Chris GB

Hypothetically, let us say that a person witnesses an incident where a moving vehicle strikes a parked vehicle belonging to a neighbour. Driver of moving vehicle gets out, has a look in the direction of damaged vehicle, goes about their business, comes back, has another look, drives off.

Let us say that as a result of this, the witness drops the neighbour a note to say exactly what happened and when, including reg No of vehicle causing collision and damage. The neighbour does not see the incident. The neighbour, owner of the vehicle, contacts the company that own the vehicle. The company state that the driver denies any knowledge of the incident. The company asks for an account of the incident from the witness and at the same time the police are involved. The witness gives a comprehensive statement to the police regarding the incident. Subsequent to this, the insurers of the company that owns the vehicle causing the incident pay the repair costs to the person whose vehicle was damaged.

The police now decide to prosecute the driver of the vehicle causing the damage for failure to report the damage (or similar charge). The person causing the damage pleads not guilty. When arranging the court hearing, the owner of the vehicle that was damaged is not required to attend, the witness is. On the day of the trial, the defendant's brief requests an adjournment so that another witness (the owner of the parked vehicle that was damaged) can be called. Note that the owner of the vehicle did not see the incident.

Anyone here got any idea what ploy the brief is on here? Just after another appearance fee? Possibly going for procedural error / loophole? Any other ideas?

All hypothetically of course.

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

devonutopia

Well, the only problem I can see is being an independant witness to this incident, bearing in mind the bias you may naturally have toward the neighbour's case, than the person who did the damage. There's no other evidence to hand apart from your eyewitness account.

__________________
Jason - Only a Skoda.
Custom Fabia Bonnet Lifter Kits - £45! Click Me.
Cheesy bonnet lifter video to "raise me up" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMnGECEi5Oc

See the mongrel's 260bhp Dyno Video!

Chris GB

If the CPS felt that the witness (never said it was me) could be considered to not be independent, I believe they would not have bought it to court. However it is possible that the defence brief would try to prove the witness was not independent.

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

Dr Zoidberg

They are trying it on , hoping that on the second court date the vehicle's owner won't show , or indeed the witness won't bother.

They will then attempt to get the case thrown out.

If the CPS guy had half a clue he would insist that there is nothing contentious that the vehicle's owner will give as evidence and that his written statement should be accepted as it stands.

All it will say is "I own a vehicle....X.... which I parked outside my house on....Y...... when it was undamaged. The next day I found a note from my neighbour about someone hitting my car. When I checked the vehicle it had damage as follows which will cost £Z to repair" and the defence are unlikely to want to challenge any of this

__________________
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

bengie

sounds like clutching at straws and buying of time to me. were pictures taken of the damage to teh vehicle that was hit and possibly of the striking vehicle as evidence go either side? if paint was left and matching heights along with matching scrapes/scratchs then i can't see the defence tbh.

__________________
owner of a skoda octavia 4xvrs3

TeflonTom

they best thing to use is a double bluff, you could get your brief to slip in the fact that it might have been caught on your home cctv camera, when the defence will just roll over and plead guilty

Kandy

Yes sounds like might challenge impartiality of witness or just trying to delay, hope someone doesn't turn up and get case struck off to avoid wasting more court time. Shouldn't affect insurance situation though as that's a civil matter and requires a much lesser burden of proof.

Chris GB

Not my brief, a totally hypothetical situation you understand.

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

Chris GB

The company insurers have (hypothetiaclly) already setled the cost of damage.

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

Chris GB

I am thinking that possibly they are playing for a no show to get it thrown out. Trying to prove against impartiality is another possible. I wondered if any other wrinkles could be on the cards?

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

JPreston

That's what I reckon too. I think a lot of these claims get thrown out due to people not being able to show.

bengie

i didn't mean pictures to sort out cost of repairs but more on the liability front as to whether the van driver was actually there or not.

__________________
owner of a skoda octavia 4xvrs3

Chris GB

Ah, I see what you mean, although I dont know why you thought the hypothetical situation would involve a van. In this case it would boil down to a witness vs the accused. The hypothetiacl witness statement contained a description of the accused, which may help. Again hypothetically and for the purpose of the discussion the accused has not denied being there. I suspect his job record may confirm his whereabouts so probably pointless to deny it.

