Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help!

[Banjo]

I think I have learned a few lessons from this thread.

First one try not to lose it no matter how big an idiot you are dealing with.(easier said than done I know.been there got the T shirt.)

Secondly never give out your name or details unless you have to eg if injury or genuine damage has occured.

Finally if it goes completely belly up get a good solicitor experienced in helping cyclists.

I really feel for the op having to pay for damage he didnt do but if that makes it all go away then its probably wise .If it goes to court the only real winners will be the solicitors.

 

[*Dusty*]

Sorry for the way is has turned out for the OP.

Sadly, i'm not exactly surprised, it's more about the path of least resistance and the death of common sense than upholding the law these days. Ordinary decent folk make for easy prosecutions.

 

[TheJDog]

This thread totally reinforces my opinion that you should never, ever talk to the police.

I think the copper has had a choice of a maybe on a prosecution for dangerous driving but instead has opted for an easy caution against the other party. Van driver gets away with dangerous driving, _and_ made OP pay for damage he didn't cause? It's bloody unbelievable.

 

[russ.will]

The OP is very keen to avoid a conviction, so he may be attracted by paying £250 to rule out any prospect of being convicted of anything.

Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.

Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...

Russ

 

[fossyant]

Madness. So you've got to take a police bollocking then go in for a complaint against the driver.

What a world eh.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.

Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...

Russ

I'm willing to bet that no action gets taken against the driver.

After all you admitted to hitting out at the van. Not the other way

 

[classic33]

Madness. So you've got to take a police bollocking then go in for a complaint against the driver.

What a world eh.

Understatement to say the least

 

[david k]

Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.

Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...

Russ

But isn't doing somethIng to make his blood boil just spiteful? Surely it's better to aim for a good outcome for yourself and to fight the charges on you by reporting his dangerous driving? The two things are linked, not sure how you have to accept a caution before reporting him?

 

[Goggs]

If everything you've said here is the absolute truth of what happened I just can't see how your behaviour is not being considered in the context of the dangerous driving you were subjected to. More worryingly, I don't understand why the police officer involved doesn't see the connection. Cause & effect and all that. As far as the role of the police in all this..

 

[Pale Rider]

If everything you've said here is the absolute truth of what happened I just can't see how your behaviour is not being considered in the context of the dangerous driving you were subjected to. More worryingly, I don't understand why the police officer involved doesn't see the connection. Cause & effect and all that. As far as the role of the police in all this..

The dangerous driving is irrelevant to the public order offence as far as the commission of it goes.

You may not like or agree with that, but it is still so.

If this went to trial, the magistrates might have some sympathy with the OP, but they would still have to convict on the evidence - dashcam, injured party, his wife, and the OP's statement.

The sympathy might be shown by a lenient penalty, but that's no good to the OP because he still has the conviction.

The alternative of a caution - no conviction and no penalty - is preferable to him, as it would be to me.

 

[Goggs]

You may well be right & I'm not telling the OP what to do. I know what I'd like to think I would do though.

 

[benb]

I don't understand why the OP is being forced to accept the public order caution and cop for the criminal damage, or else take both to court.
Surely the facts of both offences are independent of each other? Why can't he accept the caution for the public order offence but still fight the ludicrous criminal damage charge?

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't understand why the OP is being forced to accept the public order caution and cop for the criminal damage, or else take both to court.
Surely the facts of both offences are independent of each other? Why can't he accept the caution for the public order offence but still fight the ludicrous criminal damage charge?

My reading of his account is he could do that, although there's a risk the police will withdraw the offer of a caution and charge him with both offences.

The criminal damage evidence does look very weak, but on the other hand the OP's conduct will form part of the background to the criminal damage allegation.

A bench might think that a man clearly in a very bad temper with an elderly driver might be capable of damaging the driver's van.

The OP is keen to avoid a criminal conviction.

The safest way to do that is not to stand trial for anything.

There's always a risk of a conviction after a trial, even though that decision might look perverse.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Again showing my ignorance but surely a caution is getting a criminal record.

 

[Pale Rider]

Again showing my ignorance but surely a caution is getting a criminal record.

Covered earlier in the thread (I think), but the short answer is a caution is not a criminal record, not least because it is not a conviction, it's an admission to a police officer which is not the same as a guilty verdict at court.

It would be disclosed on some enhanced checks, but if asked the question for the likes of insurance and for most jobs, the OP can truthfully say he has no criminal record.

There could be an impact should the OP get involved in a similar situation in future.

The police officer dealing may be less inclined to offer a caution when he finds the OP already has one for a similar offence.