Reversed into a car and didn't know

Mercdriver

stormbreaker wrote: »

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.

Why would you plead guilty to something you were not aware of? How can the OP report a collision he was unaware of?

a.turner

Car_54 wrote: »

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

There won't be any expert witnesses.

a.turner

stormbreaker wrote: »

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.

Are you making this up as you go along?

Car_54

stormbreaker wrote: »

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.

1. What could the witness usefully do with the information?


2. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that a driver does not leave the scene without providing his details to the owner or driver, or the police, or else reporting to the police ASARP. Giving details to an unconnected onlooker does not satisfy this requirement, as there is no onus on him to pass them on to the vehicle owner/driver or police.

stormbreaker

a.turner wrote: »

Are you making this up as you go along?

Do you pick an arguement with everyone?

stormbreaker

Car_54 wrote: »

1. What could the witness usefully do with the information?


2. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that a driver does not leave the scene without providing his details to the owner or driver, or the police, or else reporting to the police ASARP. Giving details to an unconnected onlooker does not satisfy this requirement, as there is no onus on him to pass them on to the vehicle owner/driver or police.

1. They could pass it onto the police or the owner of the vehicle.

2. Yes I'm well aware of the purpose of the legislation. No there is no onus on the onlooker to pass on the information. As said it's all down to circumstances and interpretation.

And this is going off topic!

Mercdriver

stormbreaker wrote: »

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.

You do realise that unlike most other motoring offences, failure to report is a recordable offence, and will therefore show on a CRB check? And yet you advise the OP just accepts it as guilty?

a.turner

Mercdriver wrote: »

You do realise that unlike most other motoring offences, failure to report is a recordable offence, and will therefore show on a CRB check? And yet you advise the OP just accepts it as guilty?

He'll also be required to provide finger prints, a photo and DNA.

a.turner

stormbreaker wrote: »

1. They could pass it onto the police or the owner of the vehicle.

2. Yes I'm well aware of the purpose of the legislation. No there is no onus on the onlooker to pass on the information. As said it's all down to circumstances and interpretation.

And this is going off topic!

Theres no onus on the driver to give any details to the onlooker.

TooManyPoints

£620 is not a maximum, but the guideline starting point. It can be much higher,...

£620 is the maximum that the CPS will normally ask for when requesting costs following a straightforward trial in the Magistrates’ Court. It is not a guideline starting point and very often they ask for less than that. The following shows the current CPS “scale of charges” (look under “Magistrates Court”, “Summary Trial”):

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/costs-annex-1

You will note three amounts, “Lower” (£620), “Average” and “Higher”. You will also note in the guidance “More complex cases should attract the higher range of costs and relatively straightforward cases the lower range” I cannot imagine a more straightforward case than this. So, jammie, the maximum you will be ordered to pay in costs should you be convicted following your trial is £620. If you encounter a benevolent prosecutor you may get away with a lower amount.

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.

The fact that he was unaware of the incident is not mitigation, it is a defence. He cannot be expected to stop and provide details (or report) following a collision of which he was not aware. In fact, if he pleads guilty and then mentions his “mitigation” (that he was not aware of the incident) a half-decent Bench (assisted by their Legal Advisor) may suggest he reconsiders his plea.

This matter could not be more straightforward for the OP. He contends that he was not aware of the collision. He has to convince the court of that on the balance of probabilities. He has the witness statements and if they suggest anything that indicates he may have been aware of the collision (e.g if they say he stopped and got out of his car or poked his head out of the window) he should consider his position carefully. If not it is simply a matter of his credibility on the day. It's his choice and I think he has all the information he needs to make that choice.