20 cm from Death - Outcome

[downfader]

If you no longer wish to persue the driver as your earlier posts suggests, I would consider trying to get your MP interested. He or she may write to the PF or others requesting a fresh look at the evidence and where this leaves future complaints. There are enough people just here on this board left feeling that justice has NOT been done to show sufficient public interest I would have thought.

On the other hand if a FOI act application does not get what you want in respect to statements etc, the only other course i can think of is to consider a civil action and ask for the evidence so that you can further that, a solicitors letter may be required to do so. Whether you actually go on with a civil claim is of course a matter to be decided after you see the evidence, but at least you will have it.

I would have thought anyway that your evidence, the evidence of the camera, together with the police interview evidence give the corroboration thats needed, and as you say, if not, the evidence from the company as to which of their employees was in charge of their vehicle should be enough.

Does the PF only consdier a signed confession as corroboration in this case?

Good luck with this.

I think going down the MP route could be an option, and trying to get them to address the press to raise awareness. I think there has been fobbing of one's off.

 

[Coco]

That does seem a bizarre excuse from th PF. I can't see how the identity of the driver can't be ascertained even without your video. You have the Reg and the date/ time. I agree it sounds like they are making it up as they go along.

 

[Ravenbait]

There is nothing independently identifying the driver. The video does not show his face. There is no first-hand evidence demonstrating who the driver was. If the driver, in court, denied being behind the wheel, how would the PF prove otherwise?

I know it looks like you are being fobbed off, but my experience is that evidence has to be pretty clear-cut. I could give you much more bizarre examples of evidence being described as insufficient if it were not unprofessional to do so (we've already discussed this in PM, Mags, so you know why I can't). The response from the PF is pretty much what I would have expected.

Sam

 

[Bollo]

<br />There is nothing independently identifying the driver. The video does not show his face. There is no first-hand evidence demonstrating who the driver was. If the driver, in court, denied being behind the wheel, how would the PF prove otherwise?

So, following this logic, the lorry driver, or anyone else can kill anyone using a car, lorry whatever and as long as there's no one there to see it (or they're wearing a balaclava) they cannot be prosecuted, even if they admit to driving the vehicle and are expected to be doing so by their employer?

Lazy police and lazy PF. They don't give a cuss.

 

[Origamist]

So, following this logic, the lorry driver, or anyone else can kill anyone using a car, lorry whatever and as long as there's no one there to see it (or they're wearing a balaclava) they cannot be prosecuted, even if they admit to driving the vehicle and are expected to be doing so by their employer?

Lazy police and lazy PF. They don't give a cuss.

This is what confuses me (unsurprisingly as I glean most of my knowledge of the legal system from Kavanagh QC) as the police would(?) have questioned the registered keeper of the vehicle and asked him/her who was driving it at the time of the alleged incident (Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 172). If the driver was then identified and interviewed would his/her statement not be considered corroborative evidence - particularly as it appears that he has admitted driving the HGV at the time of the incident? What's more, it would surely make it harder for the accused to deny being the driver at a later date.

 

[Vikeonabike]

There is nothing independently identifying the driver. The video does not show his face. There is no first-hand evidence demonstrating who the driver was. If the driver, in court, denied being behind the wheel, how would the PF prove otherwise?

Gathering evidence to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time is not difficult. The vehicle in question was a HGV and therefore would have had a tacograph fitted. This has to be signed by the driver and handedin at the end of each day. The company would have had to showwho was driving the vehicle when a Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent. I would be pretty sure that the company would also have log sheets, CCTV etc, So independant evidence should be readily available. If it isn't then a lot of other people including the company and the driver could be in a lot of bother.

It's a fob off. I've had to shout and scream and stamp my feet to get the bloke to court for due care and attention that knocked me off my Police Motorbike in the summer...CPS weren't interested to start with!

 

[magnatom]

I know where RB is coming from, but as Vike says, it isn't hard to prove who was driving. Is it possible the police didn't investigate this enough? I will be contacting the PF on Monday to try and clarify. If I'm not happy after that I can take my complaint to stage 2, i.e. further up the chain. I really do need to get the drivers statement though. I'll also speak to the CTC. Perhaps they can direct me to a friendly Scottish lawyer.

