Summoning to court for mobile use while driving

matttye

When they said they were going to caution you they would have meant the caution before questions can be put to you:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

If you refuse to let them caution you or the officers aren't satisfied you understand the caution then they can't put questions to you and will need to decide what to do with what they've already got. Hence the decision to summons you.

Instead of refusing to let them caution you, you should've tried to ask what they meant by that and what the implications would be.

brat

matttye wrote: »

When they said they were going to caution you they would have meant the caution before questions can be put to you:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

If you refuse to let them caution you or the officers aren't satisfied you understand the caution then they can't put questions to you and will need to decide what to do with what they've already got. Hence the decision to summons you.

Instead of refusing to let them caution you, you should've tried to ask what they meant by that and what the implications would be.

I must admit, when dealing with someone for an offence, I don't use the word "caution" without being clear what I mean by it, because it can mean a few different things within the context of dealing with an offence.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

And if they can't prove serious injury the S1A prosecution will fail.

So when the poster mentioned an offence involving injury by driving, you were quite wrong to tell him there's no such offence, especially when an offence of causing injury by negligent driving has been on the statutes for +150 years.

Can you be convicted of causing serious injury whilst driving at a standard expected of a competent driver?

Or to put it back to what was originally said, what causes the crime to be recorded, the injury or the dangerous drive?

matttye

brat wrote: »

I must admit, when dealing with someone for an offence, I don't use the word "caution" without being clear what I mean by it, because it can mean a few different things within the context of dealing with an offence.

Good! I have no idea why the same word is used to describe two completely different things. Makes things difficult when trying to explain things to people.

I don't like it when people use the word 'inference' to explain the caution either. A lot of officers don't properly understand what an inference is never mind a suspect.

Spicy_McHaggis

matttye wrote: »

Good! I have no idea why the same word is used to describe two completely different things. Makes things difficult when trying to explain things to people.

I don't like it when people use the word 'inference' to explain the caution either. A lot of officers don't properly understand what an inference is never mind a suspect.

Much simpler to tell then at court they'll think they're lying or have made it up.

brat

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Can you be convicted of causing serious injury whilst driving at a standard expected of a competent driver?

Or to put it back to what was originally said, what causes the crime to be recorded, the injury or the dangerous drive?

The Section 1A offence requires serious injury plus dangerous driving. And despite your insistence that such an offence doesn't exist, it (and another) absolutely do exist.

But I'll let you pull wool over your blatant ignorance of the offences with your usual Peppery weaseling. No one reads these spats anyway.

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to pick on the little points in posts in such an aggressive way.

brat

matttye wrote: »

Good! I have no idea why the same word is used to describe two completely different things. Makes things difficult when trying to explain things to people.

I don't like it when people use the word 'inference' to explain the caution either. A lot of officers don't properly understand what an inference is never mind a suspect.

Perhaps, although many officers are pretty highly qualified these days. The majority of new recruits are university qualified. Our new shift member has a law degree.

But the general point you make is fair. The person being interviewed needs to fully understand the implications of the caution.

I like to ask the interviewee to explain what they think the caution means, then I help them understand each bit, hopefully pitching the explanation at the appropriate level to allow comprehension without condescension.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

The Section 1A offence requires serious injury plus dangerous driving. And despite your insistence that such an offence doesn't exist, it (and another) absolutely do exist.

But I'll let you pull wool over your blatant ignorance of the offences with your usual Peppery weaseling. No one reads these spats anyway. You do and you bite.

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to pick on the little points in posts in such an aggressive way.

So injury alone is wrong, thanks and good night.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

Perhaps, although many officers are pretty highly qualified these days. The majority of new recruits are university qualified. Our new shift member has a law degree.

But the general point you make is fair. The person being interviewed needs to fully understand the implications of the caution.

I like to ask the interviewee to explain what they think the caution means, then I help them understand each bit, hopefully pitching the explanation at the appropriate level to allow comprehension without condescension.

Oh the irony, you assume you are more intelligent.:rotfl:

And of course you're advance tier 3?

brat

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Oh the irony, you assume you are more intelligent.:rotfl:

No, the last but one person I interviewed was a solicitor, three before that was a church minister.

I have no preconceived notions about the intellect of an interviewee, but I am not going to talk to a solicitor using the same words as I would with either you or a 14 year old child.