OP
OP
russ.will
Slimboy Fat
- Location
- The Fen Edge
Not yet. I was assuming I'd discuss that with the solicitor.
Russell
Russell
Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help!
- Thread starter russ.will
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
This. They have no interest in helping you.
They are fishing for some evidence to do you for the damage. The moment you say you did touch it they will magically ignore the circumstances and use your admission.
There's nothing for you to gain
Banjo
Fuelled with Jelly Babies
- Location
- South Wales
If they want to interview you they will .Better to go voluntarilly at a convenient time than arrested when its most inconvenient.
Just be ultra carefull what you say .
Just be ultra carefull what you say .
Profpointy
Legendary Member
whilst I have no experience of these things, I'd be inclined to type up a statement beforehand and hand it over, keeping a copy to refer to in any questioning. Does reduce the risk of being flustered or having your words put in a bad light.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
They are not interviewing him to be polite. The reason for no arrest will be that there probably isn't enough evidence to go from. If they had enough evidence to make a charge, they would have made the arrest already.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
This is American but contains valuable lessons in relation to how you conduct yourself when questioned by police. Well worth watching and keeping in mind before you go into the police's territory, even with a solicitor.
GC
Edit to add: You should really watch Part 2 as well to see what the cop says!
GC
Edit to add: You should really watch Part 2 as well to see what the cop says!
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
I agree the polis is not there to help you, but as @Drago said, there's no mileage in getting arrested to be interviewed.
Asking for the duty solicitor is no more than a common sense precaution.
The interviewing officer will be on a fishing expedition, so your tactic should be to give as short and concise answers as possible, without appearing to be surly or uncooperative.
In general, you want to downplay the incident, and you must remain calm throughout the interview.
You swore at the driver, so you will have to concede you were annoyed at the time by the close pass.
Evidence for the close pass is your forearm was against the side of the van, unless your arms are longer than an orangutan's, the van must have been too close.
Hopefully you were still astride your bike when you swore at the driver, assuming he was inside the van at all times, any allegation of threatening behaviour hasn't got much mileage in it.
Also, if you had hold of the bike, you may be able to say you didn't raise a hand to him.
Your posts on this forum indicate you are a respectable, reasonably intelligent, working man, which will go in your favour.
To use a doctor's phrase, you will 'present well'.
Making further allegations about the second incident is probably not a good idea, you weren't directly involved in that one.
You could mention it, but only as limited support for your claim the pass against you was too close.
Finally, I would take drago's disparaging remarks about duty solicitors with a pinch of salt.
Some of these guys - and gals - are more than competent at what they do.
They can be quite good at frustrating an investigation, which is why coppers don't like them.
Asking for the duty solicitor is no more than a common sense precaution.
The interviewing officer will be on a fishing expedition, so your tactic should be to give as short and concise answers as possible, without appearing to be surly or uncooperative.
In general, you want to downplay the incident, and you must remain calm throughout the interview.
You swore at the driver, so you will have to concede you were annoyed at the time by the close pass.
Evidence for the close pass is your forearm was against the side of the van, unless your arms are longer than an orangutan's, the van must have been too close.
Hopefully you were still astride your bike when you swore at the driver, assuming he was inside the van at all times, any allegation of threatening behaviour hasn't got much mileage in it.
Also, if you had hold of the bike, you may be able to say you didn't raise a hand to him.
Your posts on this forum indicate you are a respectable, reasonably intelligent, working man, which will go in your favour.
To use a doctor's phrase, you will 'present well'.
Making further allegations about the second incident is probably not a good idea, you weren't directly involved in that one.
You could mention it, but only as limited support for your claim the pass against you was too close.
Finally, I would take drago's disparaging remarks about duty solicitors with a pinch of salt.
Some of these guys - and gals - are more than competent at what they do.
They can be quite good at frustrating an investigation, which is why coppers don't like them.
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
His very membership of this forum suggests precisely the opposite.
Nortones2
Guru
- Location
- Burbage, Derbyshire
Might be more accurate and tactically better to say "frightened", rather than "annoyed"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
Those saying that the fact he has not been arrested yet shows there is insufficient evidence to arrest please note: Arresting someone must be justified, necessary and proportionate. Custody suites are busy, working often at full capacity, and the custody booking in procedure, risk assessment and biometric recording procedures will take as much if not more time than a voluntary attendance interview. The OP appears cooperative, and has agreed to attend. The arrest is therefore at this stage unnecessary and not proportionate. The OP has been named as the person responsibke for an alleged act of damage. There are therefore sufficient grounds to suspect an offence has taken place, and sufficient grounds to suspect the OP may be guilty of committing it. Should he fail to cooperate, the proportionality and justification for detention increase.
