Update on NV55PVL

[Crankarm]

Once again, I feel a couple of posters are being over-zealous. One has to learn when to pick one's battles. To discriminate between a crime that's worth reporting and a crime that'll simply cause hassle to the person doing the reporting.

I'd strongly suggest you ignore the advice to contact the chief constable of Northumbria Police and/or the IPCC. It'll just cause you a load of heartache.

Do you think it acceptable that a police officer to avoid doing any work or investigating on a matter regarding a criminal offence starts bullying a witness and suggesting they have committed offences when they haven't? Are you a supporter of the cosy PR arrangements the police had with News International? Where crime occurs the police have a statutory duty to investigate. In this instant case there is strong evidence showing the driver committing a road traffic offence. It is very unsatisfactory that the copper tasked with dealing with this matter feels he CBA to waste his time on it. The instant offence might only be using a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle, but this a potentially a very serious hazard activity to be doing whilst driving and has very serious implications for road safety. Perhaps the cops don't consider that road safety is that important as the copper has then gone on to suggest/accuse the witness ie Dan, who perfectly legitimately took the footage of the driver committing an offence, of offences himself in the hope that he (Dan) will be frigthened off pursuing the matter and drop it. Surely if Dan has spent time and money (cost of the cam) to obtain evidence such as this when he sees drivers using phones whilst driving and then taking the time to report the matter to the police and also been willing to submit his video evidence, then the least the police can do is investigate it properly and thank him for his trouble. It is not as if the police actually have to do much work as Dan has the video footage. It's an easy point for them. The police's response so far is disgraceful. Period.

 

[Drago]

Except no crime has occurred, so there is no statutory duty.

There is an offence, which is a different kettle of aquatic life.

I think our chap has been treated very shabbily (I'd have had mateys balls on a barb wire platter with footage like that) but making up and misinterpreting the law in your indignation doesn't do anything positive.

 

[Crankarm]

Except no crime has occurred, so there is no statutory duty.

There is an offence, which is a different kettle of aquatic life.

So using a mobile phone whilst driving is NOT a criminal offence? When did the law change or have I been mistaken all along? Ohhhh .......... so this is why so many drivers drive and dial! The police don't believe it is an offence. This explains everything.

 

[Drago]

It is not a crime.

You need to understand that crime, offence and non-compliance are different things, and you seem to be using the words 'crime' and 'offence' as if they are interchangeable when they are not.

Most offences are not crimes, as is the case here.

BTW, I can read normal text perfectly well but being a dyslexia sufferer means words needlessly typed in CAPITALS are harder to read and understand. I'm dyslexic, not stupid. Shouting key words may work with your kids, or at work, but for those with this disability such actions actually detract from the delivery and understanding of your message.

As aforementioned in my previous post, I'd have tried to take this one to court if the witness was willing to support it.

 

[benb]

It is not a crime.

You need to understand that crime, offence and non-compliance are different things, and you seem to be using the words 'crime' and 'offence' as if they are interchangeable when they are not.

Most offences are not crimes, as is the case here.

I think that most people would understand that if something is against the law, then it is a crime.
It might be the case that there's a narrow legal difference between crime and offence, but it has no bearing on this situation, whether people should report crimes/offences, or what everyone understands when you use the term "crime".

 

[Drago]

There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.

Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. Were it an excess alcohol offence, for example, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.

So the legal status of such an act is very important when determining what the police must do, or is conversely at the handling officers discretion to do.

Because Crankarm does not understand the distinction between the two he has wrongfully opined that the Police have not acted in accordance with their lawful obligation, which is incorrect.

 

[benb]

There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.

Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. We're it an excess alcohol offence, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.

So the legal status of such an act is very important when determining what the police must do, or us conversely at the handling officers discretion to do.

Because Crankarm does not understand the distinction between the two he has wrongfully opined that the Police have by acted in accordance with their lawful obligation, which is incorrect.

So members of the public need to be legal experts now before deciding whether to report something that is against the law?

Please could you clarify what you mean when you say that driving on the phone is not a crime? It's against the law, isn't it?

