Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Funny that. In that case I suppose it differs from area to area (which of course it dosn't).

The reason I say this is because I was involved in a case about 20 years ago when someone in a van collided with the side of my car while travelling in the opposite way THE WRONG WAY down a one way street. They failed to stop BUT I managed to obtain the VRM from a witness. Obviously I reported the incident to the police and spent over an hour at the police station making a statement. The officer dealing said that first of all they needed to trace the other driver (obviously) and he (the officer) would be looking at the possibility of bringing a case of either careless or dangerous driving depending on witness accounts. At the very least it would amount to driving without due car and attention plus failing to stop.

About a week later I had a phone call from the officer dealing who said that the other driver had been traced and been questioned about the incident following which, I was told he had been charged with failing to stop, driving the wrong way down a one way street (or what ever the equivalent offence for that was then) and careless driving. I was also told that at witness (the one who gave me the VRM) had also gave a statement so all looked good at that point.

Then after about a further 3 weeks I had a phone call from the officer dealing that the CPS had decided NOT to prosecute for careless driving OR failing to stop after reviewing the "evidence". I was categorically told by the officer dealing that it was NOT his/the police decision, it was the CPS. Apparently the driver said he did stop "round the corner as there was no where for him to stop at the scene and he was suffering from shock". So seems like someone was telling me porkies unless the system has changed since then.

However, I did get my car repaired at no expense to myself.

The CPS will review and decide on every case of dangerous driving.
It's a much more serious offence than careless driving.
CPS will also (obviously) look at any case for trial. This may allow them to see potential flaws or weaknesses in the prosecution case, which may cause them not to prosecute it.

Prosecution is not the decision of the reporting officer, but as reporting officers, we can make recommendations, and place them on file, and those recommendations will form a significant part of the information for the decision maker.

catkins

C_Mababejive wrote: »

#27
Well we could digress but i would merely counsel that if you are involved in an accident of reasonable severity then you would be wise not to appear too agile, to at least give some indication of injury and to gather as much information at the scene as possible especially photographic evidence.

The reason why is that injuries such as soft tissue trauma are not usually evident right after the accident.

As an example, a few years ago i was stopped at a red light and a dipsy young girl ran up the back of me.

The impact was sufficient to push my vehicle forward a short distance.

I presume she was doing her make up or texting.

The imact was sufficient to damage the rear of my vehicle necessitating repair.

At the scene, i didnt notice any symptoms mainly I guess because i was dealing with the accident.

The day after i was in great pain affecting my neck and shoulders.

The pain continued for months, i had to have physio,anti inflamms etc.

Thankfully i had gathered info at the scene and submitted a successful claim.
The real answer is for people to pay attention when driving and not to prevent aggrieved persons from making legitimate claims for damages.

I don't agree with the bit I have put in bold. Surely someone involved in accident, unless truly injured, would not be thinking that they have to pretend they may be "just in case"?


The accident happened on Wednesday and my OH is fine. He has been to work (he does a manual job) and has done some clearing up in the garage and garden.


I am just thankful he is ok especially seeing the damage done to our car. It is a write off as the back is pushed in so much.


Not sure who your last paragraph is aimed at! My OH was paying attention when driving as he stopped in time and not by having to apply the brakes really hard. The vehicle behind didn't brake until he hit our car and because of the force of that our car was pushed to the car in front although it literally only touched it.


I don't have any problem with anyone putting in legitimate claims for damage to a vehicle or injuries, why would I? I do however feel it is wrong to make out you are injured when you are not in order to try and make some money when all you are doing is ripping off the insurance companies.


Also the driver of the vehicle in front as well as claiming whiplash is talking about repairs to his car. I have seen the car and there is not a mark on it! According to his wife "there may well be damage that is not visible to the eye"!! What a load of *****

Tilt

brat wrote: »

The CPS will review and decide on every case of dangerous driving.
It's a much more serious offence than careless driving.
CPS will also (obviously) look at any case for trial. This may allow them to see potential flaws or weaknesses in the prosecution case, which may cause them not to prosecute it.

Prosecution is not the decision of the reporting officer, but as reporting officers, we can make recommendations, and place them on file, and those recommendations will form a significant part of the information for the decision maker.

So was I fibbed to or not then? One minute it's a police decision, the next it's down to the CPS. It makes more sense that the CPS decide whether to prosecute or not as they are the ones who prosecute in court.

I don't even know whether the other driver got done for driving the wrong way down a one way street!

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Twenty years ago the police made all charging decisions, now it has been set out nationally what offences the police can decide to charge with. Careless driving does not require authority from the CPS so it's the police who decide. Whether CPS prosecute it is another matter.

That's not what they told me. They said that after the other driver and witness had been interviewed they compiled a report to the CPS who decided not to prosecute the driver for failing to stop or careless driving. I was assured by the officer dealing that it was NOT their decision.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

That's not what they told me. They said that after the other driver and witness had been interviewed they compiled a report to the CPS who decided not to prosecute the driver for failing to stop or careless driving. I was assured by the officer dealing that it was NOT their decision.

Well what that says to me is the police decided to prosecute hence the submission of the report to apply for summons and CPS decided not to run with it. Usual reasons being insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution or not in the public interest.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

So was I fibbed to or not then? One minute it's a police decision, the next it's down to the CPS. It makes more sense that the CPS decide whether to prosecute or not as they are the ones who prosecute in court.

I don't even know whether the other driver got done for driving the wrong way down a one way street!

I don't know whether you want an argument or are just unwilling to accept it but he's telling you as it is.

It is set out what offences are a police decision and what offences require CPS authority to charge. Careless driving and lesser motoring offences are down to the police. Dangerous or death by offences are CPS.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Well what that says to me is the police decided to prosecute hence the submission of the report to apply for summons and CPS decided not to run with it. Usual reasons being insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution or not in the public interest.

Can't help thinking that I was either fobbed off or it was a case of selective prosecuting because there was credible witness and I think it WAS in the public interest to pursue the driver. I suppose it would of been a different matter had I been injured but at the end of the day, the driver still drove the wrong way and hit the side of may car while doing so. I also think that he got off lightly for failing to stop.

Is it really that easy to avoid prosecution for committing at least 3 offences? And why do the authorities treat it more lightly just because no one was injured but yet the offending driver may of been driving just as badly?

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I don't know whether you want an argument or are just unwilling to accept it but he's telling you as it is.

It is set out what offences are a police decision and what offences require CPS authority to charge. Careless driving and lesser motoring offences are down to the police. Dangerous or death by offences are CPS.

But it's still the CPS that prosecute, yes?

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Can't help thinking that I was either fobbed off or it was a case of selective prosecuting because there was credible witness and I think it WAS in the public interest to pursue the driver. I suppose it would of been a different matter had I been injured but at the end of the day, the driver still drove the wrong way and hit the side of may car while doing so. I also think that he got off lightly for failing to stop.

Is it really that easy to avoid prosecution for committing at least 3 offences? And why do the authorities treat it more lightly just because no one was injured but yet the offending driver may of been driving just as badly?

Can't comment whether you were fobbed off or not. They may have gone straight back to the nick and thrown your statement in the bin and blamed it on CPS or the offender could have been in the right lodge.

What you have to remember is CPS have target too, they want something like an 80% chance of a successful prosecution before taking it to court. Something a simple as a witness saying a midnight blue car is black when seen under artificial light at night is enough for then not to proceed

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

But it's still the CPS that prosecute, yes?

You mean that actually take it to court?

Yes.