Reversed into a car and didn't know

TooManyPoints

Indictable offences can only be heard in crown court.

That is not correct. “Either Way” offences are indictable. They can be subject to summary justice in the Magistrates’ Court or can be heard on indictment in the Crown Court. “Indictable Only” offences can only be heard in the Crown Court.

It is quite common to charge all three offences.

Indeed it is.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

That is not correct. “Either Way” offences are indictable. They can be subject to summary justice in the Magistrates’ Court or can be heard on indictment in the Crown Court. “Indictable Only” offences can only be heard in the Crown Court.

Either was are as they say summary trail or on indectment.

If it's an indictable matter it can only go to crown, you're choice of wording wasn't good.

TooManyPoints

If it's an indictable matter it can only go to crown, you're choice of wording wasn't good.

I think we're talking semantics. An either way offence can either be subject to summary justice or dealt with on indictment. The choice (leaving aside the defendant's right to a Crown Court trial) rests with the Magistrates' Court. If they decline jurisdiction the offence then becomes subject to indictment. Whether it is indictable from the outset or only when the Magistrates' Court has made its decision is semantic. My view is that the offence is potentially indictable from the outset and so is potentially liable to be dealt with in either court. If you contend it is not an indictable offence until the decision on venue has been taken I'll not argue - especially as it's not really helping the OP.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I think we're talking semantics. An either way offence can either be subject to summary justice or dealt with on indictment. The choice (leaving aside the defendant's right to a Crown Court trial) rests with the Magistrates' Court. If they decline jurisdiction the offence then becomes subject to indictment. Whether it is indictable from the outset or only when the Magistrates' Court has made its decision is semantic. My view is that the offence is potentially indictable from the outset and so is potentially liable to be dealt with in either court. If you contend it is not an indictable offence until the decision on venue has been taken I'll not argue - especially as it's not really helping the OP.

Indictment is trial before judge and jury and cannot happen in Magistrates, therefore all indictable offences are crown court only.

TooManyPoints

Indictment is trial before judge and jury..

It isn't, actually. The indictment is the document containing the charges levelled against the defendant to which he must answer in the Crown Court. It may not involve a trial at all (if he pleads guilty).

But as I said, I'll not argue. What we have here is a simple but fundamental difference of opinion about when an offence becomes "indictable". I believe all Either Way offences are indictable because they all have the potential to be heard on indictment. You believe they only become indictable when the Magistrates' Court has declined jurisdiction. Best leave it at that, I reckon, as we're in danger of derailing the thread.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

It isn't, actually. The indictment is the document containing the charges levelled against the defendant to which he must answer in the Crown Court. It may not involve a trial at all (if he pleads guilty).

But as I said, I'll not argue. What we have here is a simple but fundamental difference of opinion about when an offence becomes "indictable". I believe all Either Way offences are indictable because they all have the potential to be heard on indictment. You believe they only become indictable when the Magistrates' Court has declined jurisdiction. Best leave it at that, I reckon, as we're in danger of derailing the thread.

It's not indictable until it's sent to crown, if it's at Magistrates then it's a summary offence. You seem a little confused as indictment is a mode of trail and has nothing to do with the offence committed.

Summary only heard in mags.
Triable either way can do to either court.
Indictment only is crown.

Either way offences are either summary trial or indictable. The mode of trial dictates what it becomes so you cannot have an indictment in Magistrates as there is no judge and jury.

Mr.Generous

Back to topic I have backed into a few things over the years. I've nudged cars so gently there is no damage to either vehicle. I know I've hit something though.

I suppose the counter argument is that all the other cars I've bumped I didn't notice. Don't expect your theory of having good insurance so if you had known you would have given details to carry much clout. Magistrates wont spend 2 minutes deliberating on this. They may not even leave the court or ask you to.

There is a very good chance at least one of the bench (or their family) have been hit in a car park and the other driver !!!!!!ed off. They will know the independent witnesses have no reason to lie, they will know the police don't bring cases to court without good reason.


I think you can expect to get convicted and should seriously reconsider a guilty plea.

Comms69

See I'd do the opposite. Not guilty. I cant see this case being proven beyond any doubt. Witnesses often don't show up in court.


That said, I'd get a solicitor and listen to what they say. Much like when my doctor suggests a treatment I listen! This is what the do day in day out.

TooManyPoints

No I'm not at all confused, though you seem as if you might be:

Either way offences are either summary trial or indictable.

Which is exactly what I've been arguing. They can be heard on indictment so they are indictable. They are indictable (i.e. they have the potential to be dealt with by way of indictment) unless and until the Magistrates' Court accepts jurisdiction (and the defendant agrees to a summary trial). When the defendant appears for the first time at the Magistrates' Court he faces an offence that is, potentially, indictable.

as indictment is a mode of trail

No it isn't. (see above for the definition of "indictment"). If the Magistrates decline jurisdiction (following their "Mode of Trial" decision) an indictment is prepared and the defendant is "sent" to the Crown Court.

I'm fully conversant with what an Either Way offence is and well acquainted with the process used to progress a defendant who faces one in the Magistrates' Court from there to the Crown Court for trial. Now I really am out.

stormbreaker

Mr.Generous wrote: »

They will know the independent witnesses have no reason to lie, they will know the police don't bring cases to court without good reason.

Nothing in the original post says the witnesses are independant.

Folk are notoriously bad at making assumptions. They see a vehicle in the 'area' of the damaged car and put two and two together.

Did the witness see the two vehicles collide? Or did they see the damaged car rock at the same time they heard a noise, or did the driver of the offending car get out mid reverse to check both cars to see if there was damage to either?

Or did they hear a noise not knowing what it was, at the same time saw the ops vehicle reverse, then saw damage to the parked car and put two and two together and come up with six?

The police is this case can 'perhaps'only be speaking to examining the damaged car and obtaining statements. Their corroborative evidence is negligible as they cannot speak to the appearance of the op or damage cause to his vehicle as they have not followed any of this through.

What we have is a damaged car in a car park. A car park that the op is admitting being the driver of a vehicle in that car park on that particular day. Everything depends on what the witnesses saw exactly and the quality of the statements taken. Unless we see the statements, we really can't be judge and jury.

I certainly wouldn't be pleading guilty to something I was not aware of doing without rock solid proof.