This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi, I crashed my car on the M80 last Saturday and have now been charged with dangerous driving. This is the first time anything like this has happened to me. I'm you're average law abiding citizen and I'm not looking for any medals for that etc.
Anyway, can anyone offer any advice on the likely hood of these charges being reduced. One gentleman was slightly injured when a stone hit his window..
If banned, my life is effectively over due to motgage commitments, loss of job etc.
Thanks in advance,
Nige
Anyway, can anyone offer any advice on the likely hood of these charges being reduced. One gentleman was slightly injured when a stone hit his window..
If banned, my life is effectively over due to motgage commitments, loss of job etc.
Thanks in advance,
Nige
In reply to the weegy:
honestly? speak to a lawyer. without knowing more details about the incident it's impossible to guess how it'll turn out
things like "is this your first offence" can make a difference
honestly? speak to a lawyer. without knowing more details about the incident it's impossible to guess how it'll turn out
things like "is this your first offence" can make a difference
In reply to the weegy: Can't speak from personal experience, but I did know someone who got out of a ban after being caught speeding over 100mph (usually instant ban). He grovelled to the judge and pleaded about loss of earnings etc.
In reply to the weegy:
It seems fairly common to not be banned if it means loss of earning/jobs etc if it's a first offence. Expect at least a hefty fine and points.
Come on now, what were you doing to get a charge of dangerous driving? Could be reduced to Without Due Care and Attention depending on what really happened.
It seems fairly common to not be banned if it means loss of earning/jobs etc if it's a first offence. Expect at least a hefty fine and points.
Come on now, what were you doing to get a charge of dangerous driving? Could be reduced to Without Due Care and Attention depending on what really happened.
In reply to the weegy:
I know that 12 points doesnt nessesarily mean losing your licence. (see this link http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/10/18/half-drivers-with-12-points-keep-licence/ )
I'm not sure of the application to single offences though.
I know that 12 points doesnt nessesarily mean losing your licence. (see this link http://money.aol.co.uk/2011/10/18/half-drivers-with-12-points-keep-licence/ )
I'm not sure of the application to single offences though.
In reply to the weegy:
If you're with the RAC you may have legal cover. They are great at answering questions like this one. I've had cause to do it once and found them just really down to earth, immediate with replies and didn't get hung up on paperwork. AA possibly have the same thing. A little more independent than asking your insurance company (well, that was the reason I spoke to them anyway).
If you're with the RAC you may have legal cover. They are great at answering questions like this one. I've had cause to do it once and found them just really down to earth, immediate with replies and didn't get hung up on paperwork. AA possibly have the same thing. A little more independent than asking your insurance company (well, that was the reason I spoke to them anyway).
In reply to the weegy: Why did they charge you with dangerous driving?
So far as I am aware people are not charged with it simply for crashing, only if they contributed to that crash by in some way driving dangerously.
So far as I am aware (and I may be wrong) It cannot be just lack of attention because there is a crime of 'lack of due care and attention'??
So outcome will depend on previous history and what it actually was you did wrong.
So far as I am aware people are not charged with it simply for crashing, only if they contributed to that crash by in some way driving dangerously.
So far as I am aware (and I may be wrong) It cannot be just lack of attention because there is a crime of 'lack of due care and attention'??
So outcome will depend on previous history and what it actually was you did wrong.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Police officer was rude, abrupt, and abusive, and clearly angling for as high a level conviction as possible. Luckily the sentence was commuted to a 1 day course.
> (In reply to the weegy) Why did they charge you with dangerous driving?
>
Not saying this is true in the OP's case, but some police officers just are @rses. I got caught with a "driving withough due care and attention" after proceeding around a corner at 30mph under the speed limit, hitting a patch of mud which had fallen off a tractor (which I couldn't see before the corner) and sliding into oncoming traffic - no injuries to anyone and as I hit a van, the main damage was to my car.>
Police officer was rude, abrupt, and abusive, and clearly angling for as high a level conviction as possible. Luckily the sentence was commuted to a 1 day course.
In reply to John_Hat: Yeah, very true, they are a mixed bunch. Some really reasonable, some are officious little monsters.
In reply to the weegy:
Sorry to hear that, but you have been charged with a very serious offence and you must go to a solicitor for advice.
Sorry to hear that, but you have been charged with a very serious offence and you must go to a solicitor for advice.
In reply to John_Hat: I wonder what the proportion is of police being arses compared to people who have "accidents" having been driving dangerously.
In reply to the weegy: I've accrued points for using my phone before but a lorry driver is acting as a witness for my defence saying the road was clear and i simply F@@ed up.
Thanks for all your replies guys!!
Thanks for all your replies guys!!
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Ha ha, that would be interesting In my experience all my encounters with police they have been polite and fair. The only time one seemed a bit arsey was when I did a dodgy undertake one evening and they pulled up beside me at the lights. He let me know that as a biker himself he was very disappointed in my riding and I should be ashamed, it was totally justified in my opinion
Ha ha, that would be interesting In my experience all my encounters with police they have been polite and fair. The only time one seemed a bit arsey was when I did a dodgy undertake one evening and they pulled up beside me at the lights. He let me know that as a biker himself he was very disappointed in my riding and I should be ashamed, it was totally justified in my opinion
In reply to the weegy:
I suspect that you have been charged as a matter of course. The police will look for as many convictions as they can from as many different types of situation as they can. It keeps a good balance sheet of (supposed) value Vs money.
My colleague at work rolled his car whilst overtaking another vehicle that was leaving the nearside kerb and didn't have the right of way. He decided to speed up to get round the other vehicle and whilst cutting back in to the line of traffic hit the kerb of a central bollard island. The police gave him (he is quite young so maybe easily led in this way) very stern language and strong suggestion that the only thing for him to do would be to plead guilty in order to get mitigation of severity of sentence. It sounds as though the flavour of the conversations were along the lines of the TV licencing non-threatening threatening letters. He got to court with his guilty plea and in front of the court the public defender stopped him from pleading guilty and advised him (this was actually in earshot of the judge and the public prosecutor so not just some quiet conversation) to plead not-guilty as there was clearly insufficient evidence for a conviction. (In his case the evidence is entirely witness statements)
I am afraid that I cannot tell you how he went on as it's approaching in the next week or two, but what I have learned from his experience (and I believe him to be truthful in the way that he has described the events to me) is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.
I would say that if you were doing 80 mph and there are forensic tests that can demonstrate this from skid marks for example (or is that just CSI style bunkum, whatever, you get the gist) then you will be hard pressed to deny that you were breaking the law. However if, as in my colleague's case, there are only witness reports and other circumstantial evidence/conjecture then check ALL of the evidence before you make a plea at all. Also see if you can speak to the public defender if there is one assigned (I don't know the process so I couldn't advise about that, but my colleague got to the first hearing and there was a defender already with the case notes presenting in his defense). They may be able to advise you best because they will see such scenarios frequently and certainly they have a legal obligation to council you to take action most favourable to your case going in your favour, even if they know that you were driving above the limit (for example).
On a side note, be prepared if you plead not-guilty to have to present about £700 in fees prior to the case to cover solicitor's costs and court fees. If you win then you can claim these back and presumably all travel expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for (wrong phrase but you get the gist again) deprivation of social arrangements because of timings (for example if you had a wedding that you couldn't attend because of the case dates then you would probably be able to claim compensation).
Hope this helps
Good luck
EZ
I suspect that you have been charged as a matter of course. The police will look for as many convictions as they can from as many different types of situation as they can. It keeps a good balance sheet of (supposed) value Vs money.
My colleague at work rolled his car whilst overtaking another vehicle that was leaving the nearside kerb and didn't have the right of way. He decided to speed up to get round the other vehicle and whilst cutting back in to the line of traffic hit the kerb of a central bollard island. The police gave him (he is quite young so maybe easily led in this way) very stern language and strong suggestion that the only thing for him to do would be to plead guilty in order to get mitigation of severity of sentence. It sounds as though the flavour of the conversations were along the lines of the TV licencing non-threatening threatening letters. He got to court with his guilty plea and in front of the court the public defender stopped him from pleading guilty and advised him (this was actually in earshot of the judge and the public prosecutor so not just some quiet conversation) to plead not-guilty as there was clearly insufficient evidence for a conviction. (In his case the evidence is entirely witness statements)
I am afraid that I cannot tell you how he went on as it's approaching in the next week or two, but what I have learned from his experience (and I believe him to be truthful in the way that he has described the events to me) is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.
I would say that if you were doing 80 mph and there are forensic tests that can demonstrate this from skid marks for example (or is that just CSI style bunkum, whatever, you get the gist) then you will be hard pressed to deny that you were breaking the law. However if, as in my colleague's case, there are only witness reports and other circumstantial evidence/conjecture then check ALL of the evidence before you make a plea at all. Also see if you can speak to the public defender if there is one assigned (I don't know the process so I couldn't advise about that, but my colleague got to the first hearing and there was a defender already with the case notes presenting in his defense). They may be able to advise you best because they will see such scenarios frequently and certainly they have a legal obligation to council you to take action most favourable to your case going in your favour, even if they know that you were driving above the limit (for example).
On a side note, be prepared if you plead not-guilty to have to present about £700 in fees prior to the case to cover solicitor's costs and court fees. If you win then you can claim these back and presumably all travel expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for (wrong phrase but you get the gist again) deprivation of social arrangements because of timings (for example if you had a wedding that you couldn't attend because of the case dates then you would probably be able to claim compensation).
Hope this helps
Good luck
EZ
In reply to the weegy:
It's good you got a witness in your defence. Still doesn't tell us what happened
Hope everyone's ok.
It's good you got a witness in your defence. Still doesn't tell us what happened
Hope everyone's ok.
I forgot to note that he is accused of Dangerous Driving also.
In reply to the weegy:
Consult a solicitor! I know a few people who've had their sentences reduced by pleading hardship/loss of income etc., but only a solicitor can properly advise you.
Consult a solicitor! I know a few people who've had their sentences reduced by pleading hardship/loss of income etc., but only a solicitor can properly advise you.
In reply to verygneiss:
I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap. There is a world wide web with massive amounts of information available. The fact that the OP has come to a forum to ask already suggests that they are open to getting the knowledge for their self. Telling people just to go to an expert is bullshit. There are experts in all fields but those people are only part of a well rounded strategy to help in making skillful decisions, at least that's what the experts say (can you feel the irony?).
I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap. There is a world wide web with massive amounts of information available. The fact that the OP has come to a forum to ask already suggests that they are open to getting the knowledge for their self. Telling people just to go to an expert is bullshit. There are experts in all fields but those people are only part of a well rounded strategy to help in making skillful decisions, at least that's what the experts say (can you feel the irony?).
In reply to EZ:
I completely disagree with you and I speak from personal experience and can say that the best thing I did when faced with a potentially serious motoring charge was to consult a solicitor for advice.
Bearing in mind the seriousness of a dangerous driving charge (depending on the circumstances it can carry up to 2 years in prison - for a non death incident, and up to 14 years in prison where someone is killed, not to mention being banned/fined etc) I think anyone who tries to conduct their own defence based on information obtained from an internet forum would be nuts.
Bear in mind the old court saying "The man who conducts his own defence has a fool for counsel"
I completely disagree with you and I speak from personal experience and can say that the best thing I did when faced with a potentially serious motoring charge was to consult a solicitor for advice.
Bearing in mind the seriousness of a dangerous driving charge (depending on the circumstances it can carry up to 2 years in prison - for a non death incident, and up to 14 years in prison where someone is killed, not to mention being banned/fined etc) I think anyone who tries to conduct their own defence based on information obtained from an internet forum would be nuts.
Bear in mind the old court saying "The man who conducts his own defence has a fool for counsel"
In reply to EZ:
Agree. Exactly what occurred with me. I was going round a country bend with no hedges or intrusions into the sight line, just low grass, so whilst I could not actually see quite down to the road surface, I could clearly see the bend, how tight it was, whether there was any obstructing car, etc.
So I thought that 30mph was a reasonable speed based on experience, etc.
Police officer was having a right go at me, asking the same question again and again "so, if you were going at 1mph would the accident have occurred?". I eventually answered that "no it probably wouldnt, but I can't go around every bend at 1mph, you have to make a judgement based on experience".
At which point, of course, he had his "admission" and duly charged me with "due care and attention".
I'd obviously point out that if I'd been my normal self I would hopefully not have got caught this way, but driving head-first into a van rather unsettles one.
My advice to anyone approached for a statement by the police after an accident is to say nothing and say you'll give a statement later. You're not in the best state to think clearly and avoid someone pinning blame on you.
> (In reply to the weegy)
is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.Agree. Exactly what occurred with me. I was going round a country bend with no hedges or intrusions into the sight line, just low grass, so whilst I could not actually see quite down to the road surface, I could clearly see the bend, how tight it was, whether there was any obstructing car, etc.
So I thought that 30mph was a reasonable speed based on experience, etc.
Police officer was having a right go at me, asking the same question again and again "so, if you were going at 1mph would the accident have occurred?". I eventually answered that "no it probably wouldnt, but I can't go around every bend at 1mph, you have to make a judgement based on experience".
At which point, of course, he had his "admission" and duly charged me with "due care and attention".
I'd obviously point out that if I'd been my normal self I would hopefully not have got caught this way, but driving head-first into a van rather unsettles one.
My advice to anyone approached for a statement by the police after an accident is to say nothing and say you'll give a statement later. You're not in the best state to think clearly and avoid someone pinning blame on you.
In reply to John_Hat:
Or, to put it another way, if involved in an accident, assume that someone (other driver, police, whatever) is going to try and make you the fall guy if at all possible, and act accordingly.
What is fair, just or even just the truth of what actually happened has little relevance.
Or, to put it another way, if involved in an accident, assume that someone (other driver, police, whatever) is going to try and make you the fall guy if at all possible, and act accordingly.
What is fair, just or even just the truth of what actually happened has little relevance.
In reply to Trangia:
You don't completely disagree with me. If you would please read my first post again, you will see that I advocate speaking to the public defender. I expect, but not being versed in anything other than anecdotal knowledge regarding such legal situations do not know for certain, that there will be a public defender assigned. They are the best placed person to advise without incurring more costs as they are a legal representative whom one can fairly assume to be competant in the relevant area of law and they have the case notes and visibility of the evidence.
I think you may have mistaken my rant against another poster having advised only to speak to the expert. The expert is surely a useful tool in the box but the tool box contains more than one ubiquitous tool these days. The information systems that we have enable us to behave autodidacticly and we should all do so. In the OP's scenario that means asking questions of others, reading the case evidence for themselves, reading about other's experiences on the internet, asking for advice and looking for references to make sound decisions from as many places as possible.
The previous poster whom I ranted at just said. I heard of some people blaa blaa, therefore you should go to a solicitor! That is crap for sure. It reminded me of the Proofs of God page :http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Item number 38: ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(1) I have heard that some people get lesser sentences, I have heard that some people get lesser sentences, I have I have I have heard that some people get lesser sentences!
(2) Therefore you should speak to a solicitor.
Hahahaha That poster is doomed!
You don't completely disagree with me. If you would please read my first post again, you will see that I advocate speaking to the public defender. I expect, but not being versed in anything other than anecdotal knowledge regarding such legal situations do not know for certain, that there will be a public defender assigned. They are the best placed person to advise without incurring more costs as they are a legal representative whom one can fairly assume to be competant in the relevant area of law and they have the case notes and visibility of the evidence.
I think you may have mistaken my rant against another poster having advised only to speak to the expert. The expert is surely a useful tool in the box but the tool box contains more than one ubiquitous tool these days. The information systems that we have enable us to behave autodidacticly and we should all do so. In the OP's scenario that means asking questions of others, reading the case evidence for themselves, reading about other's experiences on the internet, asking for advice and looking for references to make sound decisions from as many places as possible.
The previous poster whom I ranted at just said. I heard of some people blaa blaa, therefore you should go to a solicitor! That is crap for sure. It reminded me of the Proofs of God page :http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Item number 38: ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(1) I have heard that some people get lesser sentences, I have heard that some people get lesser sentences, I have I have I have heard that some people get lesser sentences!
(2) Therefore you should speak to a solicitor.
Hahahaha That poster is doomed!
In reply to Trangia:
No problem. (I think I actually managed to respond without inflaming the situation for once
No problem. (I think I actually managed to respond without inflaming the situation for once
In reply to EZ:
In my defence, OP didn't indicate he has a profound knowledge of the Scots law of delict, and it's probably impractical for him to learn it from the ground-up. Although I suppose he could pull a few all-nighters...
In my defence, OP didn't indicate he has a profound knowledge of the Scots law of delict, and it's probably impractical for him to learn it from the ground-up. Although I suppose he could pull a few all-nighters...
In reply to EZ:
And a large proportion of it wrong or misleading (I would suggest parts of your lengthy post above fall in to this category). There is a reason why experts are good people to talk to - they have spent a lot of time learning about a subject. If you are in need of urgent knowledge in a an area, as the OP clearly is, consulting an expert is an clearly sensible thing to do.
> (In reply to verygneiss)
>
> I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap. There is a world wide web with massive amounts of information available.
>
> I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap. There is a world wide web with massive amounts of information available.
And a large proportion of it wrong or misleading (I would suggest parts of your lengthy post above fall in to this category). There is a reason why experts are good people to talk to - they have spent a lot of time learning about a subject. If you are in need of urgent knowledge in a an area, as the OP clearly is, consulting an expert is an clearly sensible thing to do.
In reply to the weegy:
Did your crash not involve any other viehcles?
> (In reply to the weegy) I've accrued points for using my phone before but a lorry driver is acting as a witness for my defence saying the road was clear and i simply F@@ed up.
> Thanks for all your replies guys!!
> Thanks for all your replies guys!!
Did your crash not involve any other viehcles?
In reply to MG:
I have been honest in my rendering here of my colleague's experience. I have also been clear about what is conjecture on my part. I think that the OP can take it or leave it as they see fit.
Thankfully I advocated that. What are you complaining at me for?!?
> (I would suggest parts of your lengthy post above fall in to this category)
I have been honest in my rendering here of my colleague's experience. I have also been clear about what is conjecture on my part. I think that the OP can take it or leave it as they see fit.
> consulting an expert is an clearly sensible thing to do.
Thankfully I advocated that. What are you complaining at me for?!?
In reply to EZ:
Well you have a strange way of advocating things!!
"I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap."
>
> [...]
>
> Thankfully I advocated that. What are you complaining at me for?!?
> [...]
>
> Thankfully I advocated that. What are you complaining at me for?!?
Well you have a strange way of advocating things!!
"I am so tired of this speak to a solicitor/trust the experts/scientists have said etc etc crap."
In reply to MG:
Please read my response to Trangia. I think that you may have misread me and so misunderstood me.
Regards
EZ
Please read my response to Trangia. I think that you may have misread me and so misunderstood me.
Regards
EZ
My wife had a collision with another car that was driving dangerously around a large roundabout. There were two witnesses to how poor the boys driving had been coming up to and going round the roundabout.
The police did f**k all. The guy did flip his car (he was trying to overtake my wife who was pulling on to the roundabout and heading for the 3rd lane, as 1 and 2 go off immediately - this guy needed lane 1 and was trying to overtake her before cutting back in at 50+).
Some people do need removing (from the road, of course).
