Rtc police report contains inaccuracies, help please

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

Here is the CPS's guide to prosecuting DWDC&A (otherwise known as careless driving)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a30

Where in that does it say that the victim's feelings are taken into account for this offence? But, in a way, that's irrelevant, since the CPS weren't involved in this case. It didn't go to court.

Here is a (slightly out-of-date, the current version "starts" at death-by-careless or dangerous) copy of the Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines for cases that reach court.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100519200657/http:/www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/sgc_magistrates_guidelines_including_update_1_%202%20_3_web.pdf - p133

Where in that does it give any weight to the feelings of any victim? Harm is taken into account - two people have been injured, whichever way you slice it.

But we've moved a LONG way from the original post. The original post, if you recall, had the OP asking how they could make a complaint regarding a minor clerical error relating to the location of two witnesses. As it happens, the statements of those witnesses are irrelevant to determining whether the bus driver was to blame for the collision or not.

Then there was a follow-on question asking whether that minor clerical error could affect the decision to go for a course rather than prosecute. Between the two options, of course, lies a £100/3pt fixed penalty. This is the one remaining detail that we're now arguing about, am I right? I'll agree that we can't know that for sure. Only the person who made that decision can. But one thing is certain - it's such a minor error in such a minor case that there is no way on the face of this planet that the case will be re-opened for it.

FWIW, I think taking "impact statements" of victims and their families into account in sentencing serious cases is a very bad thing. It means that the punishment is not decided solely on the facts of the case, but takes account of the eloquence of the victims and their families - and that can only be bad for whether justice should be equal for all.

Quoting the CPS website at me is pointless. I do this as a job and I have had clients charged before because the victim was so against a caution. It is usually on those borderline prosecution/out of court disposal cases where it has an impact. I.e. where the scales can be tipped either way in favour of prosecution or not.

The CPS get involved in some cases before they reach court as they are involved in the charging decisions of certain offences, but careless driving is not one of them. It is purely the police's decision as to whether to prosecute careless driving.

The point I have always made is that we do not know exactly how the error would/could have affected the decision, so the only sensible thing is to go to the police and ask them directly whether there's anything that could or should be done in order to review the decision as to whether to prosecute.

I gave an example of how it could have made a difference, in that the independence of the witnesses could be brought into question if the police thought that they were passengers in the OP's vehicle. This could bring into question any evidence they gave. They may have provided evidence as to aggravating features of the offence which could have made it more serious, but the police thought they were "over egging" the matter in favour of the OP.

That's all just conjecture. The reality is that none of us know how the error could affect the case. Only the police know how the error could affect the case. Is it not therefore sensible that the error should be brought to the attention of the police?

With respect, your feelings on restorative justice are of no consequence. The fact is that victims play an active role in prosecution and sentencing decisions these days.

Quentin wrote: »

No.


We all knew from the OP he/she was getting compensation.


This is the post you call crap:





Intended to reassure the OP that if it was the injury claim he/she was concerned about the discrepancy was irrelevant.


(The comment about the £88 spent being not moneysaving isn't advice, so you presumably only see my first sentence as crap)

The question was about whether or not errors in the evidence would affect the decision to prosecute. The OP did not suggest she was seeking for a review of the compensation awarded, yet that is the first thing you mentioned. Bit of a leap, no? I think you had formed your own conclusion of the OP's intentions by then.

Bantex wrote: »

For a relatively minor accidental traffic offence, i believe it is of no consequence.

OP has had time off work and has reported PTSD. It's obviously not that minor to her.

Besides that though, errors must be acceptable in all cases or no cases. You can't pick and choose which cases it is acceptable to ignore errors on.

DirectDebacle

dacouch wrote: »

Bearing in mind my original response was due to this post.



The error in the Police report makes no difference to the Op's ability to make a claim and have it settled.

Have you not noticed the other posters saying this, even Mattye seems to have accepted it makes no difference to the civil claim.

You seem so adamant we're all wrong, what difference to the OP's claim do you propose it will make?

I haven't proposed it will. I said the error needs correcting. Don't you think erroneous police reports should be corrected?

Quentin

matttye wrote: »

The question was about whether or not errors in the evidence would affect the decision to prosecute......

No-one knows why the question was asked. (The OP left the premises prior to your arrival!)


I didn't (as mentioned in the post) which did correctly clear up one obvious reason behind such a question.


And hopefully no-one else will waste over £88 if they are worried their civil claim for compensation will be affected by a police decision.


(Bearing in mind your eventual admission of ignorance over claims and police reports what gives you the right to pronounce anyone's post as crap?)

matttye

Quentin wrote: »

No-one knows why the question was asked. (The OP left the premises prior to your arrival!)


I didn't (as mentioned in the post) which did correctly clear up one obvious reason behind such a question.


And hopefully no-one else will waste over £88 if they are worried their civil claim for compensation will be affected by a police decision.


(Bearing in mind your eventual admission of ignorance over claims and police reports what gives you the right to pronounce anyone's post as crap?)

The post has been going highly active for a couple of days so you could be forgiven for forgetting what the actual first post was about, but let me show you:

"Also, I have noted that the two uninjured passengers that were travelling (and were witnesses) on the bus, have been mistakenly recorded on the Official Report, as being passengers in my car!
I want this error corrected, and seriously wonder what bearing it had on the final decision not to prosecute the bus driver. Had I had rear seat passengers in my now written-off Fiesta, very serious injuries were likely to have been sustained by them.
But as the report falsely stated them to have been uninjured rear seat passengers in my car this gives me little doubt as to how much of a factor that had on the final decision not to prosecute that bus driver,"

The OP appears outraged that errors in the police report might have had an affect on the decision as to whether or not to prosecute the bus driver.

It's quite clear what her question was about and it had nothing to do with compensation. That's why I alluded to your post as being crap, as it appeared to me that you had made your mind up that she must be after a bit more compo.

If you simply misunderstood what she was asking rather than being cynical then I apologise.

dacouch

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I haven't proposed it will. I said the error needs correcting. Don't you think erroneous police reports should be corrected?

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The error is explained in post #1.

It needs to be corrected in order that the error has no adverse impact on the outcome of any claim.

[/QUOTE]

That post states "It needs to be corrected in order that the error has no adverse impact on the outcome of the claim" That's pretty clear to me that you're stating the mistake could have an effect on the claim.

You then proceed to argue over the matter over a number of posts such as this one.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Are you saying the error should not be rectified because you are under the impression it won't make any difference to a claim?

You seem to have accepted the other posters advice along with my advice now that it will have zero impact on the OP's civil claim.
Although you seem to have moved the goal posts to distance yourself.

For the record I would not have bother obtaining the report and would not correct the report but that's just me. If the OP wants to correct it with the Police that's entirely upto her. But she needs to understand that it will have no effect on her claim and I assume the bus driver has already carried out the driver training so is unlikely to affect his punishment.

AdrianC

matttye wrote: »

With respect, your feelings on restorative justice are of no consequence. The fact is that victims play an active role in prosecution and sentencing decisions these days.

How strange that somebody who is so strongly advocating the victim's opinion being taken into account seems so quick to ignore any opinion that differs from his own.

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

How strange that somebody who is so strongly advocating the victim's opinion being taken into account seems so quick to ignore any opinion that differs from his own.

Just stating a fact.

Your thoughts and feelings on restorative justice don't change that it is a part of the UK justice system.

I don't think I have strongly advocated that the victim's opinion should be taken into account - correct me if I'm wrong - but just that the victim (and indeed the suspect/defendant) is entitled to a fair investigation, which includes the correction and review of any errors.