Reversed into a car and didn't know

TooManyPoints

I don't know what you mean by statutory defence,...

Apologies, it's not a "Statutory" defence (that is, one which is enshrined in the relevant statute (law)). Thanks to Car 54 for pointing this out and apologies for derailing your thread by unnecessarily arguing off-topic. An often used defence against failing to stop or report is that the driver did not know that a collision had occurred. If you can successfully persuade the court that you knew nothing of the collision you cannot be convicted of failing to stop and/or report it. If the witness(es) saw the collision and saw you drive off it may be that what they saw might help establish whether or not you knew of the collision. It depends very much on what they say and how credible they are. Bear in mind that you only have to prove your defence "on the balance of probabilities" (that is, your story is more likely to be true than not).

As far as Careless Driving goes the law says this:

(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

This is very vague but its simplicity often helps. Careful and competent drivers do not reverse into other vehicles. The court will conclude that If, as you describe, your view was impeded, you needed to take additional care. You were in a car park and the proximity of other cars would not be unexpected. The witness(es) can only describe what they saw. If it is accepted that you did collide with another vehicle (whether you knew about it or not) it is virtually a slam-dunk conviction. If you plead guilty the witnesses will not be required to give evidence to support the careless driving charge.

You should be aware that if you plead guilty to an offence at the earliest opportunity you are entitled to a third off any fine that might be imposed. If you are found guilty at trial you obviously lose that discount. But the biggest risk for you is prosecution costs. 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.

As far as funding legal representation via Legal insurance goes, I would be surprised if that cover runs to representing you at trial, but I may be wrong.

One final thought (and it may have been covered, so apologies if it was) what is the status of the car park where this occurred? Is it a public car park to which anybody has access? If not, what is it?

TooManyPoints

I don't have the "police summary of evidence". This sounds like something I should see prior to court? How would I get it?

At this stage you should have been served with the "initial Details of the Prosecution Case". This should be the material the prosecution intends to rely on to convict you. It is doubtful they will rely on any police summaries as they are not evidence. From what you say it seems the only evidence they might have is the statements from the two witnesses and that from the owner (probably describing the damage alleged).

Have you already entered any pleas to these matters? I ask because minor motoring matters are usually dealt with in the first instance under the "Single Justice" procedure. Is what you have a "Single Justice Procedure Notice"?

DoaM

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Bear in mind that you only have to prove your defence "on the balance of probabilities" (that is, your story is more likely to be true than not).

I know that's the case for civil claims in the small claims track of the County Court. But for cases arising from Police charges? I thought that would be "beyond reasonable doubt", and it would be for the prosecution to prove not for the accused.

Unless you're meaning that "on the balance of probabilities" means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond reasonable doubt"?

TooManyPoints

I know that's the case for civil claims in the small claims track of the County Court. But for cases arising from Police charges? I thought that would be "beyond reasonable doubt", and it would be for the prosecution to prove not for the accused.

Unless you're meaning that "on the balance of probabilities" means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond reasonable doubt"?

No that's not what I mean.

The prosecution has to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offence, bar any defence he may put up. If they don't do that the defendant can make a "half time" application that there is "No case to answer". If he is successful with that he need put up no defence.

Otherwise the burden then falls to him to prove his defence (in this case that he did not know a collision had occurred). Anything the defendant has to prove by way of a defence must be proved "on the balance of probabilities" and not to the higher standard.

stormbreaker

I can't do multi quotes either, but before I start.

NEVER, assume, guess, hypothesise or presume. STICK to known facts.

1. Reversed slowly from parking space. Totally unaware of striking anything. No one approached, shouted, waved or drew my attention to the incident. No damage to your car.

Do not mention rubbish bags obscuring your view unless questioned or witnesses make mention.

2 & 3.Not reasonable. The fact you don't recall suggests you have conveniently forgotten.

'Reasonably' not have known would be if you were driving a lorry which was noisy and the weight of it would mean any minor impact would not be heard or felt. Likewise if you had a tow bar and that had struck the car, you may not have heard or felt impact. So not relevant.

Only other thing maybe if it was a gravel surface and/or dreich day and visibility not great and heavy noisy rain?

4. Don't assume and guess, this should have been covered in the witness statements.

5. Again don't guess and presume. Do they give an opinion as to whether they thought you would be aware? Do they say you were reversing slowly? As you say they have no reason to lie or be vindictive against you.

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.