 

[sadjack]

Mags, it maybe of course there is no actual statement from the driver. He would (should) have been interviewed under caution so there may only be the police records, (contemp notes / tape recording) of what he said.

The reason given so far for not going for the driver seem more of an excuse to justify their decision. Vike makes some very good points about work records etc.

It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this.

 

[killiekosmos]

I don'y see how the identity of the driver can be in any doubt. He has admitted being the driver and he was driving an HGV for his employer so there should be a tachograph fitted which identifies who is driving. Mags video shows the actions of the driver. The corroboration of the incident is the video and Magnatom's statement.

Unfortunately it strikes me that PF just does not thing this matter is serious enough to pursue. If the driver was charged might he plead guilty anyway?

 

[magnatom]

Just a quick update on this. I have called the PF, but had to leave a message. Hopefully they will get back to me today. (Off work with D&V!)

However, I was looking back at some notes I made about my interactions with the police shortly after the incident (7th March at 13:50 to be precise). The PC that I made the statement to definitely suggested that he claimed that 'he didn't see me'. That doesn't sound like a denial of being there.

The PC also said that 'apparently he drives an automatic which would have to go down all the gears as well as up'.....

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Why do I get the feeling I am being fobbed off.......

Because you are? That's p*ss poor, IMO. Unless the Police lied to you about interviewing the driver then the PF should just be able to contact the Police and get hold of the statement which, as you say, proves he admitted being the driver. Someone's telling porkie pies!!

 

[sadjack]

Have a look at this Mags, you may have found it in your own research already. It has a nice explanation on corroboration in Scottish Law

http://www.hingstons.co.uk/laws-Corroboration-no.html

If I am reading it right the PF seem to be saying that your testimony and the camera footage is one piece of evidence and needs to be corroborated. (I would have thought one corroborated the other as to the actual incident, but not as to the identity of the driver)

I would have thought that the police interviews and work related documents would do that.

I wonder what sort of report has been put in front of the PF?

Seems like a right can of worms. God forbid that you had been hurt in this incident as it seems they are saying that the driver would not have been prosecuted if you had!

Again good luck with this. I hope you get a good outcome.

 

[magnatom]

Right. I managed to have a chat with the PF today, in particular the PF that reviewed the case following my complaint. It was a very interesting conversation...


At the start of this process I thought the police were at fault, then I felt that the PF were at fault, now it would appear that the Scottish Government and the Supreme Court are at fault!

As suggested in the letter I was sent, the problem was indeed identification of the driver, which, yes sound totally crazy. Of course none of us linked my case to this. In October this year a Supreme court ruling overturned the normal practice of the Scottish police of questioning a suspect without a lawyer present.

This is relevant to me as the driver in this case was interviewed in March this year, without a solicitor present during which he did admit to driving the HGV. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling this admission is inadmissible in court.

As Vike suggested there are other ways of determining who was driving the HGV, unfortunately the police thought there was no need with the statement admission. So there were no other corroborating checks. The PF agreed that having the HGV tachy and work rotas etc would probably have covered this. In hindsight the police probably could have done a better job and this wouldn't have been an issue.

Out of interest I asked the PF about the issue of corroboration with respect to the helmet camera. Yes he agreed that my testimony and my video evidence would not count as corroboration. However, there is apparently a way around this. When it gets to court you have an 'expert witness', in this case possibly a traffic cop, who would describe what he sees in the video and his opinion of it. So the good news is that camera evidence is acceptable in Scotland despite the differences in the law.

All in all an interesting tale, where on this occasion the driver got away with it.

 

[DrSquirrel]

So in Scotland you just refuse to have a lawyer with you?

How are they supposed to work with this?

 

[subaqua]

So in Scotland you just refuse to have a lawyer with you?

How are they supposed to work with this?

if you read the info in the linky then no, thats not how it would work. they have the right to the lawyer present. if they refuse the lawyer then the police can question them.

not the best result for magnatom here but it may help any future prosecutions by ANY road user