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

heresmo

If it's not a stupid question, is there not someone at the court who could explain tactics? I'd be inclined to ask questions (LOL you'll know me by now) ... Doesn't necessarily mean I get anywhere, but I do get further than by not having asked, if you see what I mean.

Sorry not much help but best wishes.

Mo

__________________

Wardy

Is there a (hypothetical) lawyer for the victim/car owner in this case?

Steve

__________________
Wardy's Fabia vRS
xenons : sunroof : cruise : OEM+


"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
"If in doubt, flat out." - Colin McRae

mr Gareth Jones

The wintess has nothing to gain - therefore as far as the court is concerned he is being a good citizen.

The defence would have to be very careful in questioning his character without reason. The defence could only question his evidence (e.g. was he mistaken ?).

He did not know the offender prior to the event so could not be accused of any bias.

Wardy

Yes, but he would likely know the owner of the damaged vehicle, being their neighbour and all. So the defence could try and push that point; that the neighbour isn't completely impartial.

Steve

__________________
Wardy's Fabia vRS
xenons : sunroof : cruise : OEM+


"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
"If in doubt, flat out." - Colin McRae

mr Gareth Jones

What you say is correct but it's not relevant - the damage to the neighbours car has been settled by the insurance company - this is purely a prosecution for failure to report an accident. Its not a case of the neighbour versus the offender - this is the offender being prosecuted.

Wardy

Yep - fair point.

Steve

__________________
Wardy's Fabia vRS
xenons : sunroof : cruise : OEM+


"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
"If in doubt, flat out." - Colin McRae

Chris GB

This is an aspect I had not considered. This leaves two possible reasons for the need to see the vehicle owner in the hypothetical courthouse.

1. to chance the owner not turning up in order to have the case thrown out. However, the magistrate must have heard the defence and agreed that the questioning was allowable, or surely would not have agreed to the adjournment? Do the magistrates ask the defence what information they wish to gain from the witness before allowing them to be called?

2. To try to prove the witness to not be impartial. This could be considered as a defence tactic implying the witness made up the statement for whatever reason (maybe to get the neighbours car repaired at someone elses cost?)

All hypothetical of course. If it were a real case, it would be interesting to see how it panned out.

Chris

__________________
Red Fabia vRS. Gone but not forgotten.

Chilli Red / white Mini Cooper Diesel with dual controls.

Silver 53 MR2. Mods: PPE 4>1 manifold | PPE Mangnaflow high flow cat | Blueflame catback exhaust | Pikey inlet mod | 3.0 Racing Chassis stiffening brace kit | BC Racing fully adjustable coilovers | TF loud. Details here My MR2 Page

heresmo

Hello again - only questions I'm afraid.

Seemingly neither the witness nor the neighbour saw the actual incident? (Just wondering if I'd got that right.) Also, I'm wondering what punishment the crime of leaving the scene of a accident without reporting it would (or whatever the hypothetical offender is being prosecuted for) carry in terms of damage to a car, assuming the prosecution were to be successful?

I'm not sure why I find this interesting, but given I find knitting interesting we'll gloss over that

Ta
Mo

__________________

pixi

Surely if the offending drivers insurance have already settled then they have already admitted liability?

__________________

Kandy

That's the difference between civil and criminal law - e.g. it has happened someone gets off with murder (could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt) but the family still sue for loss of loved one under civil law (on the balance of probability). Also people/companies sometimes settle regardless of liability because it is cheaper than risking going to court.

As there is only one witness and that person has a relationship with the victim, if the hit and run driver pleads innocent, damage was already there etc. and there is no physical evidence, I can't see a conviction in this case.

heresmo

In the hypothetical case promulgated, the company seemingly has denied responsibilty but have paid; it's an individual who has been charged with a crime.

Regards
Mo

__________________

Dr Zoidberg

An insurance company's decision to pay up or not is an entirely separate issue from the driver's criminal liability. I'm sure there are people on here who have not been at fault in an accident but their insurance has paid out anyway.

Just because they have settled a claim does not necessarily mean that you are at fault , and the level of culpability required for a criminal conviction is far in excess of what inscos work on.

__________________
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk