On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:06:39 +0100, "dwb" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
>> collision with a car a few weeks ago.
>> Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.
>>
>> Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
>> witnesses'.
>>
>> While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a
>> witness mean nowt will be done?
>>
>> Seems unfair to me...
>
>How would they prove it though?
>
>It would be one against the other - at absolute best it would be 50/50 and
>then only being taken on word - which could be argued is also relatively
>unfair.
Witness evidence is not the only form of evidence acceptable to a
court. Location and type of damge, debris, skid marks etc would all
count.
The police & CPA are quite happy to prosecute other crimes without the
need for witnesses of the actual crime.
>Obviously common sense says someone isn't going to deliberately injure
>themselves to get someone else in trouble - but they might.
>
>Suspect it may also not be the police themselves being unwilling, but
>perhaps knowledge that the CPS won't touch it.
IME it's the CPS. The police were quite up front in describing the
driver who hit me as careless but the CPS wouldn't prosecute without a
third party witness.
They have two criteria for prosecting; liklihood of success and
'public interest'. When I looked into it I came to the conclusion
that, unlike violent crime, prosecuting careless/dangerous drivers is
not seen to be a use of public funds that would be in the public
interest.
This really irritated me. Having been a victim of both types of
violence, I can say which type has damaged me most. And it wasn't the
bloke with the tatooed face.