Is This True?

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a
witness mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

How would they prove it though?

It would be one against the other - at absolute best it would be 50/50 and
then only being taken on word - which could be argued is also relatively
unfair.

Obviously common sense says someone isn't going to deliberately injure
themselves to get someone else in trouble - but they might.

Suspect it may also not be the police themselves being unwilling, but
perhaps knowledge that the CPS won't touch it.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a witness
mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
drop the prosecution.

Tony

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:06:39 +0100, "dwb" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a
witness mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

How would they prove it though?

It would be one against the other - at absolute best it would be 50/50 and
then only being taken on word - which could be argued is also relatively
unfair.

Witness evidence is not the only form of evidence acceptable to a
court. Location and type of damge, debris, skid marks etc would all
count.

The police & CPA are quite happy to prosecute other crimes without the
need for witnesses of the actual crime.

Quoted message said:

Obviously common sense says someone isn't going to deliberately injure
themselves to get someone else in trouble - but they might.

Suspect it may also not be the police themselves being unwilling, but
perhaps knowledge that the CPS won't touch it.

IME it's the CPS. The police were quite up front in describing the
driver who hit me as careless but the CPS wouldn't prosecute without a
third party witness.

They have two criteria for prosecting; liklihood of success and
'public interest'. When I looked into it I came to the conclusion
that, unlike violent crime, prosecuting careless/dangerous drivers is
not seen to be a use of public funds that would be in the public
interest.

This really irritated me. Having been a victim of both types of
violence, I can say which type has damaged me most. And it wasn't the
bloke with the tatooed face.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a
witness mean nowt will be done?

Witnesses are not essential for civil claims, at least.

First step should be to claim from the driver's insurer, preferably using
a solicitor. I know of a case where all demanded compensation and costs
were recovered from the insurers despite there being no witnesses.

Of course it helps if the driver admits to being involved (though I don't
know if that is essential), and is insured! The insurance company and
policy number can be traced from a name & address. Address of registered
keeper can be traced from a registration number.

~PB

Tony Raven said:

IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but
proving who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be
prosecuted, is impossible without a witness to who was driving.

Do we know if the driver stopped and gave his/her details to the victim?

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but
proving who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be
prosecuted, is impossible without a witness to who was driving.

Quoted message said:

Do we know if the driver stopped and gave his/her details to the victim?

Quoted message said:

~PB

I suspect not, but it's not completely clear from the report, copied in
full below.

-------------

CYCLIST HURT: A student who was knocked off his bike in Pinner High
Street is appealing for witnesses to the accident. Stephen Tiley, 22 was
riding down the hill, outside the Hand in Hand pub at 9pm on September
24 at 9pm when he was struck by a silver car. He was taken to hospital
with head and leg injuries and the bike was written off. Police traced
the car but are unable to proceed further without witnesses, who are
asked to call Mr Tiley on (phone number given but not printed by me HDV)

-----------

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:23:15 +0100,

Tony Raven said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a witness
mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
drop the prosecution.

But while I can accept that someone receiving a letter throught the post
can't recall who was driving under a particular motorway bridge two
weeks ago (in general I suspect I could probably work it out by finding
my receipt for the service station and then remembering who was driving
the first half of the journey and who took over and whether the bridge
was before or after the services we stopped at[1]), I don't accept that
someone would be unsure which of the two people in the car was driving
at the time they hit something. Hence, at the very least, a prosecution
for failing to identify the driver should follow.

[1] sometimes we only swap seats in the services and it is a case of
"I'm starting to feel tired, we'll swap at the next services" and we
may not notice which services it was we stopped at.

Tim.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a witness
mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

IIRC it is correct in that they have probably traced the car but proving
who was driving it at the time, and therefore who should be prosecuted,
is impossible without a witness to who was driving. Aside from the
Hamilton's who got off on that defence there was also a death driving
case where the police knew who was in the car at the time but were
unable to prove which one of them had actually been driving so had to
drop the prosecution.

IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to know
who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been stolen
(and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up by
proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.

