It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank7 mins ago
question on traffic law -----
My boyfriends son (Chris - 16 years old)) was riding his moped with his mate who was on his own moped. The friend cut in front and braked suddenly (for whatever reason) and Chris went into the back of him. They both came off their bikes and suffered bruising etc. An ambulance was called by some onlookers but they were not taken to hospital. The police obviously arrived and charged Chris with careless driving, to which he pleaded Not Guilty. At the pre-trial hearing the police admitted that they had no witnesses and that the only evidence they had was the fact that Chris went into the back of Rees. Rees is willing to stand up in Court and explain the events but the police have said that if he admits to breaking sharply then they will DO HIM for careless driving. Any thoughts anyone??
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ali_alic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Actually, thinking about this a bit more, if the police have NO other witnesses, how exactly are they going to run this trial? Who is being called as a witness? This should be clear from the ptr. For all they know, Rees could have reversed into Chris. Presumably all they have is the damage and potentially statements taken immediately afterwards (for which I hope they have served the appropriate hearsay notices if they are not proposing to call live witnesses).
Seems at first sight to be a complete waste of public money taking this to court. The only people to get hurt are your son and pal who will have to repair any damage to the mopeds.
The police have no witnesses so do not know what actually happened, but are probably assuming that the lads were larking about and driving dangerously and want to teach them a lesson.
You say the pal "cut in front and braked suddenly, for whatever reason". Be honest, you know they were playing about, its what lads do. I was once a 16 year old with a moped, then a scooter and then a motor bike, so I know what happens. So probably the police want to teach them a lesson. Of course any sensible magistrate should throw the case out and tell the police not to waste the courts time.
This does not answer your legal question, maybe Chris should just take it on the chin and learn from it - you can't pr@tt about when in charge of a motor vehicle.
Maybe the other guy made a dangerous manouvre that Chris could not possibly avoid - who can say!
The police have no witnesses so do not know what actually happened, but are probably assuming that the lads were larking about and driving dangerously and want to teach them a lesson.
You say the pal "cut in front and braked suddenly, for whatever reason". Be honest, you know they were playing about, its what lads do. I was once a 16 year old with a moped, then a scooter and then a motor bike, so I know what happens. So probably the police want to teach them a lesson. Of course any sensible magistrate should throw the case out and tell the police not to waste the courts time.
This does not answer your legal question, maybe Chris should just take it on the chin and learn from it - you can't pr@tt about when in charge of a motor vehicle.
Maybe the other guy made a dangerous manouvre that Chris could not possibly avoid - who can say!
I totally agree with you willowman. Unfortunately Chris has only just come to live with us (probs with step dad etc) and we knew nothing about them at the time. I am sure you are right about the reason for the braking - tho neither kid is actually gonna admit it. But its the "admit it or we get your mate" attitude. We have just sorted out another traffic offence on Chris's behalf - which I know sounds bad but it was for "misuse of fog lights" which his mum told him to plead guilty to. Bad advice when you consider that mopeds don't have fog lights!! So we got that overturned on appeal. I'm sure he is your average 16 year old however 6 points would mean a ban - which we have explained the effects will follow his around for years to come. At the pre-trial hearing the magistrate was wavering so we are definately gonna fight it but solicitors cost �130-170 per hour, so I thought I would take the "cheap route" and ask you guys first!! So many accidents are rear end shunts - so I reckon their age did play a large part in whether to prosecute or not.
Cheers for all of your advice
Cheers for all of your advice
I think all that has been said so far covers most of the points. However, I must correct one or two points so as not to falsely raise ali_alic�s hopes.
Barmaid suggests that the prosecution cannot continue if the trial date is more than six months after the event. This is not correct. Summary offences (that is those that can only be heard by magistrates) have to have their proceedings started, but not necessarily concluded, within six months of the alleged offence. Many cases (especially those where a trial is necessary) take considerably more than six months to come to a conclusion and are not thrown out when six months have elapsed. Proceedings clearly have begun in this case as, from what has been said, there has already been at least one hearing.
One other more minor point is that magistrates � even sensible ones - do not have the power (as has been intimated by willowman) to �throw the matter out and tell the police not to waste the court�s time�. If the prosecution has been properly brought, the prosecution agency wants to continue their prosecution, and the defendant pleads not guilty, the matter must go to a full trial. The earliest opportunity the magistrates then have to dismiss the matter is after hearing the prosecution evidence. At this stage they may be asked by the defence to rule that there is �no case to answer.� If they agree they may dismiss the case without the defendant having to provide his version of events.
Barmaid suggests that the prosecution cannot continue if the trial date is more than six months after the event. This is not correct. Summary offences (that is those that can only be heard by magistrates) have to have their proceedings started, but not necessarily concluded, within six months of the alleged offence. Many cases (especially those where a trial is necessary) take considerably more than six months to come to a conclusion and are not thrown out when six months have elapsed. Proceedings clearly have begun in this case as, from what has been said, there has already been at least one hearing.
One other more minor point is that magistrates � even sensible ones - do not have the power (as has been intimated by willowman) to �throw the matter out and tell the police not to waste the court�s time�. If the prosecution has been properly brought, the prosecution agency wants to continue their prosecution, and the defendant pleads not guilty, the matter must go to a full trial. The earliest opportunity the magistrates then have to dismiss the matter is after hearing the prosecution evidence. At this stage they may be asked by the defence to rule that there is �no case to answer.� If they agree they may dismiss the case without the defendant having to provide his version of events.
I would just like to point out that it is a myth that running into the rear of another vehicle makes you auto at fault.
Many years ago my father hit the rear of a car that had carried out an emergency stop for no apparent reason, he won his case and was found NOT guilty when other driver admitted seeing newsagents open and halting to get ciggarettes without warning
Many years ago my father hit the rear of a car that had carried out an emergency stop for no apparent reason, he won his case and was found NOT guilty when other driver admitted seeing newsagents open and halting to get ciggarettes without warning
I'm sorry, Judge J, perhaps I didn't explain imyself very well. If Rees gives evidence to say that he braked sharply, the police say they will prosecute him for careless driving. However, the police will only find this out on day of trial, which if it is 6 months after the offence, will not be able to lay a new information charging Rees with careless since it is a summary only matter. I had understood that Rees was the friend. There was certainly no suggestion that the police cannot continue with the prosecution against Chris.
As the police have no witnesses, they do not know what actually happened. So if the lads had thought quickly (easier said than done in this situation) then Rees would have said he had to brake quickly because of the cat or dog which ran out into the road, and Chris was momentarily distracted by the same animal and could not avoid running into Rees. Do you get my drift?
Judge J - I understand what you are saying about throwing cases out if they are brought correctly. But I am thinking as "the man on the Clapham omnibus" and so much time is taken up by the police (and CPS) bringing frivolous cases to court that somebody should take a stand and put a stop to it. How about a bit of common sense - but that's a whole new debate and doesn't help Chris and co.
Judge J - I understand what you are saying about throwing cases out if they are brought correctly. But I am thinking as "the man on the Clapham omnibus" and so much time is taken up by the police (and CPS) bringing frivolous cases to court that somebody should take a stand and put a stop to it. How about a bit of common sense - but that's a whole new debate and doesn't help Chris and co.
1 to 9 of 9
