Reversed into a car and didn't know

a.turner

stormbreaker wrote: »

A few after thoughts!

Have you been in communication with your insurance company? If not then it maybe unlikely the third party has gone through their insurance suggesting that the damage may very well have been negligible and they have just got it sorted.

Who reported it to the police? If not the third party then they perhaps would not have bothered.

Again if both above, they suggest how very minor the accident has been and reason to believe you may well not have been aware.

How do the witnesses describe your car other than give the registration? Have they got it accurate?

How are the witnesses describing the driver at the time if the accident? How accurate is it?

Is there any obvious collaboration in the statements, like same phrases used. If the statements have been taken collectively or by the same person and there are lots of similarities it could be suggested the witnesses have been lead and statements not accurate.

Doesn't matter as identification isn't an issue.

Mr.Generous

jlemaitre wrote: »

i'd go for D. I can only state what i saw and heard, From the horses mouth so to speak. I know he was in for a full year.

To be honest ive no reason to explain something that happened half a decade ago. My post was just merely to let another person in the same situation know of what happened to someone else and i did made it clear that prison sentence isnt guaranteed. its just advice.

Still shows that there is a sentence for a minor offence as i stated.

Edit: a quote from said article.
Passing sentence Judge T****** M****** QC said
'a one-year sentence and a thinking skills programme to start when he is released'.

As i said he denied any collision and the favour didnt go in his way. This is the last i shall be bringing up the past again.

Ah a judge, so not in Magistrates court then. I wonder why a minor knock went to crown court? And a 1 year sentence but he was banged up for a year - what did he do while inside to stay there, otherwise that doesn't happen.


Nevertheless a warning to the OP that it is a possibility. I'd advise anyone not to annoy the judiciary when up before them. I've been to court quite a lot - more than 50 times probably, as a prosecution witness. I've seen serial offenders already in prison brought to court handcuffed to a prison officer found guilty and have 1 day added to sentence, and I've seen someone cocky get 3 months for a minor theft.

Remember its just another day at the office for them, they honestly make up minds really quickly sometimes in Magistrates court, like I said they don't leave the room or anything, just quietly confer for a few seconds then deliver a verdict.


Its not like on TV they will listen to any rambling rubbish about what can be proved (I'm not suggesting you would do this) you will see how disinterested they are if someone tries something like this. They just choose what to believe based on the evidence which is often just he said / she said so it comes down to the credibility of the people involved. I'd expect this case to be over in less than an hour.

Might be worth you going along and sitting in on a couple of cases if you have a day off, probably something everyone should do at least once.


Be great to know the outcome, best of luck with the case.

stormbreaker

jammiejimmy wrote: »

I don’t know. I assume that the owner of the car reported it. I’m only assuming that because it’s what I would have done.

They described it correctly. It was silver and they knew the make.

This is something that seemed strange to me... Woman 1 refers to me as an “elderly man”. I’m not elderly I’m 46!

Nothing obvious but then I’ve taken the statements at face value. I’ll have to look at them again. Perhaps a half decent solicitor could make something of this?

On the issue of legal aid. I was told that because the case is not legally significant it’s not eligible for legal aid. I paraphrased above by saying that I was told it’s not interesting enough. I’ve phoned several solicitors who are supposed to offer legal aid. I looked them up on the law society website. They all deny they offer legal aid.

Don't assume! It should be in one of the statements.

If they are young enough for you to be their father, you are elderly! If you have grey hair, you may appear elderly from a distance. Are they describing hair colour, clean shaven glasses? Colour of clothing.
Just looking for small details to imply that their observations are perhaps not that great?

Sorry, I know nothing about legal aid. I would have thought you are entitled to have someone to defend you if you cannot afford to pay. Citizens advice might know?

stormbreaker

a.turner wrote: »

Doesn't matter as identification isn't an issue.

Identification is not an issue agreed. However their attention to detail could be brought into question?

Mr.Generous

stormbreaker wrote: »

Identification is not an issue agreed. However their attention to detail could be brought into question?

