Jump to content


case referred to full hearing by magistrate


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2352 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

@man in the middle thanks

 

There is no evidence; I have that in writing just what the cop said...which is that I stopped on lane 1 for 14 seconds.

 

his statement is evidence.

 

 

@man in the middle thanks

 

If I plead guilty due to cost I'll now have a conviction on dbs..what an oppressive system we've got in this country.

 

It is unlikely that a single minor traffic offence will show up on a standard DBS check. Are you in a profession or job that requires enhanced enquiries?

 

The matter will not go back to the Single Justice procedure now. Once it's taken out and entered into the standard Magistrates' Court process it stays there. As I said earlier, the opportunity to accept a fixed penalty is long gone.

 

I note you believe the CPS (or more probably the police who now prosecute most minor motoring offences) may not have followed their procedure for initiating a prosecution. They have a two part test: (1) That there must be sufficient evidence to support a realistic prospect of a conviction and (2) that it is in the public interest to proceed. They seem satisfied on both counts. Since you have declined the Fixed Penalty Offer and indicated that you will plead Not Guilty they realistically have no option but to prosecute the matter by way of a trial in the Magistrates' Court. The alternative would be for them to say "OK then we'll forget about it".

 

You do not have to be represented in court to defend the matter at a trial. Many defendants on minor charges conduct their own defence. The issue will be straightforward - "did you stop on the motorway?" It seems the only evidence there is will be the officer's testimony. You will be able to cross-examine him and try to cast doubt in the minds of the Magistrates that his version of events is incorrect. (Remember he may have been "mistaken". Do not accuse him of lying). It's not easy and the cost of failure is high (as I pointed out in my earlier post). The offence attracts a fine and 3 points. Maintaining your Not Guilty plea and being convicted at trial will mean you lose the one third discount on the fine that you would be entitled to if you plead guilty but the points will remain at three either way. The increased costs are the biggest deterrent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement of Evidence

 

At 18:55 hours on Sunday December 7th the officer was on mobile traffic patrol on the clockwise motorway approaching exit X.

The officer's attention was drawn to the presence of a car registered number…… being driven in the second of the three lanes.

The officer noted that the vehicle was wandering in the carriageway though always within the second lane.

As the otficer had passed the driver he noted the driver looking down at his lap and considered tha the driver may have been distracted.

The officer elected to stop the vehicle to speak to the driver.

The officer moved to his nearside into lane one and then drew up behind the subject in the second lane. Thb officer used his blue front visi lights in order to cause the vehicle to stop.

The.defendant took a long time to respond but eventually moved into the first lane, giving the officer an indication he was about to stop.

The officer pulled onto the hard shoulder in anticipation but the defendant came to rest in the first of the three lanes.

The officer then drove to the side of the defendant's vehicle and gestured to the defendant to pull onto the hard shoulder, expressing the urgency with strong hand signals.

The defendant remained stationary in the first lane for approximately 15 seconds before moving forward onto the hard shoulder.

As the defendant was in the first lane he presented a clear danger to other road users, none of whom would reasonably have expected a vehicle to simply stop in a live lane.

It was noted that a number of vehicles had to take avoiding action with regard the defendants vehicle.

The defendant identified himself to the officer and was reported for the specific offence of stopping on a motorway.

 

 

On X date at location Y stopped a vehicle, reg……., on the carriageway of the Motorway, Clockwise. Contrary to regulation 7(1) of the Motonrays Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 't982, section 17(41ot the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys above is statement of evidence used in charging me, I've of course edited and disguised (e.g time, location, identify etc)

 

Please comment will as usual be appreciated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please comment will as usual be appreciated?

 

This case won't turn on the precise meaning of a word / phrase in the statute leading to an argument in court on the interpretation of the law.

 

It will turn on if the police officer is believed and is correct that you committed the offence, or if you'll be believed and they'll conclude the police officer was mistaken, and that you didn't stop in lane 1.

 

I think I phrased this before as

I think the days when it was assumed the police were telling the truth, (and the defendant was lying) have long gone ............ but the police officer (unless very 'green') will be used to presenting evidence in court, and you won't .... so they may make a more believable witness .....

 

In the end, the court will be asked to consider : "did he stop in the live lane of the motorway?".

 

So, the police officer will give his statement, and will then be open to cross-examination.

