No remap for me after all

[Dr-Al]

It turns out that I'm up in court on Wednesday for dangerous driving. Witnesses claim I was overtaking in the rain with zero visibility and standing water on the roads. I have no memory of the event (and have already stated this in a witness statement). I consulted solicitors (at substantial cost!) and they said I hve not got a hope in hell of running a successful trial on this one because of my lack of memory. The only evidence is that given in the witness statements which, as I said before, is pretty damning. The solicitors tried to negotiate with the CPS to get it down to Due care, but the CPS case is so strong that they won't budge. The solicitors have advised me to plead guilty to cut my losses so I'm looking at a minimum 12 mth ban plus anything else the court wants to give me.

Looks like I'll be getting the bus to work for the next year (or more). Almost 2 hours to get to work every morning is not my idea of fun, especially when it is only a 10 mile trip!

[DavidT]

Al,

Is that the sort of driving you would normally indulge in ? having met you a few times, I would doubt it!

How many independant witness statements are there ?

Good luck with it anyway mate.

[Dr-Al]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. It was totally out of character and I still don't know how or why the events of that morning came about.

There were 2 independant witnesses. Their statements are almost identical, but I would never dream of suggesting that their words were in any way influenced by the investigating officer. That would be a very dangerous route to take...

[NeilMc]

I'm amazed that they would let you plead guilty for something you have no recollection of.
I don't imagine it will make you feel any better, but I have known two people who were told to expect a ban, who both drove home without one. The offences were speeding (120mph+) - 4 points and £200 fine, and drunk in charge (didn't drive anywhere but was sat in the drivers seat) - 12 points, large fine + expenses, but no ban.
I really hope they realise that you have already suffered a lot from this incident and they might just be sympathetic towards you.

Best of luck! Let us know the outcome.

[derdle]

If this sort of driving is "totally out of charachter" then perhaps this memory issue began before the accident? The implication being that you were not aware of what you were doing (although admitting this may mean a ban anyway on medical grounds???) Might be worth running this past the solictors to see if there is any mileage..or speak to a traffic specialist such as Freeman or the guy that helped bakerdcb recently? Sadly not a lot of time to sort this.

The "dangerous route to take" may be a very good option citing that the officer knew you had suffered memory loss and you were therefore an easy target for a conviction if the witnesses could be coerced. I wouldn't want to see a dangerous driving conviction being railroaded through on you.

A plan might be to see if you can "plea bargain" (yes it does go on) to plead guilty to a lesser charge of careless driving (perhaps on the grounds of some temporary menatl lapse). Years ago my brother plea bargained to drop a case of Resisting Artrest and GBH (on two coppers) plus drink driving to one of just drink driving..it worked.

Hope it all goes well for you.

Paul

[Dr-Al]

The CPS would not entertain plea bargain to 'due care' - they are confident that their case is strong enough to secure a conviction for the dangerous driving should it go to trial.

I am using Freeman and they are the ones that have advised me to take the guilty plea. I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that they are fighting this as hard as they can. Perhaps it is because they know that I have very limited financial resources.

Dangerous driving is considered to be the second most serious driving offence, so there is apparently very little option for the judges to reduce the sentence. An example where they would be allowed to reduce the sentence would be if someone was to be caught driving like a maniac to get a colleague to hospital after he (the colleague) had cut off his arm and was bleeding to death.

The law is set up to punish the intent rather than the outcome of an offence. Therefore the fact that I was the only one injured and, apart from the insurance company, I am the only one that has been financially inconvenienced is largely irrelevant to the level of the sentence that they will impose, although the Magistrates do have the power to consider this to some extent.

[JohnRet.]

The "dangerous route to take" may be a very good option citing that the officer knew you had suffered memory loss and you were therefore an easy target for a conviction if the witnesses could be coerced. I wouldn't want to see a dangerous driving conviction being railroaded through on you.

A plan might be to see if you can "plea bargain" (yes it does go on) to plead guilty to a lesser charge of careless driving (perhaps on the grounds of some temporary menatl lapse). Years ago my brother plea bargained to drop a case of Resisting Artrest and GBH (on two coppers) plus drink driving to one of just drink driving..it worked.

Hope it all goes well for you.

Paul

I cannot think why a police officer would coerce two witnesses just to secure a conviction for dangerous driving...

As you your second point, that's exactly what is making our judicial system a farce.

[Dr-Al]

I cannot think why a police officer would coerce two witnesses just to secure a conviction for dangerous driving...

As you your second point, that's exactly what is making our judicial system a farce.

