Rtc police report contains inaccuracies, help please

neilmcl

I don't see how the "minor" inaccuracies of the Police statement would have any material effect on the outcome. By all means raise it with the appropriate authorities but other than piece of mind I don't see what else you think you'll achieve.

Joe_Horner

CGG wrote: »

Having never been in a situation of claiming on my car insurance, let alone for someone else's negligence, I posted here, hopeful of advice. The official Police Report contains inaccuracies.
Not to be criticised for asking.
My question was who should I direct my complaint to, I mentioned nothing about any PI claim.
I did not ask the bus driver to write my car off, and my interest in how any fair decision can be made, when the inaccuracies are in black and white.
I only received the report in yesterdays post, so was unaware until then that the errors existed.
Sorry to have bothered you, I'll take my enquiry to another forum.

I'm afraid one of the problems on this sub-forum is that many regulars are quick to assume hat any enquiry like this is to do with payouts. To be fair, probably 90% + are, so there's reason behind their madness!

Taking your enquiry at face value it doesn't seem that the inaccuracies would have affected the outcome much, if at all. The law doesn't generally work in "what ifs", so the quesion of "what if I'd had back seat passengers and they'd been injured" doesn't matter. If you did have people in the back then the outcome may well have been different, but the facts are that you didn't.

I suspect that your ordering the report was o do with (a) not understanding why the driver "got off so lightly" for something that, from your POV, was a pretty big deal.

Unfortunately, that's one of the risks of the newfangled "keeping victims in the loop" approach to law and order. Charging decisions are complicated and, ultimately, aim to serve the overall good of society rather than of individuals - whether a charge is "in the public interest" isn't just a matter of whether the victim wants it or not.

A victim's needs / wishes are taken ino account as one facor but can be offset or even completely invalidated by wider issues. So individuals often end up feeling that the oucome is unfair.

In this case the video (especially if it has sound) will have given a better picure of wether the bus driver had committed any serious driving offences, or whether it was a momenary loss of concentraion / distraction by a passenger / whatever. That's far more reliable evidence regarding how culpable he was than any witness who only became aware of the unfolding events as (in fact, after) they unfolded - which is what any of he other drivers are likely to be.

matttye

Happychappy wrote: »

What is it you want ? if you simply want to make a complaint against police, ring up your local force and tell them you wish to see an Inspector to make a complaint against police, or go online and do it through your own force website, the IPCC are not involved at this stage.

If it is against the CPS, the CPS decided upon a driver improvement scheme for the driver, which is a common outcome for collisions, it is designed to rectify a fault, rather than punish in cost alone, if you simply want a pound of flesh in monetary value from the drivers pocket, then you won't get it, he will already have had to pay for the NDIS

The mistake as to the passengers coming from the bus and not your back seat is completely immaterial, likewise the wholesale scamming of insurance companies in made up injuries of whipcash, despite millions and millions being spent by manufacturers on building safer cars, also has no bearings upon the final outcome as to how to deal with the offending bus driver, NDIS is the way the majority of offending drivers are dealt with and this is still seen by the police and insurance companies as a prosecution, or admission of guilt, whatever you want to call it

You would not be given the interview notes between the driver and the police, he is not a third party witness, he is not a witness, he is the offender and the notes are nothing to do with you, and at the end of the day, the driver and his insurance company are to blame and they will cough up, they are not trying to get out of it, you are simply reading too much into it and are distracting yourself over minutia, the case is settled, it won't be reopened, overturned etc, and the bus driver will not be hung drawn and quartered.

Cps might not have had anything to do with this.

Police can decide whether or not to charge any summary only offence themselves (careless driving) or most either way offences (including dangerous driving) that are suitable for sentence in a magistrates court.

They have the power to offer a driver improvement course without any recourse to the cps.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

I don't think it would have affected the way the police would have dealt with this issue.


The video would have bore more weight to their decision than witness statements as video don't lie.


