20 cm from Death - Outcome

[CopperBrompton]

In England, dangerous driving is a very hard charge to prove. The CPS will generally go with careless driving except in the most extreme cases, even where a collision has occurred.

If it's true that video evidence without an independent witness is not accepted, then I would definitely write to your MP.

 

[magnatom]

Indeed, and I was to some extent resigned that the charge would be lowered to Careless Driving. However, to be completely dropped is just ludicrous.

To anyone (sane) who views this video, it is obvious, without any reasonable doubt that the driving standard of the tanker driver was criminally poor. Yet, it seems (and this is supposition until the PF gets back to me) that the law is balanced in favour of the driver in this case. That has to change. If that requires lobbying MP's, MSP's etc, then I will do that.

What scunners me the most is that, if I had failed to stop in time and had been crushed to death by that tanker, then it is likely that the driver would have been prosecuted and my video evidence would have been used. It would seem that only my dead body would have provided ample evidence of poor driving on the part of the tanker driver.

It's time we took a stand and made sure that the law does not fail us in the future.

 

[GAVSTER]

Thanks guys. That is very interesting. Is this similar in English law? I know of at least one case where video evidence was used to convict.

If this is indeed the case then, yes I will be in touch with my MSP and MP (I'm sure they would help at least). I also personally know an MSP from my uni days (and another prospective candidate), so I will certainly take it up with them.

Anyway, I will wait and see what the PF says.

Video evidence is used to convict in Scottish courts every day. If there was CCTV evidence of your 'incident' and you made a statement - there would then be corroboration.

MP's have no locus reallly in Scots law.

With the Cadder ruling there will be changes to criminal procedure law next year anyway - perhaps this would present a legislative vehicle. Also there have been calls for a change in corroboration in Scots law after Cadder and maybe this will happen.

 

[magnatom]

Gavster, you're not a lawyer are you?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

What scunners me the most is that, if I had failed to stop in time and had been crushed to death by that tanker, then it is likely that the driver would have been prosecuted and my video evidence would have been used. It would seem that only my dead body would have provided ample evidence of poor driving on the part of the tanker driver.

Yes, that provokes an interesting thought experiment.

Let's imagine, god forbid, that you had been crushed to death in exactly the same scenario.

The powers that be decide not to prosecute - because your helmet camera evidence was not corroborated by an independent witness.

One would hope that would provoke an outcry.

Yet the logic is precisely the same as in this case.

 

[Ravenbait]

Video evidence is used to convict in Scottish courts every day. If there was CCTV evidence of your 'incident' and you made a statement - there would then be corroboration.

I may not have made it clear -- this is why I think it's to do with tampering. An independent camera can be used as evidence to back up a witness statement. But witness-supplied documentary evidence is not sufficient to act as corroboration. It's there to give additional weight to the witness testimony. It's still down to what the witness will speak to.

That's just my experience in having put cases together, however.

Sam

 

[Bollo]

Thanks guys. That is very interesting. Is this similar in English law? I know of at least one case where video evidence was used to convict.

If this is indeed the case then, yes I will be in touch with my MSP and MP (I'm sure they would help at least). I also personally know an MSP from my uni days (and another prospective candidate), so I will certainly take it up with them.

Anyway, I will wait and see what the PF says.

I know that CCTV can be used as sole evidence in England, because I sat on a jury for such a case last year. I suppose it could be argued (in my case) that the CCTV operator was the independent witness as he was watching events unfold 'live', but I'd imagine that the video evidence would have been equally admissible if the footage had not been observed at the time.

I'd also support Magger's arguments about the PF's lack of communication. The time/effort/systems required to send a simple letter when the PF close any case is minute compared to the overall time and effort for the case up to the point of closure.

 

[ttcycle]

F*cks sake?!! Not enough evidence?!! What more do the plod need?!

I am angry with you Mags!

 

[magnatom]

F*cks sake?!! Not enough evidence?!! What more do the plod need?!

I am angry with you Mags!

Why!? What did I do wrong....?



(I do actually know what you mean! )

 

[magnatom]

I can understand that tampering could be an issue. However, in this situation, it would take a master of video recon and adjustment to tamper with this in such a way as to actually falsify the video testimony. Surely this is up to a judge/jury to decide, i.e. what is the likelihood of tampering? Does the accused feel that the video has been tampered with? etc.

The law has to change.

 

[Ravenbait]

I can understand that tampering could be an issue. However, in this situation, it would take a master of video recon and adjustment to tamper with this in such a way as to actually falsify the video testimony. Surely this is up to a judge/jury to decide, i.e. what is the likelihood of tampering? Does the accused feel that the video has been tampered with? etc.

The law has to change.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

The point is, the PF has to consider the defences available, and how easy it would be to counter them/disprove them. I had a case held up for longer than you'd imagine likely over a definition to do with the location, even though it was a clear-cut case with plenty of evidence and witnesses and everyone knew where the incident took place. If the defence argued that the video had been tampered with, how would the PF counter that? There would have to be an expert witness, who would have to be paid to analyse the footage.

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also understand that what seems a clear, open-and-shut case can often turn out not to be when it comes to the arguments presented in court.

Sam

 

[ttcycle]

Why!? What did I do wrong....?


(I do actually know what you mean! )

Just..everything..I can't even verbalise it as the rage is just spilling out...you just get on me nerves

 

[magnatom]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

The point is, the PF has to consider the defences available, and how easy it would be to counter them/disprove them. I had a case held up for longer than you'd imagine likely over a definition to do with the location, even though it was a clear-cut case with plenty of evidence and witnesses and everyone knew where the incident took place. If the defence argued that the video had been tampered with, how would the PF counter that? There would have to be an expert witness, who would have to be paid to analyse the footage.

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also understand that what seems a clear, open-and-shut case can often turn out not to be when it comes to the arguments presented in court.

Sam

Don't worry, I realise where you are coming from, and it is important for me to understand this argument, so I appreciate your comments.

OK. Let me turn this on its head. What changes in the law would be required to ensure greater weight can be placed on evidence such as my helmet camera video?

Sam, if you are willing could you PM me what your connection to the courts etc is. Just so I can understand where you are coming from. (I'd understand if you'd prefer not to of course!)

 

[magnatom]

Just..everything..I can't even verbalise it as the rage is just spilling out...you just get on me nerves

Good, good, good. If you keep your anger focused on me, all the road users of London will be a lot safer!

 

[CopperBrompton]

What scunners me the most is that, if I had failed to stop in time and had been crushed to death by that tanker, then it is likely that the driver would have been prosecuted and my video evidence would have been used. It would seem that only my dead body would have provided ample evidence of poor driving on the part of the tanker driver.

Yes, when you put it like that, it was a bit selfish of you to brake.