the public (possibly several) complained that they had seen this well-known and immediately recognisable character driving the memorably plated NAB 1 the wrong way around a roundabout. In the face of a lot of booming protests he was prosecuted. The defence was that his female secretary had been driving. The court preferred the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he was convicted. More booming protests and another member of the public remembered seeing the car being driven by a woman and came forward. A retrial was ordered and this time the case was dismissed to more booming from Nabb. I think he died fairly shortly after being acquitted.

I mention this case just to show what can happen. I'm not sure such a case would be followed up today.

Since posting the above, Ive found this I had forgotten the case involved an accident after the roundabout incident and that report makes no mention of the independent witness coming forward. I was unaware of the Hamilton connection.

[jan19]

[quote="thirdcrank"]If a member of the public was able to give evidence that they saw somebody famous like Jeremy Clarkson driving his car and that he was using a mobile phone (or committing any other offence) , then that would be enough to prove the case (in the sense of being sufficient to secure a conviction if not disproved.)


I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't it be his word against theirs? Innocent until proved guilty and all that. I have the perfect punishment though - he should be made unable to drive any car for a year unless it was towing a caravan....

Jan

[thirdcrank]

In England and Wales (it's different in Scotland where there is a stronger requirement for corroboration) most 'facts' can be proved on the evidence of one witness.

If somebody is charged with an offence, everything in that charge must be proved. So, if somebody were to be charged with driving past a 'no entry' street, somebody would have to be able to say on oath or having affirmed that on a certain day or date they saw the defendant driving a motor car past a 'No entry' sign which conformed with the legal requirements (red disc, white horizontal bar on a gery pole.)

There can be all sorts of legal loopholes related to identifying the defandant and the service of a notice of intended prosecution but the basic point is one witness's evidence is enough to 'prove' a case. This means that when the court has heard the prosecution evidence, and any cross examination on behalf of the defendant, they are satisfied - at that stage - beyond reasonable doubt that the defandant is guilty of the offence. (Incidentally, it is the duty of the prosecution only to bring a case that they can prove in the sense that I am talking about.) At the conclusion of the prosecution case it is open to the defence to submit that there is 'No case to answer'. That is to say, that the prosecution has not in fact proved every element of the charge. This is relatively rare and usually happens if a witness 'does not come up to proof.' In other words, if they say something different to their witness statement or perhaps do not even turn up.

A defence wheeze that any experienced prosecutor avoids is the defendant not being personally identified in court as the offender. The prosecutor will say to the witness 'And is the driver of the car in court today? If so, please point him out to the court.' Otherwise, in the absence of other identification, and with an eperienced brief the defendant gets a walk-out.

Assuming the court rules that there is a case to answer, or as is normal, no submission is made, then the defence get their go and the court decides who they believe.

Although it is usual for several witnesses to carry more weight than one, especially if they all tell the same story, if either side suggested to a jury that their posse of witnesses outweighed a lone credible witness for the other side, the counsel with the single witness would say something along the lines 'You must remember that your duty is to weigh the evidence, not count the witnesses.' It has certainly happened at Leeds Crown Court when your obediant servant was the only witness for the Crown and the jury believed him, as I hope you will now, when I say:-

Although corroboration is legally required in some types of case, and desirable in every case, in English criminal law the evidence of one witness is enough. There is a saying that you can tell that an area is tough if the police go around in pairs (often quoted when a sergeant finds two gossiping) but in England and Wales, if they are alone, their evidence is still acceptable, as is the evidence of a member of the public.

Having said all that, the prosecution, especially now it is the CPS who have a specific duty to consider the strength of the evidence, probably would not run the Clarkson type case quoted. This is part of the reason that a lot of reports to the police are not investigated - it is realised from the outset that they are realistically unlikely to get anywhere.