 

[Drago]

It is an offence. It is not a crime. It is contrary to the particular law, not against it. Being an offence only there is no lawful duty in an officer to record the matter and progress it. The progression of such a matter will come down to many things, including its seriousness, whether its live or historic, the potential for public safety and welfare to be compromised, and local force policy on the offence under consideration. For example, here in Westshire it is still an offence to belt around at night on your bike with no lights, but our official policy is that we take no action, presumably on the basis that we'd do nothing else from dusk til dawn. You can complain about it all you want and we won't act on it.

In our OP scenario I would have tried to run it, but the decision is at the discretion of the handling officer. So while my personal view it is possibly a decision borne out of laziness, it is his (or her) decision to make.

A crime is usually also an offence. Crimes must be recorded, and where evidence exists to do so must be investigated to a particular standard.

It's a bit silly to suggest anyone reporting an incident should be a legal expert. If you think something is wrong, suspicious or dangerous it is your moral duty to report it. Conversely, when a person is offering a high fallutin' opinion about crime, offences and the police then it is certainly beneficial if they are factually correct if they don't want to be politely corrected.

 

[Crankarm]

There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.

Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. Were it an excess alcohol offence, for example, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.

So the legal status of such an act is very important when determining what the police must do, or is conversely at the handling officers discretion to do.

Because Crankarm does not understand the distinction between the two he has wrongfully opined that the Police have not acted in accordance with their lawful obligation, which is incorrect.

Kindly expain please as I think Benb has also asked you to do.

The police investigate criminal acts with a view to prosecution (CPS).

Use of mobile phone whilst driving - offence under the RTA? If it is not a criminal offence then it is a civil offence which would not come under the police's jurisdiction?

You have already provided sufficient comment to suggest that your colleage who has dealt with Dan's matter is remiss in his duty to pursue this matter and certainly in his treatment of Dan. To me this starts alarm bells ringing. The fact there are vastly different opinions within the police of how this matter should be dealt with suggests that some police officers have a very casual attitude to investigating certain types of criminal activity and also how they treat witnesses.

 

[davefb]

err okay, thats interesting.
I thought, using the mobile phone was 'different' because it is named specifically, unlike say the vagueness of 'eating a banana' which would be 'driving whilst distracted' ( or something).
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law


wonder if the local police had words with the person who reported this?
http://www.thisishullandeastriding....using-mobile/story-17767720-detail/story.html

 

[Drago]

It is a criminal offence. it is clearly not a civil one.

It is not a crime.

The distinction is complex and subtle and took me 5 weeks to learn in dibble school at Ashford. In a hugely over simplistic nutshell, a crime is an event (usually an offence as well) that the law says must be recorded, and having been thus recorded will be Investigated to a certain National Standard with a view to being appropriately detected. In legal circles it us referred to as 'recordable crime', not simply crime.

An offence (that is a criminal offence, not a civil wrong or 'tort') does not have to be recorded or prosecuted. In my previous post i have made brief reference to some of the criteria an officer might wish to consider when determining whether to investigate an offence. With a recordable crime they have no choice - they will record and investigate it on pain of possible prosecution.

 

[Crankarm]

It is an offence. It is not a crime. It is contrary to the particular law, not against it. Being an offence only there is no lawful duty in an officer to record the matter and progress it. The progression of such a matter will come down to many things, including its seriousness, whether its live or historic, the potential for public safety and welfare to be compromised, and local force policy on the offence under consideration. For example, here in Westshire it is still an offence to belt around at night on your bike with no lights, but our official policy is that we take no action, presumably on the basis that we'd do nothing else from dusk til dawn. You can complain about it all you want and we won't act on it.

In our OP scenario I would have tried to run it, but the decision is at the discretion of the handling officer. So while my personal view it is possibly a decision borne out of laziness, it is his (or her) decision to make.

A crime is usually also an offence. Crimes must be recorded, and where evidence exists to do so must be investigated to a particular standard.

It's a bit silly to suggest anyone reporting an incident should be a legal expert. If you think something is wrong, suspicious or dangerous it is your moral duty to report it. Conversely, when a person is offering a high fallutin' opinion about crime, offences and the police then it is certainly beneficial if they are factually correct if they don't want to be politely corrected.

