Conviction based on headcam evidence

[DrSquirrel]

Good news, although slightly sad on the assault part... 2 out of 3 aint bad

Just hope the sentencing is half way decent now...

 

[BSRU]

Good to see the courts accepting video evidence and hopefully this Neanderthal is suitably punished.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Apart from the thuggery...

A prime example of the "Indicators Excuse All" school of motoring - the triumphant "aha! got you now!" when he shouts "You saw me indicate!"

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

In July I was involved in an incident on my way home. Today I was in court as a witness. The result is the driver being found guilty of careless driving, pleading guilty to public order offences but being found not guilty of assault. The latter is due to the court finding that there was no direct evidence that he struck me.
There would have been no chance of a prosecution without the video evidence. I'm pleased that the police and the CPS took the driving offences seriously as they posed greater risk to me than the assault, although it was the punch that made the incident worth reporting.

Video link and news on sentencing to follow.

The video contains swearing.

Unbelievable... the idiot actually says "get out of my f*ckin' way" - if that doesn't show clear anger management issues and an inability to drive appropriately... hope they throw the book at him, but as they aren't doing him for assault (no idea why, perhaps they thought you were faking the bizarre movements as he hit/pushed you whilst swearing at you) I won't hold my breath. Well done for reporting it, and kudos to Vike for his assistance from "the official side".

 

[magnatom]

Excellent result with regards to the driving, crazy result with regards to the assault. Surely his swearing and aggression amounts to assault in the letter of the law (someone please correct me if I am wrong!). Also from the video, you might not see the punch, but from the sounds and head movement it is beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

Still, it does prove that camera can be effective in this situation.

Would you be up for publicity with regards to this? If so, it would be a good story for the papers and would highlight to drivers that they could get caught on camera. If so, it might be worth talking to the CTC.

I can understand if you don't want to do this though.

 

[Origamist]

I can't view the film at the moment, Ben - but well done for pursuing this twat and getting a conviction.

Did the court ask you about the film - could it have been edited, doctored, how could they be sure it was authentic etc?

I think this case should be highlighted by the LCC or CTC - but I can understand why you might not want the attendant publicity.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Great result, and well done. I suppose it must have been a bit weird coming face to face with that nutter in a court room!

Did the court ask you about the film - could it have been edited, doctored, how could they be sure it was authentic etc?

This is often the reason given by the police for declining to pursue drivers filmed talking on their mobile phones.

 

[DrSquirrel]

[QUOTE 1231562"]
+1 to Mag. People need to see that they can't get away with this type of road behaviour. Getting the clip out into the media with details of the conviction would help.

Though I suspect that a lot of responses would be along the lines of "but you hit his van".
[/quote]

I know what you mean about the comments from idiots etc.

But... they couldn't prove in court that the driver hit said cyclist... so unless benborp admited to hitting the van they couldn't prove that either

 

[400bhp]

I've updated the first post with a link to the video. I've got to thank Vikeonabike for his help with the statement template as it has made every step much easier for me.

As to sentencing, I had to leave court before any decision could be made. It looked like being quite a lengthy matter as there was confusion over aliases, conflicting birth dates and then verifying previous motoring convictions and whether they were spent. Hopefully I'll find out in a day or two.

The clinching matter for the panel appeared to be the fact that he had 'overtaken' on a pedestrian crossing. Again something that wouldn't have been possible to prove without the video. It was uncomfortable seeing the driver questioned with the video playing repeatedly constantly contradicting his statements as he spoke.

Will you be able to find out? Perhaps a link to a local paper? What date was the court date and where was the court?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

there was confusion over aliases, conflicting birth dates and then verifying previous motoring convictions

Sounds like a slippery customer.

 

[Browser]

Sorry for hurtling off sideways for a second Ben, but what make/model of camera was that? I keep wondering whether to get one but am leery of buying one only to find it ain't up to what I want from it.
Excellent recult by the way, we need more likle this to deter the knuckleheads!

 

[CopperBrompton]

Wow, that guy has serious anger issues. Fingers crossed on a decent result.

Like others, I'm surprised he couldn't be convicted of assault on that evidence. From the abrupt stop, storming out of the van and approach, it could hardly be more aggressive, so although ultimately the blow is your word against his, you have a lot of supporting evidence on your side.

 

[asterix]

Would a civil prosecution work?

 

[mr_cellophane]

Good result, one down couple of million to go.

 

[Peter10]

What sentence did he get? You should be able to call the court. It is something the public are freely aloud to call and find out about. Some courts even publish it in their website.