What do you plan to ask him??

 

You can pretty much bet that if you question him as to if he is mistaken that you stopped in lane 1 he'll say he's not mistaken. He may even say "I don't believe so from my recollection, but let me check my notes, made at the time.......", before he checks his notes and says "I've checked my notes, my recollection is correct, you stopped in lane 1".

 

Are you hoping to trip him up, and that he'll say something inconsistent?. He'll have learnt to 'check his notes', making it less likely you'll trip him up.

 

You'll then give your version of events, something along the lines of

I was stopped on motorway by cop early Nov last yr for reasons I dispute. He said he thought I was looking down on my lap and my car was wandering but steady in the lane.

 

He drove very close to rear of my car indicating red instead of blue light; this was confusing as I didn't know he was coming after me; couple with fact I was not doing anything reckless (not speeding, etc).

 

Noticing that I didn't think he was intending me to stop he drove to hardshoulder as if to overtake me but slowed down side by side to my car; then I realise his intension; so I slowed down made eye contact and he pointed to hardshould and said stopped; then I stopped and switched on the hardshoulder.

 

He then checked everything: mot, docs, tyres, etc.. everything was fine. He then turnaround and said he will report me for remaining stationary on lane 1. I said no I slowed down I didn't stopped.

 

You can pretty much bet the prosecution will ask you some questions

They might ask what time it was, which direction you were heading, about the road conditions, had anything happened before the incident that might have been preying on your mind and affected your manner of driving (were you angry? had you just had some bad news?)

 

They might be looking for relevant background, or to giving themselves a breathing space before they try to make you look less credible.

 

So, now they ask again, and get told

I reduce speed but carried on he then overtook me nearside and slowed down to be alongside me (nearside lane 1 whilst I was in lane 2); I slowed down and made eye contact and he pointed at the hardshoulder and immediately moved to hardshoulder and stopped there; I then checked mirrors and followed suit and moved to the hardshoulder and stopped some metres infront of his car on the hardshoulder.

 

Then they say: the police officer's version of events has been given as a consistent version.

However, you initially said he "drove to the hardshoulder" before "he pointed to the hardshoulder".

Now you are saying he was "alongside me (nearside lane 1 whilst I was in lane 2)" before "he pointed to the hardshoulder".

"Which was it?" "So you were mistaken when you said "he was in lane 1" when he pointed or mistaken when you said "he was on the hardshoulder" when he pointed.?"

"I put it to you that you are similarly mistaken about not having stopped in lane 1. That you did stop in lane 1".

 

Or, they'll latch onto "then I stopped and switched on the hardshoulder."

They'll point out that you said you stopped. Only after that did you switch onto the hardshoulder.

 

Or both.

 

The problem is, what is going to matter in court isn't if you did or didn't commit the offence, as that is what the court is there to decide.

If it is going to come down to who is most believable.

Whilst I'm not saying that you did stop in lane 1, (and, as you are saying you didn't, I accept that) ; the relevant question is "will the court accept that, or believe the police officer"?.

 

If you've 'tripped yourself up' here, in the ways I've highlighted (and not because you are lying, but just because of the way you've been expressing yourself) ; what is likely to happen in court?. Where you'll be facing a stressful situation (even with a solicitor ; the solicitor won't be the one facing cross-examination and can't answer for you during cross-examination).

So, who is more likely to be consistent and believable? The police officer, or you.

 

I suspect you face an uphill struggle.

 

As an aside, be glad they aren't prosecuting for a more serious offence.

Dangerous driving wouldn't be a 'slam dunk' for them, but for either of:

a) careless driving, or

b) driving without due care and attention (since the officer's statement makes it clear he is saying other road users were inconvenienced)

they could say that stopping in lane 1 fell below the standard of a careful and competent driver ......... and if they can get a conviction for stopping in lane 1, they could equally have gone for either of the section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 offences (which carry a larger fine, more points, and the risk of an immediate disqualification instead of points).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stopped on motorway by cop early Nov last yr

 

At 18:55 hours on Sunday December 7th the officer was on mobile traffic patrol

 

Again, was it 7th December, early November, or some other date?.

Just another example of why it may be hard for you to persuade the court the officer is mistaken, and you aren't (unless it actually was November .... in which case your defence is that you didn't commit the offence of stopping on the motorway on the day in December they are alleging!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...