Court appearance for broken window following break in

[Musey]

Hi

 

I wonder if I can get some advice for my brother in law. In November 2008 his car was broken into and his stereo was stolen. To get into the car the thief smashed the window in the driver’s door. The break in was reported to the local police (he has a crime number). As he is a mechanic he covered the window with a clear bag to get some protection from the elements (it was raining) and set off to work where he could replace the window.

 

Sods law but on the way to work he was stopped by a the police and issued with a penalty notice for driving with the window being covered with the plastic (I'm a bit hazy on this bit, i.e. what the penalty notice was for but can get the details if required).

 

Anyway feeling mightily p*ssed off with his bad luck he contacted the police to discuss the fact that he felt under the circumstances his treatment had been somewhat harsh. He was instructed to write in outlining the circumstances and asking for the decision to be reviewed and that he would be informed of the decision. He duly did so and heard no more about it and assumed the matter had been dealt with.

 

Roll forward to May 2010 when 2 officers turn up at his mom's house with a warrant for his arrest, as he doesn't live there they did not arrest him. He immediately contacted the police and explained the situation. He was ordered to appear in court regarding the warrant which he did. The judge lifted the warrant given the circumstances and said it would be referred back to the police.

 

So he has now got court papers for the original offence, his thinking is to plead guilty to the offence but outline the mitigating circumstances. The paperwork he has received (I haven't seen it yet) allows him approx ½ page (A4) to outline the circumstances, whereas the keen PC who originally stopped him has written a 2 page essay on the issue.

 

Does anyone have any feedback/suggestions on how best to tackle this; my BiL is a genuine guy and really doesn't deserve the agro.

 

Thanks for reading and any suggestions will be gratefully received.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Musey

[lamma]

what has he been charged with ?

[Musey]

Hey thanks for the reply. The charge is "using a motor vehicle in a condition likely to cause danger of injury". A slight alteration to my op though BiL has told me the bag was a v thin white carrier bag so was opaque rather than clear as I stated originally.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Musey

[mightymouse_69]

Have you any more info on this charge - as in what statute it is contrary to?

 

The only thing i can think of is "Using a Vehicle in a Dangerous Condition."

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I think I am right saying that the law requires 70% of light to pass through a front side window for the car to be legal.

 

How much could your BIL actually see through the bag? Did the police officer actually measure the amount of light passing through the bag? If not, and if your BIL feels he could see through the bag, then the police case might well not stand up in court. Did the copper take photos?

[crem]

I think I am right saying that the law requires 70% of light to pass through a front side window for the car to be legal.

 

I believe you are correct with that 70% figure, however, even if it is a thin carrier bag which allows a great deal of light through, the issue may be more that the officer believed the bag to be too opaque for the driver to be able to see images clearly through it.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I believe you are correct with that 70% figure, however, even if it is a thin carrier bag which allows a great deal of light through, the issue may be more that the officer believed the bag to be too opaque for the driver to be able to see images clearly through it.

 

 

I suspect so too, and don't think it was really the brightest thing anyone could do in the circumstances - but I also believe that the copper could have just told him to use his brains, told him to remove the bag, and sent him on his way to get the thing fixed (getting wet would have been punishment enough), given that is where he was actually going at that moment. To me it feels wrong that the victim of the crime is not being given some slack. If the guy who nicked the stereo comes in front of the courts he will be given legal aid, his solicitor will point out how stressed he was, and how, in the spur of the moment, never to be repeated..... The victim, meanwhile, who made a dozy decision while stressed out trying to get to work on time, sort out the glass, phone the police, phone the insurance company - gets no such support.

 

I guess I am still furious after getting my car window smashed, the first thing the plod did when he came out was check that the car was insured, taxed, MOTed - and because it is tax-exempt, and blue badged, he even checked that I was around (my husband had called them, not me).

 

Musey - just reread your post - as far as I know you can write as much as you wish in mitigation, if it does not fit into the hole provided you just attach extra sheets.