The officer in this case at present only has one side of the story. He or she has no information about the manner of driving or the behaviour of the complainant. The only way that is going to come to light is for the OP to go and tell them. He should also take the names of any witnesses he has managed to garner. If there are none, then a calm, rational and logical explanation of what took place will, under most circumstances lead to the case being dropped. With witnesses it could and should be reversed.
All this talk of bent coppers and chief constable's golfing buddies grinds my gears. It's antiquated if not utterly fictional tinfoil clad bedwettery. The decisions in a case like this as to whether or not to proceed with a disposal are taken by people like me, not angry coppers or the Supper Steward from the !local masonic lodge. With a word on word case like this the cop has a legal duty to disclose ALL material information, and a calm and objective explanation of slapping g the van because he was about to crush you to death would not make it past the threshold test even for a caution or out of court disposal.
To get this to court, even the most vengeful cop would then have to get it past the CPS gatekeeping. Word on word doesn't pass the first hurdle, let alone their harsh criteria for prosecution.
My advice is go and be interviewed. Tell it like it was calmly and carefully. Do not, under any circumstances accept a caution or community resolution. Take legal advice.
The officer in this case at present only has one side of the story. He or she has no information about the manner of driving or the behaviour of the complainant. The only way that is going to come to light is for the OP to go and tell them. He should also take the names of any witnesses he has managed to garner. If there are none, then a calm, rational and logical explanation of what took place will, under most circumstances lead to the case being dropped. With witnesses it could and should be reversed.
All this talk of bent coppers and chief constable's golfing buddies grinds my gears. It's antiquated if not utterly fictional tinfoil clad bedwettery. The decisions in a case like this as to whether or not to proceed with a disposal are taken by people like me, not angry coppers or the Supper Steward from the !local masonic lodge. With a word on word case like this the cop has a legal duty to disclose ALL material information, and a calm and objective explanation of slapping g the van because he was about to crush you to death would not make it past the threshold test even for a caution or out of court disposal.
To get this to court, even the most vengeful cop would then have to get it past the CPS gatekeeping. Word on word doesn't pass the first hurdle, let alone their harsh criteria for prosecution.
My advice is go and be interviewed. Tell it like it was calmly and carefully. Do not, under any circumstances accept a caution or community resolution. Take legal advice.
I'm sorry I have nothing material to add to the thread, but sincerely hope the outcome is positive for the OP. However, thank you Cubist for the wonderful quote above. Saved and noted for an appropriate future opportunity. Given the day I'm having and the people I'm dealing with, I don't expect to have to wait long...
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
The wonderful quote is also accurate.
For the conspiracy theory to work, too many individuals have to put their job (and pension) at risk.
One copper might be overly interested in mounting a prosecution, but even that is vanishingly unlikely for a scratty criminal damage.
Even if a vexatious prosecution gets off the ground, the defendant has the benefit of legal representation.
As we all know, the system - rightly or wrongly - is weighted in favour of the accused, so any doubt and the court system will boot it into the long grass.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
Fair comment, but the priority task is to get the OP out from under this investigation.
Coppers always respond badly to a member of the public telling them what to do.
In this case, any suggestion by the OP that the coppers should be prosecuting the driver will not go down well and could prove to be a big tactical mistake.
If the OP wants to make that point, he could say something like "I thought about reporting the driver, and had I been knocked off I would have done," - that accords with keeping things as low key as possible, but shouldn't irk the copper.
Although I wouldn't say any more than I found the pass too close.
The main focus of the interview will be is there any merit in the allegation of criminal damage?
The OP should concentrate on that by saying stuff like "it was only a light slap on the van and I was wearing gel padded gloves" - assuming that's true.
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
As the above couple of posts suggest, the ideal outcome would have been that the OP had reported the incident himself, thereby equalising before the other team scored. All is not lost however. Should the OP manage to find some witnesses from the social media trawl he's undertaking, there is no reason why the roles shouldn't be reversed. Under ethical recording guidelines the incident should be recorded and if proportionate, investigated. If the driver has been stupid enough to offer his dash cam footage of the incident, and the OPs account is accurate, it should indeed suffice to hoist him by his own petard, unless of course it's been edited. Similarly, if that footage shows mitigation/provocation/defence to the slap, it must be secured and offered as evidence under disclosure principles and legislation.
- Status
