Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


SafeDriverBirmingham

Charged offence driving without due care and attention

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I received a Written Charge (s) S9 statements enclosed document from the courts (attached - written charges - black).

 

When I read the document I understand I am charged with driving without due care and attention.

My first thought was "whats that mean".

 

I read the rest of the document and I could not find anything within the witness statement to explain what I did wrong.

I went to my local police station to get help,

the police office I spoke to was puzzled and said she can't do anything as i'st gone to the courts, she suggested I go to the court and get help. 

 

Today I went to the court and got to speak to a Police Lead Prosecution he was puzzled by the charge document.

He made some inquires and this afternoon he called me and said a police witness statement was not included in the charge sheet which gives all the detail.

Later he emailed me the witness statement.

 

I guess what are your thoughts on the whole document?

 

My view is:

1 - I should plead not guilty because the court charges do not give any evidence nor witness statement.

2 - Also exhibit DEC 3 and 4 states vehicle speed was 0. 

3 - The charge document states "you have been charged with using a vehicle without the necessary documents......" I have also the documents, no one has asked to see them.

4 -The police witness statement I received later should not be applied as its not within the court files?

 

Also that witness statement states the traffic was heavy at the time but I was driving at 59mph, how can I drive so fast when the traffic is heavy.

 

Your thoughts advise would be appreciated.

 

written_charges.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. People should be along to advise later

 

Best,HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you the witness statement too whereby you relate above to 59MPH and traffic conditions please?

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure on the procedural error shall we say and how it effects if this is prosecutable, but opps naughty boy!!

 

im sure our experts will be alone over the next day or so.

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

While we're waiting for the experts, can I ask a couple of questions please?

 

Can you tell us which documents you've returned to the police? I assume you've admitted to being the driver.

 

Are you saying you were never asked to produce your licence and insurance at a police station? I don't know if it's still called an HORT/1 but that's what I was given when I needed to show documentation.

 

I've put some numbering into your first post for the various points you've raised.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee,

Yes admitted to being the driver, I am the only person who drives the vehicle and I do use the road in question regularly, so mostly likely it was me.

 

I have never been asked to produce my licence and insurance at a police station.  I was not stopped so everything is paper based through the post, at no point I have been told to produce anything until the charge letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the extra information, it will help the guys to advise you.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren’t stopped. You weren’t required to produce your documents (at least, you can say you haven’t received any notification to do so).

 

Produce your documents (including showing that you were insured and held a licence) at a police station asap. Don’t take them to the court (later),

(though, if it goes to court, do take your licence, not to ‘produce’ it, but in case it needs endorsement).

 

I suspect their procedural woes are ‘de minimis’, especially as they aren’t prosecuting you for speeding per se, but that the manner of your driving fell below that of a careful and competent driver.

Since they haven’t alleged “inconsiderate driving”, they don’t have to show risk to safety / risk of inconvenience to other road users, and “driving without due care and attention” carries the same requirement for standard of driving (or lack thereof!), and the same penalties, but doesn’t require impact on other road users.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were driving at 59 in a 40, where there was heavy traffic : would that be compatible with you having to undertake a “risky overtake” on the approach to a crossing?

 

So: do you believe the traffic officer is mistaken, given their witness statement?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a bit strange that there is this very similar case that has caused some confusion on pepipoo?

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=131001&st=20

 

It seems to be the same place, the same date and a similar allegation, but the pepipoo incident was at 08:26 hours rather than 08:32 hours, and the speed was 10mph slower.  Is this just a coincidence?

 

EDIT:  The OP on pepipoo seems to be strongly objecting to the way in which the charge is combining excess speed with an overtake within a crossing.

Edited by Manxman in exile
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oppss again then if its the same person.

 

knows the road well so should know what the speeds are and where they apply..

 

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different statements. One has “at 59 mph overtaking on the approach” and the other “it was overtaking on the approach and in ....... at 49 mph”.

So not the same statement (same ethos, different sentence structure).

 

perhaps they chose that site for the officer because it is an accident hotspot, and they know people do dodgy overtakes (while speeding) there .....??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

Is it a bit strange that there is this very similar case that has caused some confusion on pepipoo?

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=131001&st=20

 

It seems to be the same place, the same date and a similar allegation, but the pepipoo incident was at 08:26 hours rather than 08:32 hours, and the speed was 10mph slower.  Is this just a coincidence?

 

EDIT:  The OP on pepipoo seems to be strongly objecting to the way in which the charge is combining excess speed with an overtake within a crossing.

Thank you for this information. This is the same road, same statement etc only difference is speed. The OP is also as confused as I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused in what way?

 

That you consider overtaking on the approach to a crossing, at well above the speed limit, might not be driving that falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver?

 

Go to court.

