Magistrates findings

[forensicman]

I was recently involved in rta. Was charged with driving without due care and attention. Pleaded not guilty and represented myself. Won the case. However the solicitor representing me for my insurance claim says that this result will be irrelevant in a civil court and that this court would put more weight behind the fact that I was charged and not that I was found not guilty. (Magistrate also stated in reasons for finding that other driver made unsafe manouvre but apparantly this doesn't mean much either) Does this mean that in the eyes of a civil court I am to be considered guilty?

[terambulan]

I think it would be grossly unfair if you were found guilty after winning your case......maybe you could appeal if that was the final finding, especially as it could mean points on ur licence and an increase in insurance costs.

Whats the point of going to Court if the judgement is over-turned?

[forensicman]

Actually my concern is that if they disregard the not guilty finding in a civil court it will dramatically reduce the amount of compensation I am paid as I suffered severe injuries.

[lajohn]

I understand what you are saying, but sometimes it's difficult to have your cake and eat it too. Best of luck, hope things turns out in your favour.

[terambulan]

Ethel and Barmaid will give u accurate answers 2moro....they're the experts on here

[Trotbot]

There are different standards of proof. To convict you of a criminal offence, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore because of the manouvre by the other driver, there may be reasonable doubt of your guilt and the judge found you not guitly.
A civil court will consider the balance of probabilities. Therefore if the other person is more at fault, but you contributed to the accident, any award for damages would be reduced by the amount that you are deemed to be at fault.
Defending a criminal case does not mean that you would win a civil case. It depends on the facts of the case.

[Ethel]

Why are you so certain your insurance claim is going to court? It will be a few years before this is settled and the insurance company may make an offer you find reasonable.

Trotbot is correct re burden of proof. A magistrate, the police and CPS can all be sure a person is guilty, but unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt they have to find 'not guilty'.

A civil court is different. But as I say, that is a long way off.

[forensicman]

Thanks for all these replies. Much appreciated. By recently I mean 2 years ago next month lol. I believe the only reason I was charged was because when my solicitor applied for a police report the police realised that they hadn't even bothered to interview me nearly 4 months later. I was accused of speeding by 3 witnesses in police statements. Number one wasdriver of car that I hit and he admitted he didn't see me until after I hit him so couldn't have known what speed I was doing. Witness 2 admitted under oath I could actually have been within speed limit. Witness 3 under oath said she had no idea what speed I was doing, Physical evidence ie damage to other car (I was on bike) would suggest a lower speed collision than was 'suggested'. Far be it for me to suggest the police were putting words in peoples mouths!