s172 NIP - a very minor incident on a roundabout

[BazzaS]

Hi All

 

To my surprise I received s172 notice yesterday 26-4-17, no NIP with it.

 

 

They need to identify the driver before sending the NIP........... Had you been stopped by the police they'd know who was driving, but they don't know for sure, so they send the s172 to the RK.

 

After the woes of your previous incident (where I bet you wish you had a dashcam to support your version of events),

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?476941-case-referred-to-full-hearing-by-magistrate&p=5019186#post5019186

did you get a dashcam? (and thus will be able to show that you weren't driving without due care, did stop, thus likely did exchange details and thus weren't required to report it to police) ......

[BazzaS]

The burden of proof in any criminal case is "beyond any reasonable doubt".

 

The issue (for both your current potential motoring prosecutions) is that when there are directly conflicting statements ("there was an accident and he didn''t stop" v. "there was an accident and I did stop" and / or "he stopped in lane 1 of the motorway" v. "I didn't stop in lane 1, I stopped on the hard shoulder"), the court makes a decision on which they believe.

 

Moving now to talking in general, if a court believes the account where the offence occurred, the fact that the offender says it didn't isn't sufficient on its own to create reasonable doubt ..... otherwise no criminal would ever be convicted, as all they'd have to do is say "wasn't me / didn't happen" to prevent a conviction.

[BazzaS]

failing to stop and failing to report a collision.

 

offence date: 5-3-17 about 10pm

 

this was a very minor incident on a roundabout, no injuries and only scratches to car bumper.

 

I did stop and only gave my car reg no & insurance name

 

............

 

After myself and she not admitting being at fault. I asked the other driver what she intends to do she said she would speak to her husband...her english wasn't fluent...she's chinese lady

 

What details did you get from her?

 

Hi All

 

this was a very minor incident on a roundabout, no injuries and only scratches to car bumper.

...........

as I thought it wasnt an accident and no injuries.

 

If there was ANY damage, how is this 'not an accident'?

[BazzaS]

she didnt give me any details rather she was insisting to get my insurance and reg no

 

So, let me see if I've understood:

 

In November or December 2016, you had 3 points on your licence, before an incident where you got stopped on the motorway, and from that incident you faced at least 3 more points .....

 

You rely on your driving licence for your job as a delivery driver.

 

In that late 2016 incident, you wish you had video footage to show your version of events was correct, but you didn't get a dashcam after, although you seem a bit confused on events (in one post on that thread you say you stopped in lane 1 .... but then you have declined the FPN as in another post on that thread you say you didn't stop in lane 1...... that case turns on who will be the more believable witness, you or the police officer.

 

Now, in March 2017 you are involved in an accident. You stop, and give some details to the other driver, who doesn't give you any in return, but you decide that is OK, and it wasn't really an accident after all, as

there was no noticeable damage to my car and I actually didnt note any damage to the other car at the time.

 

yet, there were

scratches to car bumper.

 

(Whose bumper?, and when did you notice them, then?).

 

If the police decide to take matters further you may have to persuade them that you did in fact stop and offer your details. When deciding if they want to believe you they may well ask

"if you didn't believe there had been an accident why did you offer your details?"

"If you believed there had been an accident, stopped, and offered your details, why didn't you get details from the other driver...... or if she didn't give her details, why didn't you report the accident to the police".

 

Have I summarized these accurately?

Would it be fair to say, with both, that you may face difficulty in persuading people your recollection is accurate ; [since, if your recollection is accurate (depending on which version of your recollection we are talking about!) would a reasonable and competent driver have behaved in that way?].

 

If I were you, I'd be getting a dashcam ASAP, and recording any further incident on video, to protect any licence you might still have at the conclusion of these incidents.

[BazzaS]

When I get to court I'll be prepared and I'll know what to say; definitely not what I type here.

 

Wow! There are a few ways that could be interpreted, but none of them sound good.

 

It might not mean "I'm practising (in advance) what lies to tell, so I don't get caught out in court", but if you are saying it means "I'll tell the truth in court but I've managed to get flustered and say the wrong things in my posts, at least twice" ; I'm not sure you'll be any 'smoother' / more credible when being faced with being in the witness box and the CPS grilling you ....

 

I think I might lose my licence, I will not.

 

Clear as mud!

 

Why do you think you'll be more credible when under the stress of being in the witness box?

[BazzaS]

How do you think you are going to get on when you swear, under oath, that the police vehicle that stopped you (in lane 1 or not) was fitted with red lights that were forward facing?

 

Its OK. He has 'practised' here, so knows not to say that.

How he'll fare when any answers he gave at interview (in the police car) are put to him, or some other inconsistency comes up (in reply to something he hasn't practised here) is another matter.

