yet again, driver gets away with it.

[growingvegetables]

Shame Buggi, poor you. That must be frustrating beyond words. Could you tell us a bit more about what happened, and why it's a repeat offender?

+1 - that's the important bit.

 

[buggi]

the law of being innocent until proved guilty?

I am one of the people that know nothing about what happened btw

well very simple really. 4 twats in car decided it would be funny to try to push me off. unlucky for them i was approaching an island and just happened to look back before taking primary, to notice the car full of lads, two of them already hanging out the window, and knew immediately what they were going to do (had it done before on more than one occasion, either pushing or arse slapping). managed to keep upright as both of them made contact, one pushing my hip, the other grabbing my arm and pulling it off the handlebars, and took the registration as they sped a hasty retreat around said island, no conisderation for those waiting at the island or those already on it.

As i told the police, had i not been such a competent rider (not being big headed but being do this a long time) i probably would not have been going to take primary, and therefore looking over my shoulder, and probably wouldn't have stayed upright.

what pisses me off is that he slipped up in his no comment interview and admitted he was driving the car, which did belong to him. so how come they haven't charged him? Surely it's up to a jury to decide if he's guilty or not.

what do you reckon to civil action? i don't care about the money, i just want him to be held responsible. i'm so f'ing angry

 

[buggi]

ps. they let the last guy off too, because he said he didn't know his mate was going to do it (wouldn't name the mate same as this one). so i told the police no way could he not have known, as both his mates did it. you don't independently both decide to do something like that, without the assistance of the driver.

 

[HLaB]

I'm no legal eagle but that sounds like an open and shut case to me, no wonder you are frustrated, have a virtual hug

 

[d87heaven]

Would have thought it would be a candidate for a section 59. Might be worth discussing with the officer involved or writing in and saying you aren't satisfied and would like to discuss the matter with someone higher up?

 

[buggi]

is a section 59 when they put an order on the car and against the driver, so that if they are complained about again, the car gets confiscated?? she did explain something like that to me, but then frustratingly, when she looked into it, it turned out you can only do that if an officer witnesses a situation! i mean COME ON!!!! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THAT!

 

[buggi]

what is frustrating me is that this is the second time its happened (3rd if you count the aston martin driver who deliberately tried to run me off because he objected to me being in primary position). what kind of message is it sending out???

 

[CopperCyclist]

Section 59 doesn't need an officer to witness it, shes misinterpreted the rules. What it says is that the officer that puts the original warning on needs to be in a position to produce evidence of the anti-social behaviour if it is disputed. That can simply be her obtaining a statement from you, and producing it as evidence.

Note: I have never actually done a section 59 notice, but considered doing one the other day when I had someone think it was funny to try and scare me off on the way home, by pulling alongside and 'flinching' their car towards me so I looked into it. I decided against it purely because I was the injured party, and would also be the officer reporting, so thought it was a bit of a conflict of interest.

As for civil action, yes you can, if I can presume you were caused a minor injury from the incident - either temporary discomfort from them grabbing you, that left reddening, or perhaps some minor discomfort for more than a fleeting moment. Alternatively you may have been in shock. If anything like this is true, this was also an injury RTC, you can request his name, his address, and his insurance details and put a claim into his insurers. If you're a member of the CTC Russell, Jones and Walker will do this for you. Disclose to them the fact that he confirmed he was driving.

Just some of my thoughts. Hope they help.

 

[CopperCyclist]

because the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, end of, or at least before they brought in that no comment tweak

if no comment is to be taken as guilty then why would be anyone go no comment?

everytime populist changes to criminal justice and rights etc are made to a system developed over hundreds of years we become a bit more like some tinpot place where the police can throw you in jail and forget about you

oh yeah they can do that already if they say you're some sort of terrosit only they can't tell anyone why because it's a secret

the police aren't trying to find out what happened when they interview you, they're fishing for evidence to make charges stick, why would anyone help them do that, heaven knows they're fitted enough people up in the past, if they can;t make it stick without help from the defendant then they should drop it

You're ALL absolutely right. With the current system I would always advise my client to go no comment too if I was a legal advisor. Theres absolutely no benefit to telling the police anything in an interview - UNLESS YOU'RE INNOCENT! I promise you that when we do get innocent people giving us explanations, we do our best to invesigate those too. If you're guilty though, shut the hell up and you'll probably get away with it.

A lot of the time its a hell of a lot easier to prove someones innocence than it is to prove someones guilt, and its normally the first avenue we look at for that reason.