Generally in court never ask a question you don't know the answer to, it can backfire and kick you up the !!!!. It's really not like a TV show. Imagine you sat in court week in week out and had heard every kind of story / excuse / mitigation known to man. That's what the magistrates and prosecutor will feel like. Some witnesses get a hard time and its accepted, other times they won't allow it, its a lottery. I honestly think its like rolling dice, the odds may even be slightly in your favor as a lot of cases get not guilty verdicts, but cases with witnesses and no injuries, its of no consequence to them but really important to you. I guess I'm just trying to warn you court may not be what your expecting.

TooManyPoints

As a defendant you do not have to prove anything to be found not guilty. The prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

You do if you are running a defence to counter a prosecution which has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Let’s stick to the specifics of this case. To prove their case (that the driver failed to stop and/or report) they have to prove (a) that a collision (as defined in S170 of the Road Traffic Act) occurred; (b) that the defendant was the driver and (c) that he failed to stop (for one offence) and that he failed to provide his details or, as an alternative, failed to report the matter to the police within 24 hours (for the second offence). If they prove all of those, unless he provides a defence, he will be convicted. The prosecution does not have to prove he was aware of the collision; he has to prove that he was not. Thus the burden then shifts to him to prove that (in this case) he was not aware that a collision occurred. He must prove this “on the balance of probabilities. If he fails he will be convicted.

I'm applying for more time to pay any fine or costs anyway as I'm out of work at the moment.

You don’t have to apply for anything at present as you have not been convicted. If you are you will be asked how you can pay any fines and costs. So long as you make a reasonable offer (commensurate with your means, and not “a penny a week”) it is likely to be accepted. As an aside, have you investigated whether you are eligible for Legal Aid? If you are not you will be able to see the duty solicitor on your first appearance as the offences (failing to stop/report) are imprisonable. You should take advantage of this. Any news on whether your case is being dealt with under the Single Justice procedure? Have you been told you can attend your hearing (you cannot attend a SJ hearing)?

A further note on procedure. You will not face a trial on at your first appearance. Following your Not Guilty pleas there will be a “Case Management” process. This may take place immediately following your NG pleas or the matter may be adjourned to a future date. This hearing will be to organise matters for the trial, determine what witnesses need to attend, etc. at this stage you must decide whether you want the witnesses to attend (so you can cross-examine them on their evidence). If you do not request their attendance it is assumed you accept their evidence as per their statements. A trial date will also be set at that hearing. The duty solicitor may be able to help you with this but bear in mind that you will only have his or her assistance at the first hearing.

I've just noticed the query about identification. Presumably you were asked to provide the drivers details (via a "Section 172" request). If so, identification is already proved.

I also noticed one here (and on another forum) you are concerned about a custodial sentence. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of you receiving a custodial sentence for any of these matters.

Let me know if I can help further.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

. If you are found guilty at trial the prosecution will ask for costs and these run up to a maximum of £620 for a Magistrates' Court trial.

£620 is not a maximum, but the guideline starting point. It can be much higher, e.g. if expert witnesses are called.

Car_54

stormbreaker wrote: »

6. Did they speak to you at the time? If they did and you gave them your details charges 1 & 2 don't stand. I take it you mean they noted your registration.

The offence is committed if the driver fails to give his details "if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring", e.g. the other driver, or the owner, or the police. A random passerby, even if claiming to be a witness, has no grounds for requiring details, and supplying them to such a person does not provide a defence.

stormbreaker

Having slept in this, I know it's not what you want to hear, but I would plead to 1& 2 as from the witness statements it has happened even although you were totally unaware. It's then up to the magistrate to take in the mitigating circumstances.

Had you known at the time, you would have stopped and or reported it. You had absolutely no reason not to.

stormbreaker

Car_54 wrote: »

A random passerby, even if claiming to be a witness, has no grounds for requiring details, and supplying them to such a person does not provide a defence.

If they witnessed it I would say they have reasonable grounds for requiring. I don't think the person requiring has any definition as such, only examples. All depends on interpretation.