Nathaniel Porter said:

IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to know
who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been stolen
(and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up by
proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.

Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the US in the
Fifth Amendment. While it may seem satisfying to sweep it aside you
tinker with it at your peril. The days of extracting confessions from
the defendant under duress are thankfully these days mainly behind us.

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
driving the car in such circumstances, and they should have a duty to

know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who is driving their car at any given time (unless of course its been

stolen

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(and reported as such) etc.). I suspect that such a measure, backed up

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

proper penalties, may encourage people into helping justice be done.

Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the US in the
Fifth Amendment. While it may seem satisfying to sweep it aside you
tinker with it at your peril. The days of extracting confessions from
the defendant under duress are thankfully these days mainly behind us.

I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious. After all,
the proposal I mentioned is already in effect with regard to the way NIPs
from speed cameras etc. are dealt with.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:13:31 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> quoted this:-

Quoted message said:

-------------

Police traced
the car but are unable to proceed further without witnesses, who are
asked to call Mr Tiley on (phone number given but not printed by me HDV)

-----------

If the police bods were interested in this case then I suggest they
would be asking witnesses to contact them. The fact that they have
not seems to be fairly conclusive evidence that they don;t give a
[censored] about this crash.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nathaniel Porter said:

I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious.

^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
When I saw this word in a post earlier in the day I assumed it was a
typo, but now you've used it twice more. Is it a Bushism?

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:25:04 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the
right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
lost.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nathaniel Porter said:

IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
driving the car in such circumstances,

No need for that. Just make the registered owner - of any weapon deadly
enough to require registration - *responsible* for what is done with it.
That's a low-level civil liability, but requires them to pay up on a
realistic scale for any damage done. Market forces (the insurance
industry) will determine how much this costs. That should apply even if
a vehicle is stolen (within some limits) - let the insurance industry
incentivise much better security.

Higher level criminal responsibility would still be applicable when
the burden of proof can be met. But that'll remain (rightly) a much
harder burden of proof. The difference is, the victim no longer
requires it to be compensated.

--
Nick Kew

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a
collision with a car a few weeks ago.
Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.

Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without
witnesses'.

While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a witness
mean nowt will be done?

Seems unfair to me...

Yes - but that's for a criminal conviction. The cyclist can still bring
a civil case for damages, and the burden of proof is far less onerous.

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

I agree we have to be cauticious but we can't be too cauticious.

^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
When I saw this word in a post earlier in the day I assumed it was a
typo, but now you've used it twice more. Is it a Bushism?

D'oh! ;-)

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nathaniel Porter said:

IMV the registered owner of the car should have a duty to report who was
driving the car in such circumstances,

No need for that. Just make the registered owner - of any weapon

*potentially* deadly

Quoted message said:

enough to require registration

I corrected your typo.

Quoted message said:

- *responsible* for what is done with it.
That's a low-level civil liability, but requires them to pay up on a
realistic scale for any damage done. Market forces (the insurance
industry) will determine how much this costs.

Which is all very well and good for resolving compensation issues (and
better still for keeping lawyers in jobs) - but the person who actually did
the deed would still get off scott free and be able to do the same again.
Not a very satisfactory outcome.

Quoted message said:

That should apply even if
a vehicle is stolen (within some limits) - let the insurance industry
incentivise much better security.

It already does. Storing ones car off the public highway, fitting alarms and
immobilisers etc. is rewarded with lower premiums.

Quoted message said:

Higher level criminal responsibility would still be applicable when
the burden of proof can be met. But that'll remain (rightly) a much
harder burden of proof. The difference is, the victim no longer
requires it to be compensated.

But the perpetrartor is free to kill and injure again.

in message <[email hidden]>, David Hansen

(') said:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:25:04 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law
the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege
and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
lost.

In which country? This is a UK group, not a scots or english/welsh or
northern irish one.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:35:02 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law
the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege
and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this
lost.

In which country? This is a UK group, not a scots or english/welsh or
northern irish one.

It may well have been Scotland. However the ECHR applies everywhere.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---