Reversed into a car and didn't know

jlemaitre

I'd be very wary of this 'claim'. I used to own a Mazda Eunos(JDM) car. I'd be wanting to see what MX5 it is actually is, The early better and common ones have the rear bumpers that stick out several inches from the bodywork. Have they supplied you with the cars model year?

If it is one of the early ones. Its nigh on impossible to hit the tail lights without knowing about it. You'd have had to be reversing at speed to crush the bumper and cause impact to the light.

As i read you're on benefits and cant afford to pay for a solicitor yourself? I trust you're in some paid employment, If so save everything you can incase the worst scenario outcome.

If you dont have any paid employment, Things dont go your way and you dont pay(would there be court changes against you?) You'd be in bigger trouble paying hefty fines. A prison sentence or community service could be heading your way.

I know the above does sound daunting, But i'd strongly research into what model year that MX5 is, You'd defiantly know your have hit the tail light without a doubt. The new model has the lights flushed against the rear bumper, so a slight roll could well damage the light itself.

jammiejimmy

Mercdriver wrote: »

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.

Does it count that I'm a professional with no criminal record and nothing like this has ever happened to me before- I've never been to court before Will they take character into account while making judgement or only if I'm found guilty in mitigation?

jammiejimmy

jlemaitre wrote: »

I know the above does sound daunting, But i'd strongly research into what model year that MX5 is, You'd defiantly know your have hit the tail light without a doubt. The new model has the lights flushed against the rear bumper, so a slight roll could well damage the light itself.

But I definitely didn't know so it can't have been the car you describe.

Prison????

Sorry but even in my state of semi panic I know they're not going to give me a custodial sentence!!

Mercdriver

jlemaitre wrote: »

I'd be very wary of this 'claim'. I used to own a Mazda Eunos(JDM) car. I'd be wanting to see what MX5 it is actually is, The early better and common ones have the rear bumpers that stick out several inches from the bodywork. Have they supplied you with the cars model year?

If it is one of the early ones. It's nigh on impossible to hit the tail lights without knowing about it. You'd have had to be reversing at speed to crush the bumper and cause impact to the light.

As i read you're on benefits and cant afford to pay for a solicitor yourself? I trust you're in some paid employment, If so save everything you can incase the worst scenario outcome.

If you dont have any paid employment, Things dont go your way and you dont pay(would there be court changes against you?) You'd be in bigger trouble paying hefty fines. A prison sentence or community service could be heading your way.

I know the above does sound daunting, But i'd strongly research into what model year that MX5 is, You'd defiantly know your have hit the tail light without a doubt. The new model has the lights flushed against the rear bumper, so a slight roll could well damage the light itself.

Prison is only a consideration for failure to report. It is vanishingly unlikely bearing in mind there were no injuries and only minor damage. The defendant can demonstrate that he was unaware of the collision (this, is the aspect that is on the balance of probabilities) so I think he has a defence against the first two, and I wouldn't be surprised if the OP accepted the DWDCA charge to see the other two charges disappear.

The only way to get off all three charges would be to cast doubt on the witnesses' accounts.

Mercdriver

jammiejimmy wrote: »

Does it count that I'm a professional with no criminal record and nothing like this has ever happened to me before- I've never been to court before Will they take character into account while making judgement or only if I'm found guilty in mitigation?

This is pretty minor, a low speed collision with relatively minor damage, and no injuries. I'm quite surprised it is going to court at all.

jlemaitre

The law works in some stupid ways, prision for 30 days for stealing a chocolate bar, but no prision for being a peado.

I just think you need to prepare for the worst. (im posting on my partners account above post too) my brother was jailed for what is a minor driving fault like yours, no harm to anyone and was banged up for a year. No previous records or driving offences. No community service, just plain straight to jail. He now has a criminal record for what is basically the same as what has happened to you.
It would seem like he was made an example off, Sadly someone are made an example off and he was one of them... There was a peado from, Ian Watkins from Lost Prophets He was made an example of getting such the huge sentence.


Edited to add, I just read up on the online article(I'm not linking to the article for obvious reasons) it was claimed he collided with the stationary car below 10mph, and claimed he didnt know anything about it. so its clear he didnt stop and leave details but it was witnessed by a member of the public who took his car details down.

jammiejimmy

Mercdriver wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if the OP accepted the DWDCA charge to see the other two charges disappear.

As I've said above, I am going to plead guilty to this. That doesn't mean that they'd drop the other two charges though?

Mercdriver

jammiejimmy wrote: »

As I've said above, I am going to plead guilty to this. That doesn't mean that they'd drop the other two charges though?

No, there's no guarantee. The fact that there is a charge that could result in a jail term means you should qualify for legal aid if you are within the means test level for support. Otherwise you could avail yourself of the free consultation that some solicitors offer.

Mercdriver

jlemaitre wrote: »

The law works in some stupid ways, prision for 30 days for stealing a chocolate bar, but no prision for being a peado.

I just think you need to prepare for the worst. (im posting on my partners account above post too) my brother was jailed for what is a minor driving fault like yours, no harm to anyone and was banged up for a year. No previous records or driving offences. No community service, just plain straight to jail. He now has a criminal record for what is basically the same as what has happened to you.
It would seem like he was made an example off, Sadly someone are made an example off and he was one of them... There was a peado from, Was it Arctic Monkeys? He was made an example of getting such the huge sentence.

Just so you know - it was Ian Watkins from Lost Prophets. Just to help you avoid libel.

A bit of research would help you have some credibility. A post full of hyperbole that has no relevance is not at all helpful

jammiejimmy

Mercdriver wrote: »

No, there's no guarantee. The fact that there is a charge that could result in a jail term means you should qualify for legal aid if you are within the means test level for support. Otherwise you could avail yourself of the free consultation that some solicitors offer.

I've asked, I don't qualify. Solicitors I spoke to say that it's not legally interesting enough or something.