Cyclist hit and run

brat

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Which part of the necessity test do your custody officers allow that to fall under?

Prompt and effective investigation. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Silver-Surfer_2

brat wrote: »

Prompt and effective investigation. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

I don't disagree with that at all, it's all that was ever used when the test replaced powers of arrest. However now custody officers want more. Given the fact that the suspects are some way down in the chain of events as keepers, why is the arrest still necessary over a voluntary interview? Just after your thoughts as what are you gaining by arresting them in this case?

brat

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I don't disagree with that at all, it's all that was ever used when the test replaced powers of arrest. However now custody officers want more. Given the fact that the suspects are some way down in the chain of events as keepers, why is the arrest still necessary over a voluntary interview? Just after your thoughts as what are you gaining by arresting them in this case?

If there was a benefit to the investigation to be gained by interviewing them while both are detained to prevent their collusion, I'd make that case to the custody officer. If a significant time had elapsed since the incident, I'd have that discussion before arrest.

I don't fully know the ins and outs of this case, but if one or the other is suspected of an intentional or reckless serious assault, we should be using the powers we have to investigate this matter as effectively as possible. I don't know if any suspects were interviewed, but a S172 request failure shouldn't be the end of the enquiry.

Silver-Surfer_2

brat wrote: »

If there was a benefit to the investigation to be gained by interviewing them while both are detained to prevent their collusion, I'd make that case to the custody officer. If a significant time had elapsed since the incident, I'd have that discussion before arrest.

I don't fully know the ins and outs of this case, but if one or the other is suspected of an intentional or reckless serious assault, we should be using the powers we have to investigate this matter as effectively as possible. I don't know if any suspects were interviewed, but a S172 request failure shouldn't be the end of the enquiry.

I think to be honest this has been investigated as a collision and only road traffic act powers appear to have been used. Probably a case of it either being batted from one department to another or a case of no one wanted it so back to response.
Had he died it would have been over seen by at least a DI and no doubt a CID matter, however his injuries may not have been serious enough for traffic nor the investigation complex enough to warrant a detective to investigate.
Not the polices finest hour nor something that doesn't happen on a weekly basis.

[Deleted User]

You may be able to glean some more ins and out of this case because Reginald Scot has released another youtube vid, (three more following, click on the updates in the original video) in which he claims, and explains why , that he thinks the driver was 100 % guilty of deliberately ramming into him. As he says he ended up halfway up the passengers windscreen no way could they not know what had happened.
As he was navigating his way around the corner he was taking a wider line because of the slippy roads and was in the middle of the road. Once past the island he was able to pull over to the left to allow the Volvo to pass easily. Three more youtube vids to follow with more details about the case. He also adds that he is negotiating a civil action on a no win no fee basis.

brat

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I think to be honest this has been investigated as a collision and only road traffic act powers appear to have been used. Probably a case of it either being batted from one department to another or a case of no one wanted it so back to response.
Had he died it would have been over seen by at least a DI and no doubt a CID matter, however his injuries may not have been serious enough for traffic nor the investigation complex enough to warrant a detective to investigate.
Not the polices finest hour nor something that doesn't happen on a weekly basis.

I'm continually disappointed when offences in the road traffic arena are insufficiently investigated. It often puts me at odds with many of my colleagues who do tend to leave collisions to insurance companies to sort out if there are no significant injuries.

But this is not an accident. It's a serious assault. Had the rider gone under the wheels this could have been a murder investigation. It was not in the driver's ability to control the consequences of his actions.

Silver-Surfer_2

sacsquacco wrote: »

You may be able to glean some more ins and out of this case because Reginald Scot has released another youtube vid, (three more following, click on the updates in the original video) in which he claims, and explains why , that he thinks the driver was 100 % guilty of deliberately ramming into him. As he says he ended up halfway up the passengers windscreen no way could they not know what had happened.
As he was navigating his way around the corner he was taking a wider line because of the slippy roads and was in the middle of the road. Once past the island he was able to pull over to the left to allow the Volvo to pass easily. Three more youtube vids to follow with more details about the case. He also adds that he is negotiating a civil action on a no win no fee basis.

Having just watched the police one he still fails to understand why the prosecution failed. Some of his comments also show a general lack of understanding, speeding is not civil and would have resulted in the same outcome.

Silver-Surfer_2

brat wrote: »

I'm continually disappointed when offences in the road traffic arena are insufficiently investigated. It often puts me at odds with many of my colleagues who do tend to leave collisions to insurance companies to sort out if there are no significant injuries.

But this is not an accident. It's a serious assault. Had the rider gone under the wheels this could have been a murder investigation. It was not in the driver's ability to control the consequences of his actions.

It would appear from a second YouTube clip this was a RTC in the eyes of the police after a succession of 172 notices and everything appears to have been done to fit into the six month limit. I bet without the PNLS the OIC had no idea dangerous is nit subject to that nor is Bodily harm.