 

He is skipping over the key issue : which you (and I!) have mentioned before : that if he did or didn't commit the offence is the decision the court has to reach, so 'the truth' no longer matters as much as "who is the more credible witness". If he can't introduce 'reasonable doubt' : conviction follows, and "the police officer is mistaken" isn't enough on its own......

 

The police officer will have their notes from the time, and is likely experienced at giving evidence under oath.

 

There are so may holes in what you've typed in this thread (and the other one) that you could drive a coach and horses through your 'defence' and have room to spare!

 

Now, here's the bad news.

 

From your other thread, if you're found guilty of stopping in lane 1 of a live motorway, you're looking at between 3 & 6 points. Probably 3, and a fine.

From this thread, if you're found guilty of failing to stop at the scene of an accident or failing to report an accident (at which you did not stop) in person to the police, the maximum sentence is 6 months in prison, between 5 & 10 penalty points or a disqualification from driving. As it's a minor 'damage only', probably at the lower end, so expect to get 5 or 6 penalty points.

 

So ultimately, you may well be (if convicted of both offences) be looking at at least 8 points on your driving licence. Didn't you say that you already had 3 points? If so, that will take you to 11, and if the magistrates are having a bit of an off day, they could quite easily go for 3 & 6, which takes you to 12 and goodbye licence.

 

Now, I'm sure that you won't be this silly, but if you're found to have lied under oath, you're probably looking at a minimum of contempt of court or you may be convicted of either attempting to pervert the course of justice, perverting the course of justice or perjury. The latter two offices, Perverting & Perjury carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So do please think twice before you do anything silly such as fabricate any stories to cover yourself.

 

I agree. If the OP can make silly mistakes here (contradictory facts), in writing, when he has time to carefully compose his posts, and he seems not to understand the points made, and his replies sometimes don't make sense ......... I don't share his confidence that he can persuade the court the police officer is mistaken (or even lying), even with the "don't say that, it makes you look like you are easily mistaken" pointers he has already gathered.

 

Chris Huhne springs to mind, for if the OP gets caught in an outright lie.....

He got 8 months, serving 62 days of that sentence.

[BazzaS]

Guys

 

As much as I agree with some of the comments

 

This site was designed to help people even if that advice isn't always taken

 

People make mistakes, I know I do. I won't go into it but we do

 

Let's give advice (even if it's how to access cag from prison)

 

Absolutely. He should tell the truth.

He should consider if him telling the truth will be credible, or if he may well 'trip himself up' with mistakes leading to him not appearing credible, when he should consider if a guilty plea is a better option.

 

He should avoid appearing that he MIGHT be 'rehearsing' what to say......

[BazzaS]

comparing chris huhne's to this case speaks volume of the quality of advice you offer here.

 

Please move on to another thread where your opinion might be needed. Thanks

 

 

I'm more concerned with the quality of your recollection.

On that other site you asked:

"If there's video evidence are they not suppose the show me such proof to me upon request? Will that only surface in court room?? "

 

You've been given the answer to this already, in this thread.

 

Why are you bothered if there is video evidence?. If there is, and the most favourable of the versions you have stated is true, it will exonerate you.

Of course, if what you are worried about is that it will show you are telling fibs .............

[BazzaS]

thing is though, i don't want to provide 'any tips' re 'anyway around' things where the full truthful facts aren't being posted by someone asking for help. and so it seems its bordering on trying to elicit a 'script' to do just that in court.

seems i fell for it.

 

I don't see why you should feel constrained from offering advice to what looks like a bona fide posting.

Talking in general terms, sure, people can 'rehearse' their 'scripts' here, but it is easy for an experienced prosecutor to 'trip them up' ......

As an example of a technique used by the police: tell the story backwards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-460505/How-spot-liar-tell-story-backwards.html

 

Sure, it is harder than telling the story forwards, but incrementally harder if it isn't true.

The great benefit of truth : only 1 version, and it is more easily recalled than a 'script'.

 

I'm not sure a judge would allow it in court unless the prosecutor could show grounds to suspect deception, but I'm confident prosecutors have other techniques in their armory.

 

I'm minded of a thread (that ran to 21 pages!), where that OP's story was similarly inconsistent, and they looked like they were 'rehearsing' their argument.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354702-Caught-using-someone-else-s-Freedom-pass-convicted-leave-to-appeal-granted/page21

Result: Conviction (that'd show on a DBS), and a fine. at least they couldn't face a driving ban or jail for the offence they were summonsed for.

[BazzaS]

 

re tripping up, know what you mean. the truth will always out in court.

have also seen even pol officers getting outed (lying/colluding) in court (crown) by good def lawyers.

 

"What colour was the boathouse?" (at Hereford).......

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=224383

 

Hard to prepare for a question that is reasonable but unexpected ....