As for comments about police 'fitting people up' - yes, in the 1970's this went on. Thats over forty years ago. It simply doesn't happen now.

 

[Andy_R]

everytime populist changes to criminal justice and rights etc are made to a system developed over hundreds of years we become a bit more like some tinpot place where the police can throw you in jail and forget about you

"developed" is the important word here, because if populist changes hadnt' have been made of the last few hundred years then our system wouldn't have developed.

 

[Jezston]

That is absolutely disgusting. I've read about the grief women from neanderthals daily on the road but this extreme level of harassment coupled with completely inneffective response from the police is shocking.

I'd look into the following:

1. Demand to know exactly why they weren't charged with anything.
2. Write to the most senior police officer in your area with a complaint.
3. Make a complaint to the IPCC.
4. Is your MP female? If so write a letter to her detailing these instances and lack of police interest. Easy way to find out who they are and contact them here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
5. Write to your local paper detailing the situation, especially if you can find a journalist who is sympathetic towards cyclists, or if they have a women's section or suchlike.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That is absolutely disgusting. I've read about the grief women from neanderthals daily on the road but this extreme level of harassment coupled with completely inneffective response from the police is shocking.

I'd look into the following:

1. Demand to know exactly why they weren't charged with anything.
2. Write to the most senior police officer in your area with a complaint.
3. Make a complaint to the IPCC.
4. Is your MP female? If so write a letter to her detailing these instances and lack of police interest. Easy way to find out who they are and contact them here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
5. Write to your local paper detailing the situation, especially if you can find a journalist who is sympathetic towards cyclists, or if they have a women's section or suchlike.

A very good idea. It does on the surface sound as though this has been treated as a "we can't be arsed" case.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

yes it is (unofficially at least)

if you haven't nothing to worry about, why the no comment....

Over here on this side of the pond, the LEOs will also try the "if you have nothing to hide you won't mind if I search your car" tactic. Hmm, if one has nothing to hide why do they need to prove it to a LEO who probably knows less about the law then the person that they're trying to "trick?"

Also why is it that they can lie to us all they want and get away with it, but if we lie to them that's another charge?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

OK: one here!

"Ten years ago on a cold dark night Someone was killed 'neath the Town Hall light
The people who saw, they all agreed That the slayer, who ran, looked a lot like me
The judge said, "Son, what is your alibi? If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die"
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife..."

Don't know why, but these lyrics sprang to mind Apparently first recorded 1959, but I only know the Joan Baez version.

It's also sung by J.R. "Johnny" Cash. It was originally sung by Lefty Frizzell, and was written by Danny Dill and Marijohn Wilkin. Here are the lyrics:

Ten years ago on a cold dark night,
someone was killed 'neath the town hall lights.
There were few at the scene, but they all agreed,
that the man who ran looked a lot like me.

Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil.
She visits my grave, when the night winds wail.
Nobody knows, nobody sees, nobody knows, but me

The Judge said son, what is your alibi,
if you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die.
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life,
for i'd been in the arms of my best friends wife.

Chorus*

Now the scaffold is high, and eternity's near.
She stood in the crowd, and shed not a tear.
But some times at night, when the cold wind moans
In a long black veil, she cries over my bones

Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil.
When the cold winds blow, and the night winds wail.
No body knows, no body sees.
No body knows, but me.

 

[CopperCyclist]

A very good idea. It does on the surface sound as though this has been treated as a "we can't be arsed" case.

On the little info available, I'm not so quick to jump to that conclusion. The fact hes 'gone no-comment' means an arrest has been made (ok, it could be a voluntary interview - but why agree to a voluntary interview then go no-comment, you'd just decline the interview!).

If the arrest has been made and the circs given, then this can only have been dealt with an assault which means its been given a crime number. This means the standard of the investigation will have been monitored and audited.

The problem is the burden of proof needed by a court. Yes its unlikely that the driver had no knowledge of what his passengers were going to do. You know they all worked as a group. We know they all worked as a group. The driver knows they all worked as a group - however because hes allowed to say nothing, its absolutely impossible to prove what was in his head, and as a result the burden of proof for a conviction isn't reached.

If he had been the one doing the actual assault, the fact that he admitted driving, plus the complaint, plus the no-comment may then have been enough. As it is the window is open at court for him to say "I witnessed the assault, I was angry with my friends and I told them off. No I refuse to name who they are." He has a complete legal right to say this in court and theres nothing anyone can do about it.