The police did f**k all. The guy did flip his car (he was trying to overtake my wife who was pulling on to the roundabout and heading for the 3rd lane, as 1 and 2 go off immediately - this guy needed lane 1 and was trying to overtake her before cutting back in at 50+).
Some people do need removing (from the road, of course).
In reply to John_Hat:
The problem here is the copper is right. You must always drive such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
But in the real world I bet he doesn't...
Neil
The problem here is the copper is right. You must always drive such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
But in the real world I bet he doesn't...
Neil
In reply to EZ:
I am not convinced that advice based on third hand knowledge of a friend's prosecution for dangerous driving WHICH HAS NOT YET CONCLUDED is the best advice to give. Leaving aside all the "he said" "she said" and "this is why they said it" there is still the possibility he gets convicted. And he won't get the reduction for early guilty plea....
I am not convinced that advice based on third hand knowledge of a friend's prosecution for dangerous driving WHICH HAS NOT YET CONCLUDED is the best advice to give. Leaving aside all the "he said" "she said" and "this is why they said it" there is still the possibility he gets convicted. And he won't get the reduction for early guilty plea....
In reply to the weegy: I have taken legal advice and am now being represented by a traffic specific solicitor advocate.
I was unlucky enough to flip a stone into the window of another car though the gentleman is not seriously injured.
My issue may sound selfish but I feel if my charge is reduced I can then continue my life as a normal member of society. I manage a successful property investment company for a loyal employer and have worked my way from tea boy up and would consider myself an asset to society the same way most people are.
However, with the loss job, goes the my ability to pay my mortgage, run my kids to school, and lead to a seriously impaired home life.
I'm not advocating that I be free of blame, just that It's understood that a momentary lack of judgement be accepted and that my punishment could even serve society.
I'm certainly not below wiping arses in a care home and commend those that have the empathy to do this job for the meagre wages that are on offer to them.
Peace to all!!! The Weegy has spoken!
I was unlucky enough to flip a stone into the window of another car though the gentleman is not seriously injured.
My issue may sound selfish but I feel if my charge is reduced I can then continue my life as a normal member of society. I manage a successful property investment company for a loyal employer and have worked my way from tea boy up and would consider myself an asset to society the same way most people are.
However, with the loss job, goes the my ability to pay my mortgage, run my kids to school, and lead to a seriously impaired home life.
I'm not advocating that I be free of blame, just that It's understood that a momentary lack of judgement be accepted and that my punishment could even serve society.
I'm certainly not below wiping arses in a care home and commend those that have the empathy to do this job for the meagre wages that are on offer to them.
Peace to all!!! The Weegy has spoken!
In reply to the weegy: remember you're alive and your daughter gets to see her daddy. The prosecution must provide enough evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. And that is the only role of the police, so as they say "anything you say.... They have no evidence that you can't overturn with your witness. So stop yer fretting. The're simply aiming high in the hope that evidence appears or you settle for a lesser charge with a guilty panic. If you can't remember what happened prior to the accident then the'll have to look elsewhere.
In reply to The Big Man: Cheers kid, I think we just need to get on something, or maybe Glen Tress wae the bikes. This has really brought home what a bell end I can be and who ma true bro's are.
Maybe even, book onto Carron Dam Saturday, then camp in Campsies wae a barbie?
Maybe even, book onto Carron Dam Saturday, then camp in Campsies wae a barbie?
In reply to EZ:
Thanks, this is the kind of information I was looking for.
> (In reply to the weegy)
>
> I suspect that you have been charged as a matter of course. The police will look for as many convictions as they can from as many different types of situation as they can. It keeps a good balance sheet of (supposed) value Vs money.