[Musey]

Thanks for the responses. Totally agree that BiL was abit dim leaving the bag over the window when driving. I've done some research and the 70% light looks to be correct, rightly however thin the bag was it was unlikely to let in the required light or allow him to see through it. Although given the circumstances I fail to see why the PC couldn't advise him of the problem and get him to remove the bag.

 

I suppose I'm wondering if he should plead guilty with mitigating circumstances or if he should opt for not guilty given the circumstances? To further cimplicate matters the court date is scheduled for a day when he is on holiday (he returns the day after) can he get it rescheduled? None of us have any experience in courts etc so all opinions gratefully received.

[mightymouse_69]

No one here would be able to tell your BiL what he should do. It is important that you realise that any views expressed are just the opinions of forum members and not legal advise.

 

I would pleade guilty with mitigation.

 

It will be hard to pleade not guilty when it seems clear that the offence has been committed. Just because there is a reason for the offence being committed does not necesarily negate ones guilt. It would be like getting caught punching someone red handed but saying your not guilty of the crime because they annoyed you!

 

If it were me, I would pleade guilty and work on a damn good mitigation. You would have to be aware that pleading guilty is a full acknowledgement that you committed the offence.

 

As for the holiday issue - I should imagine that you are best contacting the court about that.

[Zamzara]

The % of light rule is correct but this is its own offence. I don't think it's directly relevant to using the vehicle in a dangerous condition, which is a more serious offence. For that they would have to prove actual danger – which of course they may be able to.

[green_and_mean]

The % of light refers to windows a bag is not a window so is not in my view covered by the construction and use regs in regards to windows.

[mightymouse_69]

There are all sorts of regulations regarding car windows - most contained in Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

 

The regulations themselves do not create offenses however. It merely sets out limits: such as what glass must be used, the light that must past through the windows, the max sound levels of a car etc etc.

 

The offences are created by various Road Traffic Acts. There is one of not complying with the construction and use regulations and others such as using the vehicle in a dangerous condition.

 

In short - It is going to be near impossible to help without knowing the exact offence the OP's BiL is charged with.

 

I know I said earlier to plead guilty and get a good mitigation in, but after considering the complexity of the issue, It appears that it may be best to consult an expert in the matter - or at least someone who can look at the exact charge.

[greendollar]

Go to court , explain the situation , unless the magistrates having a bad day I'm sure he/she will be sympathetic and you'll get a small fine or conditional discharge .

[lamma]

I think the bench may find the opposite way. Plus if you go to court anything other than a not guilty means increased costs. What statutory regulation is he charged with ? not the description. it should say something 'contrary to section x.y of the xxxxx Act'.

[mightymouse_69]

What statutory regulation is he charged with ? not the description. it should say something 'contrary to section x.y of the xxxxx Act'.

 

This is exactly the info we need!

[Musey]

BiL+family have been away this weekend, I am speaking to sis this evening and she will be able to tell me the exact wording on the papers from the courts. I'll get there in the end, thanks for the comments rec'd thus far.

[Musey]

I think the bench may find the opposite way. Plus if you go to court anything other than a not guilty means increased costs. What statutory regulation is he charged with ? not the description. it should say something 'contrary to section x.y of the xxxxx Act'.

 

This is exactly the info we need!

 

 

Ah right, I'll make sure I get that info, I thought the description bit was all there was. I haven't seen the form yet myself and have never seen one before, now I'm clear on the bit I'm after I should be able to get the right info. Thanks

[Musey]

Apologies for the delay in updating, situation as it stands is as follows. BiL sent forms back (I never got to see them in the end) with an admission of guilt but explaining the mitigating circumstances as I outlined earlier and also highlighting the inaccuracies in the statement of the police officer involved, being the discrepency of the date (officer had put for example Friday 9th October, when in fact 9th October was a Wednesday). The court date is 4th August so I will update on the outcome in case the information is useful to anyone else.

 

Thanks for the time people took to respond to my op.