Summoning to court for mobile use while driving

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

To be fair, you're right most of the time, crotchety, carnaptious, but usually right.

You love pointing out others mistakes, no matter how minor, yet can't take it when the tables are turned. :whistle:

You've yet to show us the offence of causing serious injury, whilst driving at a standard not below that expected. All you've done is found an offence with more elements that the original posted.

photome

brat wrote: »

To be fair, you're right most of the time, crotchety, carnaptious, but usually right.

You love pointing out others mistakes, no matter how minor, yet can't take it when the tables are turned. :whistle:

you have got that spot on

brat

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

You've yet to show us the offence of causing serious injury, whilst driving at a standard not below that expected. All you've done is found an offence with more elements that the original posted.

The poster knew what he was talking about when s/he mentioned the offence. You took exception to their comment about the existence of an offence which involves causing injury while driving, either because you didn't know about the offence, or because you thought their comment wasn't specific enough, despite the fact that it didn't need to be, a point they clarified later for you by showing you they knew what they were talking about.

You then went off on some strange tack about the offence being dangerous driving, despite it being an entirely separate offence under a different section of the RTA. Indeed there is a separate offence which can be used to punish for negligent driving that causes injury - the driving doesn't have to have been dangerous.

So, if you're going to make these crotchety scolding responses to people, it's probably better to recognise when you've got it wrong rather than dig a bigger hole for yourself. But unfortunately I don't think you possess that trait.

Despite having been PPRd in the past, you obviously miss being on here trying to 'correct' people in the bilious way that you do.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

The poster knew what he was talking about when s/he mentioned the offence. You took exception to their comment about the existence of an offence which involves causing injury while driving, either because you didn't know about the offence, or because you thought their comment wasn't specific enough, despite the fact that it didn't need to be, a point they clarified later for you by showing you they knew what they were talking about.

You then went off on some strange tack about the offence being dangerous driving, despite it being an entirely separate offence under a different section of the RTA. Indeed there is a separate offence which can be used to punish for negligent driving that causes injury - the driving doesn't have to have been dangerous.

So, if you're going to make these crotchety scolding responses to people, it's probably better to recognise when you've got it wrong rather than dig a bigger hole for yourself. But unfortunately I don't think you possess that trait.

Despite having been PPRd in the past, you obviously miss being on here trying to 'correct' people in the bilious way that you do.

Section 1a is about dangerous driving is it not?

Happychappy

Ladies please, it's like a locker room spat between a Special and a PCSO wannabe !

I knew this would happen once government made the decision to get rid of traffic, and I retired, just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Deuce !

RuthnJasper

Happychappy wrote: »

Ladies please, it's like a locker room spat between a Special and a PCSO wannabe !

I knew this would happen once government made the decision to get rid of traffic, and I retired, just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Deuce !

Indeed - the petty bickering that has gone on here is really pathetic; helpful to no one. Please tell me that you don't actually represent law enforcement officers...!?

brat

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Indeed - the petty bickering that has gone on here is really pathetic; helpful to no one. Please tell me that you don't actually represent law enforcement officers...!?

Thanks for your sage. You're probably aware that your comments much like ours are beyond our individual conscious control, but your opinion may affect the way I respond in future, so for that I thank you.

matttye

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.

I've had a number of officers say that the middle part of the caution means tell the truth (which of course completely contradicts the first part which says you do not have to say anything).

Had some other bad explanations but that is the most common one. The vast majority explain it adequately though - agreed on that.

I don't mind your approach but find that many suspects can't explain the caution very well even though they know it inside out. Police, solicitors and reps are trained to understand it and explain it in a simple way but it can be awkward for people who aren't used to explaining it to do so.

brat

matttye wrote: »

I've had a number of officers say that the middle part of the caution means tell the truth (which of course completely contradicts the first part which says you do not have to say anything).

Had some other bad explanations but that is the most common one. The vast majority explain it adequately though - agreed on that.

I don't mind your approach but find that many suspects can't explain the caution very well even though they know it inside out. Police, solicitors and reps are trained to understand it and explain it in a simple way but it can be awkward for people who aren't used to explaining it to do so.

I guess the reason I ask them to explain it is because it's often the first opportunity I have to assess them. Tbh, they don't often explain the caution very well, even the solicitor I interviewed recently.
I usually explain that the overriding principle is that they don't have to say anything. I then explain that they need to be aware that if they don't answer my questions, a jury or magistrate may wonder why an answer they give at court wasn't given in interview.

matttye

brat wrote: »

I guess the reason I ask them to explain it is because it's often the first opportunity I have to assess them. Tbh, they don't often explain the caution very well, even the solicitor I interviewed recently.
I usually explain that the overriding principle is that they don't have to say anything. I then explain that they need to be aware that if they don't answer my questions, a jury or magistrate may wonder why an answer they give at court wasn't given in interview.

You are right about the second part, but a jury or magistrate or district judge can only draw an adverse inference if it's something the defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention during the interview.

Eg. Let's say someone is arrested on suspicion of murder. The murder has been given an estimated time range of 00:00 on 2nd February to 23:59 on 4th February. The suspect is questioned about their movements during this time during the interview and they provide an account.

Later on, when they've been charged and the case is proceeding, the estimated time is amended and the defendant proceeds to mention their whereabouts for the new time range for the first time during the trial. No inference can be drawn because they could not have been reasonably been expected to mention those facts during the interview.

So even if a suspect answers no comment to questions during interview, there is still not necessarily going to be an inference drawn if the first time they are questioned about certain things is during the trial. That's why officers need to put all of their questions even when a suspect makes no comment.

I appreciate you could spend hours explaining the caution if you had to go into complete detail.

I think that the second part should be explained something like:

"This means that if you say something in court that you could reasonably have been expected to mention during interview, and you failed to mention those facts in interview when you had the chance, then the court may decide not to believe you."