>
> My colleague at work rolled his car whilst overtaking another vehicle that was leaving the nearside kerb and didn't have the right of way. He decided to speed up to get round the other vehicle and whilst cutting back in to the line of traffic hit the kerb of a central bollard island. The police gave him (he is quite young so maybe easily led in this way) very stern language and strong suggestion that the only thing for him to do would be to plead guilty in order to get mitigation of severity of sentence. It sounds as though the flavour of the conversations were along the lines of the TV licencing non-threatening threatening letters. He got to court with his guilty plea and in front of the court the public defender stopped him from pleading guilty and advised him (this was actually in earshot of the judge and the public prosecutor so not just some quiet conversation) to plead not-guilty as there was clearly insufficient evidence for a conviction. (In his case the evidence is entirely witness statements)
>
> I am afraid that I cannot tell you how he went on as it's approaching in the next week or two, but what I have learned from his experience (and I believe him to be truthful in the way that he has described the events to me) is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.
>
> I would say that if you were doing 80 mph and there are forensic tests that can demonstrate this from skid marks for example (or is that just CSI style bunkum, whatever, you get the gist) then you will be hard pressed to deny that you were breaking the law. However if, as in my colleague's case, there are only witness reports and other circumstantial evidence/conjecture then check ALL of the evidence before you make a plea at all. Also see if you can speak to the public defender if there is one assigned (I don't know the process so I couldn't advise about that, but my colleague got to the first hearing and there was a defender already with the case notes presenting in his defense). They may be able to advise you best because they will see such scenarios frequently and certainly they have a legal obligation to council you to take action most favourable to your case going in your favour, even if they know that you were driving above the limit (for example).
>
> On a side note, be prepared if you plead not-guilty to have to present about £700 in fees prior to the case to cover solicitor's costs and court fees. If you win then you can claim these back and presumably all travel expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for (wrong phrase but you get the gist again) deprivation of social arrangements because of timings (for example if you had a wedding that you couldn't attend because of the case dates then you would probably be able to claim compensation).
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Good luck
>
> EZ
>
> I suspect that you have been charged as a matter of course. The police will look for as many convictions as they can from as many different types of situation as they can. It keeps a good balance sheet of (supposed) value Vs money.
>
> My colleague at work rolled his car whilst overtaking another vehicle that was leaving the nearside kerb and didn't have the right of way. He decided to speed up to get round the other vehicle and whilst cutting back in to the line of traffic hit the kerb of a central bollard island. The police gave him (he is quite young so maybe easily led in this way) very stern language and strong suggestion that the only thing for him to do would be to plead guilty in order to get mitigation of severity of sentence. It sounds as though the flavour of the conversations were along the lines of the TV licencing non-threatening threatening letters. He got to court with his guilty plea and in front of the court the public defender stopped him from pleading guilty and advised him (this was actually in earshot of the judge and the public prosecutor so not just some quiet conversation) to plead not-guilty as there was clearly insufficient evidence for a conviction. (In his case the evidence is entirely witness statements)
>
> I am afraid that I cannot tell you how he went on as it's approaching in the next week or two, but what I have learned from his experience (and I believe him to be truthful in the way that he has described the events to me) is that the police will look for a conviction if there is no concrete evidence on either side and try to coerce you into acknowledging blame and so essentially convict yourself.
>
> I would say that if you were doing 80 mph and there are forensic tests that can demonstrate this from skid marks for example (or is that just CSI style bunkum, whatever, you get the gist) then you will be hard pressed to deny that you were breaking the law. However if, as in my colleague's case, there are only witness reports and other circumstantial evidence/conjecture then check ALL of the evidence before you make a plea at all. Also see if you can speak to the public defender if there is one assigned (I don't know the process so I couldn't advise about that, but my colleague got to the first hearing and there was a defender already with the case notes presenting in his defense). They may be able to advise you best because they will see such scenarios frequently and certainly they have a legal obligation to council you to take action most favourable to your case going in your favour, even if they know that you were driving above the limit (for example).
>
> On a side note, be prepared if you plead not-guilty to have to present about £700 in fees prior to the case to cover solicitor's costs and court fees. If you win then you can claim these back and presumably all travel expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for (wrong phrase but you get the gist again) deprivation of social arrangements because of timings (for example if you had a wedding that you couldn't attend because of the case dates then you would probably be able to claim compensation).
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Good luck
>
> EZ
Thanks, this is the kind of information I was looking for.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...