 

You are entitled to the ‘presumption of innocence’. The CPS will have to prove otherwise, “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

 

Plead not guilty (if you believe you haven’t committed the offence), and let the court decide if the officer’s statement is accurate, and if an offence has been committed.

 

Don’t forget to update this thread. Site team can help you with the username change once you have the result of the case .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say confused about the careless driver element, not the speeding.

I may/may not have been overtaking, I cannot remember.

But in my opinion the act of overtaking on a duel carriage way should not been seen as careless driving.

 

Looking the location mostly likely a car was turning left before the zig zag lines for the crossing, if I was behind the car then I would have overtaken after checking my mirrors etc. I don’t see anything wrong with that, it would have been before the zig zag lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if they have video evidence of this or is it just stills?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware just stills. If have video evidence then they should share, at least that way it can be resolved quick and easy. The video shows I did nothing wrong then I plead guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don’t need video (or even stills).

People were convicted of these offences (based on testimony alone) even before speed devices, speed cams, and video evidence.

Having a speed device showing the OP was doing 59 in a 40? Just makes it more likely they can “prove beyond reasonable doubt”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza - yes agreed they can prove without reasonable doubt that I was doing 59 in a 40 but they cannot prove I was being careless. 

Edited by SafeDriverBirmingham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://earth.app.goo.gl/SGFmdq
 

“There are zigzags, Your Worship”

”A change in the tarmac from black to pink”

”Warning signs of an accident blackspot”


Look again at the witness statement. Focus on the paragraph beginning “Speeding at the site .....” (and ending) “fail a driving test”.

(BTW, their typo of ‘sped’ for ‘speed’ is de minimis....)
 

Either the speeding or the overtake would fail a driving test, according to the officer. If you are planning to dispute this, be prepared for them to (in response) introduce evidence of testimony to support it. If you want to dig your heels in, and in response they have to adjourn to then get a DVSA driving examiner to appear : expect to get hammered for extra costs!

 

It is the opinion of the traffic officer that the speeding at the site of the crossing (without the overtake) constitutes “below the standard of a careful and competent driver”. By conjoining the speeding and the overtake: I doubt they’ll have trouble persuading the court.

 

As for “But in my opinion the act of overtaking on a duel carriage way should not been seen as careless driving”

 

funnily enough, they aren’t prosecuting you for overtaking on a duel carriageway, nor even doing so while slightly over the speed limit.....

They are doing so for 59 in a 40, at or on the approach to a controlled crossing.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SafeDriverBirmingham said:

 

Looking the the location mostly likely a car was turning left before the zig zag lines for the crossing, if I was behind the car then I would have overtaken after checking my mirrors etc. I don’t see anything wrong with that, it would have been before the zig zag lines. 


You were (having to observe all around, including behind you using your mirrors), and were still adequately prepared for the pedestrian stepping out from the left, who you couldn’t see due to the car turning blocking your vision of them, what with you doing 59 in a 40, it being an accident blackspot.

And prepared to stop for the police officer in high viz gear?

 

Prosecutor: did you see the officer in high viz gear?

You: No. Slam dunk lack of attention

You:Yes. Prosecutor: Yet you still did the dodgy overtake, at speed.

 

Why do you think the information is in their witness statement (and for that matter similar between the 2 examples we see). Elements they can rely on in court to set out / reinforce their case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly thank you for all your help.

 

As far as i am aware I was not asked to stop by the police in high vis.

 

My view could be yes I did see the police office but still overtook as I thought it was safe. I travelled at the same speed as seeing a police office should not mean you slam the brakes on, that would be dangerous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reply to which, should you try that tack in court, would undoubtedly be “You should not be driving at a speed, such as 59 in a 40, where you would consider having to “slam the brakes on” (Except in an emergency, which a police officer in high viz gear would only become an emergency if you weren’t paying attention to the road and driving environment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a quick look at this having come in a bit late (been away). If you defended this matter you would almost certainly be convicted. The only possibility of acquittal that I can see is a fatal administrative error and nothing you have said indicates that one might exist. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

There is no need to consider the individual elements of the allegation separately. As explained, the charge is careless driving. The witness statement explains the officer's opinion quite clearly. He has evidence that you were speeding (measured by an approved device). He has evidence that you performed an overtake in a controlled area (his observations of the event). His evidence is that speeding on the approach to a pedestrian crossing together with overtaking in its vicinity puts your driving below the required standard.

 

There is no need for the prosecution to bring expert testimony as to what constitutes careless driving. It's written in the statute and it is up to a court to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented to them. You don't seem to have a very clear recollection of the event and your post at 8:25 on Saturday seems to confirm this. Compare this to the witness statement which details the event quite clearly and you might hazard a guess at which version the court might accept.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...