Is This True?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Helen Deborah Vecht, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. 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...

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
    Edgware.
     
    Tags:


  2. dwb

    dwb Guest

    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.

    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.
     
  3. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    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...
    >


    IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
    who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
    is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
    Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
    case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
    unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
    drop the prosecution.

    Tony
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    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?


    Witnesses are not essential for civil claims, at least.

    First step should be to claim from the driver's insurer, preferably using
    a solicitor. I know of a case where all demanded compensation and costs
    were recovered from the insurers despite there being no witnesses.

    Of course it helps if the driver admits to being involved (though I don't
    know if that is essential), and is insured! The insurance company and
    policy number can be traced from a name & address. Address of registered
    keeper can be traced from a registration number.

    ~PB
     
  6. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but
    > proving who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be
    > prosecuted, is impossible without a witness to who was driving.


    Do we know if the driver stopped and gave his/her details to the victim?

    ~PB
     
  7. "Pete Biggs" <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc>typed


    > Tony Raven wrote:
    > > IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but
    > > proving who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be
    > > prosecuted, is impossible without a witness to who was driving.


    > Do we know if the driver stopped and gave his/her details to the victim?


    > ~PB



    I suspect not, but it's not completely clear from the report, copied in
    full below.

    -------------

    CYCLIST HURT: A student who was knocked off his bike in Pinner High
    Street is appealing for witnesses to the accident. Stephen Tiley, 22 was
    riding down the hill, outside the Hand in Hand pub at 9pm on September
    24 at 9pm when he was struck by a silver car. He was taken to hospital
    with head and leg injuries and the bike was written off. Police traced
    the car but are unable to proceed further without witnesses, who are
    asked to call Mr Tiley on (phone number given but not printed by me HDV)

    -----------

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
    Edgware.
     
  8. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:23:15 +0100,
    Tony Raven <[email protected]m> 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...
    >>

    >
    > IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
    > who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
    > is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
    > Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
    > case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
    > unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
    > drop the prosecution.
    >


    But while I can accept that someone receiving a letter throught the post
    can't recall who was driving under a particular motorway bridge two
    weeks ago (in general I suspect I could probably work it out by finding
    my receipt for the service station and then remembering who was driving
    the first half of the journey and who took over and whether the bridge
    was before or after the services we stopped at[1]), I don't accept that
    someone would be unsure which of the two people in the car was driving
    at the time they hit something. Hence, at the very least, a prosecution
    for failing to identify the driver should follow.


    [1] sometimes we only swap seats in the services and it is a case of
    "I'm starting to feel tired, we'll swap at the next services" and we
    may not notice which services it was we stopped at.

    Tim.
     
  9. "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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...
    > >

    >
    > IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
    > who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
    > is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
    > Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
    > case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
    > unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
    > drop the prosecution.
    >


    IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
    driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to know
    who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been stolen
    (and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up by
    proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.
     
  10. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
    > driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to know
    > who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been stolen
    > (and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up by
    > proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.
    >


    Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
    right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
    Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the US in the
    Fifth Amendment. While it may seem satisfying to sweep it aside you
    tinker with it at your peril. The days of extracting confessions from
    the defendant under duress are thankfully these days mainly behind us.

    Tony
     
  11. "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > >
    > > IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
    > > driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to

    know
    > > who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been

    stolen
    > > (and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up

    by
    > > proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.
    > >

    >
    > Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
    > right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
    > Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the US in the
    > Fifth Amendment. While it may seem satisfying to sweep it aside you
    > tinker with it at your peril. The days of extracting confessions from
    > the defendant under duress are thankfully these days mainly behind us.
    >


    I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious. After all,
    the proposal I mentioned is already in effect with regard to the way NIPs
    from speed cameras etc. are dealt with.
     
  12. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:13:31 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
    Vecht <[email protected]> quoted this:-

    >-------------
    >
    >Police traced
    >the car but are unable to proceed further without witnesses, who are
    >asked to call Mr Tiley on (phone number given but not printed by me HDV)
    >
    >-----------


    If the police bods were interested in this case then I suggest they
    would be asking witnesses to contact them. The fact that they have
    not seems to be fairly conclusive evidence that they don;t give a
    shit about this crash.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  13. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious.

    ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
    When I saw this word in a post earlier in the day I assumed it was a
    typo, but now you've used it twice more. Is it a Bushism?

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
     
  14. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:25:04 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
    >right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
    >Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,


    This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
    lost.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
  15. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> writes:

    > IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
    > driving the car in such circumstances,



    No need for that. Just make the registered owner - of any weapon deadly
    enough to require registration - *responsible* for what is done with it.
    That's a low-level civil liability, but requires them to pay up on a
    realistic scale for any damage done. Market forces (the insurance
    industry) will determine how much this costs. That should apply even if
    a vehicle is stolen (within some limits) - let the insurance industry
    incentivise much better security.

    Higher level criminal responsibility would still be applicable when
    the burden of proof can be met. But that'll remain (rightly) a much
    harder burden of proof. The difference is, the victim no longer
    requires it to be compensated.

    --
    Nick Kew
     
  16. 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...
    >

    Yes - but that's for a criminal conviction. The cyclist can still bring
    a civil case for damages, and the burden of proof is far less onerous.
     
  17. "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > > I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious.

    > ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
    > When I saw this word in a post earlier in the day I assumed it was a
    > typo, but now you've used it twice more. Is it a Bushism?
    >


    D'oh! ;-)
     
  18. "Nick Kew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
    > > driving the car in such circumstances,

    >
    >
    > No need for that. Just make the registered owner - of any weapon

    *potentially* deadly
    > enough to require registration


    I corrected your typo.

    > - *responsible* for what is done with it.
    > That's a low-level civil liability, but requires them to pay up on a
    > realistic scale for any damage done. Market forces (the insurance
    > industry) will determine how much this costs.


    Which is all very well and good for resolving compensation issues (and
    better still for keeping lawyers in jobs) - but the person who actually did
    the deed would still get off scott free and be able to do the same again.
    Not a very satisfactory outcome.

    >
    > That should apply even if
    > a vehicle is stolen (within some limits) - let the insurance industry
    > incentivise much better security.
    >


    It already does. Storing ones car off the public highway, fitting alarms and
    immobilisers etc. is rewarded with lower premiums.

    > Higher level criminal responsibility would still be applicable when
    > the burden of proof can be met. But that'll remain (rightly) a much
    > harder burden of proof. The difference is, the victim no longer
    > requires it to be compensated.
    >

    But the perpetrartor is free to kill and injure again.
     
  19. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:25:04 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    >>Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law
    >>the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege
    >>and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

    >
    > This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
    > lost.


    In which country? This is a UK group, not a scots or english/welsh or
    northern irish one.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; lovely alternative to rice.
     
  20. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:35:02 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >>>Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law
    >>>the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege
    >>>and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

    >>
    >> This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
    >> lost.

    >
    >In which country? This is a UK group, not a scots or english/welsh or
    >northern irish one.


    It may well have been Scotland. However the ECHR applies everywhere.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
Loading...