Had they prosecuted and he pled guilty the innacurate statements I doubt would made any influence to the judge as they immaterial facts in his sentencing, had he pled not guilty of an offence you would have had time pre-court hearings with the CPS prosecutor to check your and OH statement and also the witnesses being called would have checked and the inaccuracies corrected with an affidavit.

matttye

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

I don't think it would have affected the way the police would have dealt with this issue.


The video would have bore more weight to their decision than witness statements as video don't lie.


Had they prosecuted and he pled guilty the innacurate statements I doubt would made any influence to the judge as they immaterial facts in his sentencing, had he pled not guilty of an offence you would have had time pre-court hearings with the CPS prosecutor to check your and OH statement and also the witnesses being called would have checked and the inaccuracies corrected with an affidavit.

None of us are in a position where we have all of the evidence. All we have is what the OP have told us.

Playing devil's advocate, maybe the police thought that the fact that only two of the four people in the car were injured mitigated the offence somehow. None of us have seen the video, so who knows if the video made it clear that there were, in fact, only two people in the car? If they truly did believe that the two alleged backseat passengers, who would have borne the brunt of the collision, were uninjured, then that could clearly have an effect on how they saw what happened.

I think the OP is right to be concerned and should at least speak to the police about it, first of all. The police will be in a better position to advise whether or not it would have affected anything.

Any opinions about whether or not it would have changed anything on here is pure guesswork as we don't have the full details.

I work in a criminal defence solicitors' office and we get people ringing up every day asking for advice based on their version of what happened. We refuse to do this and advise we will only give advice once we are in receipt of the prosecution papers. Once the prosecution papers come in, any initial advice that we would have given them would be useless as the way the actual case is portrayed is so far removed from what they told us.

In other words, it's dangerous to comment on the strength of any evidence or whether any supposed error in the evidence would have had an affect on a case when you're not in receipt of the full details.

Bantex_2

Still at a loss at to what OP wants.
Is it revenge of some sort?

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

Still at a loss at to what OP wants.
Is it revenge of some sort?

She wants them to review their decision once they're made aware of the inaccuracies in the evidence.

If their decision is still the same then, I'm sure she'll appreciate that the decision has at least been made with the correct information.

---

Let's think of another scenario.

Imagine if someone was arrested for assaulting you and a statement from a police officer at the scene suggested that you assaulted the other person, but you didn't do that. Would you want the decision maker to make a decision about what to do with the offender when that inaccurate information is there?

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

She wants them to review their decision once they're made aware of the inaccuracies in the evidence.

If their decision is still the same then, I'm sure she'll appreciate that the decision has at least been made with the correct information.

---

Let's think of another scenario.

Imagine if someone was arrested for assaulting you and a statement from a police officer at the scene suggested that you assaulted the other person, but you didn't do that. Would you want the decision maker to make a decision about what to do with the offender when that inaccurate information is there?

The bus driver has admitted liability though.
The police have decided that an awareness course is a better outcome than a prosecution.
Possibilities of what could have happened are of no concern.

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

The bus driver has admitted liability though.
The police have decided that an awareness course is a better outcome than a prosecution.
Possibilities of what could have happened are of no concern.

Like I said, there are inaccuracies in the evidence that may or may not have affected their decision. They should at least re-look at the matter in light of the corrections.

It might not make any difference, which is fine, but they should at least look at the matter again with the correct information.

This actually happens all the time in this country... prosecutors and police being persuaded to caution even after they've made the decision to charge, or re-arresting people they have previously decided to take no further action against once more information comes to light.

It's pretty standard for such decisions to be reviewed. I don't understand why this is such a hard topic to grasp.

Yes, the driver admitted liability and, yes, a decision was made, but said decision may have been different had the decision maker been in possession of the correct facts. Or it could have been the same. None of us know - it's pure guesswork!

Strider590

Sounds like OP is more concerned with finger pointing and revenge.
Bus driver made a mistake, one that could cost his livelihood, one that could tear his family apart, one that could have his kids without a father.

But all you seem to care about is revenge.

What happened, happened, with respect to any compensation or costs, the insurance have dealt with this. Going on a hunt for blood is not going to change anything for the better. Move on and get on with your life!!!!!