Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help!

[glasgowcyclist]

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

According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/416068/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf , a "caution is an admission of guilt to committing an offence and forms part of the offender's criminal record."

 

[david k]

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.

Struggling to understand this

If you punch someone you can claim self defence if you felt threatened, but you cannot do the same if you respond with verbals? If so the op may have been better of punching him?
Unless the video footage shows the op to be the aggressor and over reacting? Could this be the case op?

 

[Pale Rider]

Struggling to understand this

If you punch someone you can claim self defence if you felt threatened, but you cannot do the same if you respond with verbals? If so the op may have been better of punching him?
Unless the video footage shows the op to be the aggressor and over reacting? Could this be the case op?

There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.

That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.

It's also quite a difficult defence to run successfully because the response has to be proportionate - walloping someone who has merely threatened you doesn't cut it.

Equally, if someone 'only' whacks you, you can't stab them in return or beat the living daylights out of them.

 

[Profpointy]

Using a vehicle as an offensive weapon is usually viewed as a driving offence, not an assault offence so the assault offence response doesn't work

sadly that does seem to be true. Not so long ago the arse who seemingly deliberately ran over a toddler in her bike trailer got done for dangerous driving, rather than the more extreme end of the assault scale one might have thought was merited.

 

[Pale Rider]

WTF? I'm struggling to understand why anyone would be prepared to shell out £250 for something they didn't do.

An economist would call it the alternative cost.

It's all very well telling the OP to tell the copper to get lost over the damage, but he could end up with a criminal conviction for criminal damage, a fine, costs, victim surcharge, and the (inflated) bill for the damage.

So it's the risk of a conviction and a bill for £500+, or the alternative of just a bill for £250.

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but he has posted to say that he is very keen to avoid a conviction.

 

[Goggs]

There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.

That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.

It's also quite a difficult defence to run successfully because the response has to be proportionate - walloping someone who has merely threatened you doesn't cut it.

Equally, if someone 'only' whacks you, you can't stab them in return or beat the living daylights out of them.

This, sadly, is very true.

 

[david k]

An economist would call it the alternative cost.

It's all very well telling the OP to tell the copper to get lost over the damage, but he could end up with a criminal conviction for criminal damage, a fine, costs, victim surcharge, and the (inflated) bill for the damage.

So it's the risk of a conviction and a bill for £500+, or the alternative of just a bill for £250.

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but he has posted to say that he is very keen to avoid a conviction.

Cannot help thinking op would only consider this if their recollection was so inaccurate that the tape shows clearly they were the instigator of the confrontation, or reacted disproportionately. If not surely it would be clear on the video that their reaction was understandable and in response to a threat?

 

[russ.will]

You might be well versed in the minutiae of the legal system, but I fear you might have lost sight of what is right and what is wrong.

Unfortunately, that hasn't got a lot to do with it, but for my part, I was wrong. I have to be pragmatic and go for damage limitation. This thread won't end there.

Russell

 

[Banjo]

@User13710 I fully understand your frustration but think you are being very unfair to Pale Rider.

His or anyone elses perception of right and wrong will have no bearing on the outcome of any potential trial.

He is merely informing the op of possible pitfalls should the op choose to take it further.

 

[benb]

There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.

That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.

It's also quite a difficult defence to run successfully because the response has to be proportionate - walloping someone who has merely threatened you doesn't cut it.

Equally, if someone 'only' whacks you, you can't stab them in return or beat the living daylights out of them.

This, luckily, is very true.

FTFY

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Unfortunately, that hasn't got a lot to do with it, but for my part, I was wrong. I have to be pragmatic and go for damage limitation. This thread won't end there.

Russell

I struggle to see after your admissions that they will even pursue a case against the driver.

 

[steve292]

I would take legal advice, even if I did end up paying the costs.Are you in the CTC or BC? The chances of you being able to push in a wheel arch with your hand are quite frankly nil.
The police are taking the path of least resistance. The driver is the root cause of the problem with the standard of his driving , not you.

 

[Banjo]

That's not how I read the same posts.

Its easy to get on your high horses and join in the popular view when its not your life and money at stake.

The whole thing stinks IMHO but sadly I know that my opinion counts for diddly squat .

 

[Pale Rider]

That's not how I read the same posts.

Its easy to get on your high horses and join in the popular view when its not your life and money at stake.

The whole thing stinks IMHO .

Quite so.

It's not a matter of losing sight of right or wrong, it's a matter of recognising right or wrong is irrelevant to the task at hand which is solely to get the best possible result for the OP.

The OP has taken legal advice, and speaks in his last post of 'damage limitation' and being 'pragmatic', so it seems he has formed a similar view to mine.

Of course, the OP could take alternative legal advice which may, or may not, lead him in a different direction.

But he still remains strongly adverse to getting a criminal record.

The only sure fire way of avoiding one of those is not to step foot into the dock of the court.

Far too many people have gone gung-ho into proceedings, impelled by a crushing sense of injustice, only to regret it later when they get an entirely predictable bad result.

That may not be morally right and it may be a bad fault of the system, but the OP has no alternative but to be dealt with by the system as it currently operates.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I find these two statements to be puzzling and conflicting:

£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

The complainant, wants no more than recompense for repairs to his van

If the 2nd is true, why is the cop-who's-a-cyclist-too proceeding with administering a caution for the S4 and threatening to add in prosecution for criminal damage (for which there appears to be no evidence) if that caution is declined?

I was advised by both the solicitor and policeman there is nothing to stop me lodging a complaint to be investigated.

Nothing stopping you lodging it, nothing stopping the police binning it. I'm betting £20 that's what they'll do.

(If they do prosecute him, I'll donate £20 to the Cyclists' Defence Fund.)