Hit & Run - No Proscecution

miniphernalia

Back in August I cycled across the road when I shouldn't of with a group of jay-walking pedestrians and cyclists at a pelican crossing. I was under the impression it was okay and like a sheep crossed.

I was unlucky and was struck by a car who went between two stationary vehicles just as the light had gone green.

I suffered serious leg injuries and was left semi-conscious in the road.

The driver did not stop or report the incident and was investigated as a hit & run until the identity of the vehicle and the driver was discovered a month later.

I have just been told that the Police have decided not to prosecute the identified driver despite video evidence. They have a 'decision unit' and have not even passed the file to the CPS who are oblivious.

Is this correct?

antrobus

miniphernalia wrote: »

Back in August I cycled across the road when I shouldn't of ....

Scratches head.

Aren't you happy that you are not being prosecuted?

Just saying.:)

miniphernalia

I admitted fault crossing the shared ped/bike crossing when I shouldn't of but they chose not to pursue me as I have lost the use of my right leg. They told me they were hopeful in prosecuting the driver until they said they weren't going to bother.

wgl2014

You can ask the Police for their rationale not to prosecute. If not happy with the answer you get then you can lodge a policy complaint and the decision will be reviewed by a senior officer (usually an Inspector).

Bear in mind that if the Police have driver/ vehicle details and CCTV you can obtain these in order to start a civil action against the driver.

G_M

What are you expecting them to prosecute the driver for? Dangerous driving? Undue care and attention? Failing to stop following an accident?

I suspect the police have dismissed the first two, since as you admit, you "cycled across the road when I shouldn't".

And the last option they probably decided it was not in the public interest, due to the cost in money and police/CPS time in bringing a prosecution, weighed against thhe fact that the first two offences were dismissed.

esuhl

G_M wrote: »

I suspect the police have dismissed the first two, since as you admit, you "cycled across the road when I shouldn't".

Two wrongs don't make a right!

The OP may have been careless, but the driver is criminally negligent and should be prosecuted -- certainly banned from driving for a few years.

Johno100

wgl2014 wrote: »

Bear in mind that if the Police have driver/ vehicle details and CCTV you can obtain these in order to start a civil action against the driver.

Yes, as long as the OP is prepared to deal with a potential counterclaim from the driver for damage caused to his/her vehicle by their admitted reckless actions.

agrinnall

esuhl wrote: »

The OP may have been careless, but the driver is criminally negligent and should be prosecuted -- certainly banned from driving for a few years.

But people who know far more abou the case than you do have decided prosecution is not in the public interest, so nothing is going to happen to the driver whatever your view unless the OP decides to make a complaint and the police decision is successfully reviewed.

dacouch

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes, as long as the OP is prepared to deal with a potential counterclaim from the driver for damage caused to his/her vehicle by their admitted reckless actions.

That is incredibly unlikely

G_M

esuhl wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right!

The OP may have been careless, but the driver is criminally negligent and should be prosecuted -- certainly banned from driving for a few years.

You cannot know that the driver was criminally negligent. He may have been, or he may not.

The only information we know for sur about the circumstances of this accidentt is what the OP told us, "cycled across the road when I shouldn't of".

The police, presumably, have a more detailed picture of the precise circumstances.

If they are not prosecuting, they presumably (yes, I'm guessing) concluded either that the prosecution would be likely to fail (the driver is likely to defend and to defend succcesfully) and/or 'not in the public interest' due to the cost, uncertainty of success, responsibility of the OP etc etc

Decisions like this are made all the time - we can only comment, condemn, express outrage, campaign etc if we have the full facts. Which we clearly don't.

esuhl

G_M wrote: »

You cannot know that the driver was criminally negligent. He may have been, or he may not.

It's a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident.

It's shocking that someone responsible for driving a ton of metal into someone would just leave them laying semi-conscious in the road.

It's quite rightly criminal, and the driver should face justice for their actions.