I agree that the investigating officer would have little to gain from such an action but for the same words to come from two people who have never met is more than a little strange. The two witnesses did not meet on the day of the accident. They came forward after a police plea for witnesses.

The police also 'sat' on the summons for 3 weeks before posting it out to me so I had less than two weeks to arrange and brief a defence solicitor. Since this is my first brush with the law, I didn't know where to start.

What makes the judicial system a farce is the fact that you can get a much better share of justice if you have the money to do so. If I could afford to fight this, there is a chance that the courts could rule in my favour. I simply cannot afford to do this.

There was a defect on the suspension of the car (which I was unaware of at the time of the accident) and mention of diesel in the road close to the scene of the accident.

If I had the financial resources, I could order an expert report on these two matters. The solicitors believe that having reports on these two matters could well shed new light on how the accident happened and may well help my case. Unfortunately, these reports do not come cheap and there is no guarantee that they will help. Not only that, but I would then have to run a defence case which I cannot afford to do. I have already paid out £2.5k in solicitors fees just to get to where I am now. Much of this money has had to be taken from my kids' accounts. I am hoping to pay it back in a few years if things turn around for us financially.

I'm on a fairly good salary but I'm in debt up to my eyeballs due to my crippling mortgage payments so I simply cannot afford to pay for the 'justice' I deserve.

Prior to this incident I too had faith in the justice system. Now I am forced into a position of pleading guilty to a crime I'm not convinced I commited. I have no memory of the incident or events leading up to it. I am aware that this is no defence (rightly so since it is easily faked), but it also has the unfortunate repercussion that I cannot defend myself by stating my side of the story.

[derdle]

Surely the police case is defective if not negligent if they have not investigated the diesel on the road...it should surely be a very good defence that the diesel spill was the cause of the accident (or at least a serious contribution to it). Seems that they would be contect to try to convict on the basis of the outcome rather than the underlying casues?

Paul

[Dr-Al]

This is why I hired Freeman aka 'Mr Loophole' - if there were any irregularities in the investigation or the prosecution's case, I would expect them to jump on it and use it. At the moment, all they seem to be good at is taking money off of me

The prosecution's case is that I should not have been overtaking in the rain and that both witnesses claim that it was a "mad" thing to do. Apparently this constitutes the very definition of dangerous driving regardless of the outcome of the manoevre.

[JohnRet.]

What makes the judicial system a farce is the fact that you can get a much better share of justice if you have the money to do so.

I totally agree. The Magistrate WILL take account that you have lost your car, been hospitalised etc and I'm sure you could use the fact that nobody else was injured and no other property was damaged (if this is the case) as mitigation.

The definition of dangerous driving is:

2A Meaning of dangerous driving

(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

(2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerousâ€

[Dr-Al]

Me too. Unless it is a 'dead cert' it's just not worth it.

My days of driving powerful cars on the road are over. Being able to overtake in short distances with little effort leads you into a false sense of security. Eventually there will be one little detail that will catch you by surprise. I believe that this must be what happened to me - I must have missed one clue or vital piece of information and made a decision based on the incomplete picture. My life is pretty much in ruins as a result.

Another thing to consider is that it is very difficult to lose control of these 4-wheel-drive beasts but when you do, the chances of getting it under control before you hit something is almost nil. On a race track there is far more opportunity to regain control, but the roads are not wide enough or empty enough to give you this second chance.

When I get my license back I will be doing a couple of track days a year in Lambos/Ferraris/Astons but I now have no desire to be in charge of a fast car on the public highways. The NCAP rating, number of airbags and strength of the chassis are now far more important to me than the power-to-weight ratio.

[rolskii]

Side track to the diesel spill Al, I was travelling up M40/A40, lorry had lost its fuel tank plug, about 8-10" in diammeter, I ran over it... nearly ripped my solid brake lines clean off..!!!
needless to say i pulled over, checked my car out and pulled off, I slipped for over 1/2mile in any gear as my tryes were soaked in diesel .... rest of roads were dry, it was a nightmare, especially for the motorbikes running through it......
Can this not be looked into any further as littigating evidence ...... it was raining too in yr case ... Im sure you have been through every loophole & scenario with yr man.........
best of luck mate .... i feel for you as ....

[Dr-Al]

best of luck mate .... i feel for you as ....

Did a quick double-take there - thought you said "I feel for your ass"

[rolskii]

best of luck mate .... i feel for you as ....

Did a quick double-take there - thought you said "I feel for your ass"

nah .... typo dude ..... unless yr blonde, big tittys, pretty and female ... dont go there ....