7. You are the only one speaking to there being no damage to your vehicle. Do the witnesses mention anything?

9. Irrelevant as now cannot be proved or disproved.

10. This will have already be confirmed by PNC or you would have been charged with no insurance too.

jammiejimmy

DELETED USER wrote:

I wouldn't cop to driving without due care either, after all the collision was so gentle that you didn't even notice. Accidents happen, and if such a collision met the threshold for prosecution then every minor accident would result in points and conviction.

Good luck.

Thanks... it does seem a bit harsh to me but then it would, wouldn't it?!

I can understand the need to provide a deterrent against this sort of thing happening. It happened to me once when I'd first stated driving and I could have cried! I'm just hoping I don't lose my licence, I'd lose my job.

jammiejimmy

TooManyPoints wrote: »

An often used defence against failing to stop or report is that the driver did not know that a collision had occurred. If you can successfully persuade the court that you knew nothing of the collision you cannot be convicted of failing to stop and/or report it. If the witness(es) saw the collision and saw you drive off it may be that what they saw might help establish whether or not you knew of the collision. It depends very much on what they say and how credible they are. Bear in mind that you only have to prove your defence "on the balance of probabilities" (that is, your story is more likely to be true than not).

Exactly my defence which the precedents I was given show is a reasonable one. Of course, the hard part is convincing the magistrates.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

As far as Careless Driving goes the law says this:

(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

Yes, hence why I'm pleading guilty on this.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

You should be aware that if you plead guilty to an offence at the earliest opportunity you are entitled to a third off any fine that might be imposed. If you are found guilty at trial you obviously lose that discount. But the biggest risk for you is prosecution costs. 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.

Thanks for that- I didn't know what the cost was but I knew you get a third off or something you plead guilty as soon as possible. I'm applying for more time to pay any fine or costs anyway as I'm out of work at the moment. I was doing a maternity cover at the time and that's finished. I'm most worried about the potential points as I have 3 already and I won't be able to get another job if I lose my licence. This is what's really frightening me.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

As far as funding legal representation via Legal insurance goes, I would be surprised if that cover runs to representing you at trial, but I may be wrong.

That seems to be the general consensus but I'll find out tomorrow.

TooManyPoints wrote: »

One final thought (and it may have been covered, so apologies if it was) what is the status of the car park where this occurred? Is it a public car park to which anybody has access? If not, what is it?

Yes, it was a council run car park- no help there!

I'm not looking to get out of paying what I owe. I'd have been happy to have provided my details if I'd known

jammiejimmy

stormbreaker wrote: »

NEVER, assume, guess, hypothesise or presume. STICK to known facts.

'Reasonably' not have known would be if you were driving a lorry which was noisy and the weight of it would mean any minor impact would not be heard or felt. Likewise if you had a tow bar and that had struck the car, you may not have heard or felt impact. So not relevant.

It was a big car which hit a very much smaller car. I'm going to get the dimensions of the two vehicles and use this in court.

stormbreaker wrote: »

Only other thing maybe if it was a gravel surface and/or dreich day and visibility not great and heavy noisy rain?

It wasn't raining. I don't remember what the surface was. I know the weather was "overcast" as they ask that on the witness statement form.

stormbreaker wrote: »

5. Again don't guess and presume. Do they give an opinion as to whether they thought you would be aware? Do they say you were reversing slowly? As you say they have no reason to lie or be vindictive against you.

Yes- first witness says "the driver was not reversing fast but I could see it was going to collide with the vehicle behind". The other witness says that they believe that I was aware as the car shook when I hit it. ("It wasn't a huge crash but would have been obvious to driver. Stationary car wobbled and was damaged".)

stormbreaker wrote: »

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.
You are the only one speaking to there being no damage to your vehicle. Do the witnesses mention anything?

No they didn't speak to me and yes, they took my registration. I don't think they would have time to come out and tell me or challenge me as I would have just driven off. They don't mention my car being damaged (as it wasn't), but I see your point.

Mercdriver

TooManyPoints wrote: »

No that's not what I mean.



Otherwise the burden then falls to him to prove his defence (in this case that he did not know a collision had occurred). Anything the defendant has to prove by way of a defence must be proved "on the balance of probabilities" and not to the higher standard.

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.

jammiejimmy

stormbreaker wrote: »

Irrelevant as now cannot be proved or disproved.

Is it irrelevant? I can prove I hadn't been drinking as others in the office could testify to this. They would remember me as I'd only been there for the second time (I never had cause to go back to this site again) and I did them a favour of moving the rubbish. Maybe I should go and ask one of the staff if they can be a witness and testify I wasn't drunk or high?