PLEASE HELP WITH ADVICE - taken to court

BigTrouble_2

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Please don't panic.

There is a higher prospect of being found guilty in a case like this because it was outside a school at leaving time when lots of children are around, and so drivers are expected to anticipate what the children might do.

But you have done the right thing instructing a solicitor as they can speak directly to the CPS on your behalf. If it is a local solicitor they should have personal knowledge of the local magistrates courts and should have a feel for how the magistrates are likely to deal with this case if it goes to court. So they will be able to advise you on how best to proceed, given the circumstances.

In the end it may cost you money, and you may get points on your licence, but you will not go to jail (I agree those remarks were insensitive) and most importantly no-one was was seriously injured.

Good luck!

Daisy

Thank you, Daisy!

I anticipated that children might run out, I knew that they were around - but I couldn't help it that the boy chose to rush out right in front of my car, despite seeing me from afar, as he claims.

I appreciate that being near the school after the pick-up hours is still a strong evidence against me.

BigTrouble_2

Happychappy wrote: »

If the CPS was to consider a new charge due to new evidence, the police would reinterview as new evidence has come to light and go through the disclosure process where the OP would be given the opportunity to have access to the new evidence.

This is clearly a simple due care and not a dangerous driving , manslaughter, terrorism or other offence, the CPS does not just drop the new charge on the defendent when they appear in court, there would be an adjournment prior to the court case for disclosure, so Bigtrouble, don't worry about this and try and get on with your life.

Thanks, Happychappy!

Your nickname is so much more positive than mine.

kwaks

BigTrouble wrote: »

Thank you, Daisy!

I anticipated that children might run out, I knew that they were around - but I couldn't help it that the boy chose to rush out right in front of my car, despite seeing me from afar, as he claims.

I appreciate that being near the school after the pick-up hours is still a strong evidence against me.

No BigTrouble, you need to stop thinking like this. Being near the school after pick up hours is not evidence either way. You were on the road, where a car is supposed to be. A child ran in front of you, you swerved and stopped. That does not show careless driving on your part. You seen him and reacted as soon as you could. That should be the end of the matter.

kwaks

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Point of order. The OP was offered the plead guilty by post procedure and served with the witness statements. This is the s.12 MCA 1980 procedure which is driven by the police only. The paperwork doesn't go anywhere near the CPS until after the defendant has pleaded not guilty. Up till then they have no locus standi (right to conduct the case).

Police do not prosecute. CPS (or PF in Scotland ) do. Police responsibility is to investigate.

BigTrouble_2

An update. The police didn't withdraw the charge and didn' agree to offer a Driver Improvement Course instead. So I thought long and hard and pleaded not guilty.

It is going to cost me big time in legal representation and I was tempted to cut my losses and just plead guilty. But then the work picked up considerably and I thought that I do have this money currently (as much as I hate parting with it) so could this be a sign that I have to follow through with what I believe in. After all it is only money and this money can buy me a chance.

So the trial has been scheduled for September.

Thanks to everyone so much for your support.

ArsenalFC

Hi BigTrouble. I haven't read the whole thread, however from what you're saying I cannot see you're at fault at all. The little boy is at fault for running into the road, thankfully u managed to brake and only caused minor injury. Goodluck with the court case.

This has made me think that I need to buy legal cover with my insurance. I bought legal cover for years and a for a few years I didnt as I thought it was not worth it as I haven't encounter any problems, for the sake for £15-£25 I think I will get this next time my policy is due for renewal.

Quentin

ArsenalFC wrote: »

This has made me think that I need to buy legal cover with my insurance.

Before buying it, check what they offer.

Most "legal cover" offered as an extra with motor insurance is really just "uninsured loss recovery", rather than cover to pay your defence in any criminal action taken against you by the CPS.

But included in the liability to third parties section of your insurance policy is normally legal costs for defending you against proceedings brought against you which are connected with a claim against you by a third party, (or incident that could lead to a claim).

BigTrouble_2

Quentin wrote: »

But included in the liability to third parties section of your insurance policy is normally legal costs for defending you against proceedings brought against you which are connected with a claim against you by a third party.

In my case, the case was brought in by the police, not by the boy's family. Would I still be covered for legal expenses if it was included in the liability to third parties?

BigTrouble_2

ArsenalFC wrote: »

Hi BigTrouble. I haven't read the whole thread, however from what you're saying I cannot see you're at fault at all. The little boy is at fault for running into the road, thankfully u managed to brake and only caused minor injury. Goodluck with the court case.

Thank you - I genuinely thought so and still do. Still, the police decided to prosecute so I will have to prove my side of the story (with the barrister's help).

BigTrouble_2

I have started a new thread on the car insurance in relation to this matter - if you have a chance I would be grateful if you could take a look...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/34678429#Comment_34678429