I'm no wiser I am afraid. Sorry. Has it got to do with the fact that the police now class "crime" as offences so they can get away with investigating fewer cases and they only have to investigate recorded crimes as offences do not have to be properly investigated if at all? Not recording "crimes" as crimes, but as offences means that a police officer's and his force's crime and investigating performance and success figures might appear much better than they might otherwise be? This will then misrepresent the performance of the police. Some officers might just see this as a green light to be less conscientious than they might be. If this is the case then it stinks.

I just need to add I make no criticism of you personally Drago. I am sure you are an exemplary, conscientious and diligent copper. I wish you luck as you will need it, as most of the cops I have met are not like you.

 

[Drago]

Just take my word for it (or don't, I shan't lose any sleep). There is a distinction between a crime and a criminal offence, and that difference confers different lawful obligations on an individual officer or their force ad to how the natter is recorded and progressed.

The law and official guidance has been trimmed, nipped and tucked over the years, but essence it has been this way for the last century. If anything, the direction the law has taken is such that there is far more lawful duty imposed on an officer to record crime than there ever had been. In the old days some horrific 'cuffing' or 'batting' took place and even some extremely serious crimes were just brushed aside.

The law is painfully complex and often contradictory. This is one of the most basic premises about the structure of criminal law and its still a mare. This is why solicitors typically spend more time learning their trade than the physicists who design nuclear weapons, and is why they get paid a damn sight more too.

 

[Hip Priest]

Do you think it acceptable that a police officer to avoid doing any work or investigating on a matter regarding a criminal offence starts bullying a witness and suggesting they have committed offences when they haven't? Are you a supporter of the cosy PR arrangements the police had with News International? Where crime occurs the police have a statutory duty to investigate. In this instant case there is strong evidence showing the driver committing a road traffic offence. It is very unsatisfactory that the copper tasked with dealing with this matter feels he CBA to waste his time on it. The instant offence might only be using a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle, but this a potentially a very serious hazard activity to be doing whilst driving and has very serious implications for road safety. Perhaps the cops don't consider that road safety is that important as the copper has then gone on to suggest/accuse the witness ie Dan, who perfectly legitimately took the footage of the driver committing an offence, of offences himself in the hope that he (Dan) will be frigthened off pursuing the matter and drop it. Surely if Dan has spent time and money (cost of the cam) to obtain evidence such as this when he sees drivers using phones whilst driving and then taking the time to report the matter to the police and also been willing to submit his video evidence, then the least the police can do is investigate it properly and thank him for his trouble. It is not as if the police actually have to do much work as Dan has the video footage. It's an easy point for them. The police's response so far is disgraceful. Period.

I just believe that it'd be better for Dan in the long run not to take the matter further. That's my advice. Your advice is different. To suggest I approve of the corruption uncovered by Leveson suggests a lack of perspective on your part.

 

[Crankarm]

I just believe that it'd be better for Dan in the long run not to take the matter further. That's my advice. Your advice is different. To suggest I approve of the corruption uncovered by Leveson suggests a lack of perspective on your part.

Why would it be better for Dan in the "long run"? Would the police black mark him, start harrassing and bullying him like they have allegedly done to Stuart Lawrence? Ok Dan would have to take time to actually write a complaint to the CC of his police force and if they didn't do anything then the IPCC, but aside from this I don't see any down sides. WRT to his Youtube footage claiming to be riding at 47mph in a 30mph he shouldn't worry as there is no way that is going anywhere. Youthful exuberance on his part. The police would actually have to have strong evidence of this which is more than Dan's claims which he has admitted were made up. He might have been foolish to make these claims, but they are false.
More serious is the copper's dereliction of duty and misconduct by trying to avoid investigating suggesting Dan has been harrassing the driver. The copper is in need of reprimanding and re-training. If this fails then booting out of the police. He is obviously a cyclist hater to have adopted such a confrontational response to Dan creating obstacles and hurdles to avoid investigating. Obstructive and uncooperative would be a charitable description of the officer's handling of this matter.