The best legal advice I ever had came not from a lawyer but from a policeman.
This was many years ago in the aftermath of a very nasty car accident in which I was involved. After my collision with another car, the ambulance, fire and police services arrived and each professionally and competently dealt with matters commensurate with their particular disciplines. Normal traffic flow was then resumed.
Whilst waiting for the arrival of my brother-in-law to arrive and make arrangements to have my undrivable car removed from the scene I was asked by the attending officer sit in his police car. His colleague was a very young policewoman. I got in the back of the car whereupon the young woman started to aggressively question me as to my driving speed, distances, weather, the other driver?s speed etc. etc. etc. each question came as bullet out of a gun. I didn?t have time to answer even one of them before the next was being fired at me.
I then mulishly ignored her having mentally decided that ?I really, really do not like you? and continued looking out of the rear window. Whilst I was idly conjecturing how I could get my hands round her throat I became aware that the policeman was talking to me whilst he was facing the front of the car. In retrospective I realised that he was probably looking at me through the rear view mirror. Initially I didn?t take on board what he was saying but when I heard him say for the third time his voice speaking slightly louder at the first part of the sentence and dropping away at the second ?you do not have to make a statement now but anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence? I thought to myself he is trying to tell me something, what is it, then I realised that I did not have to make a statement now. I leaned forward and told him that I didn?t want to make a statement now and could he make arrangement to come to the house at a later date. This he agreed to. Ultimately a week later he and his colleague came to the house and took possession of a statement that I had prepared, typed up and signed.
This man realised that I was in total state of shock and on the point of collapse and that I could have said anything rational and/or irrational including remarks that may not have helped my case if the matter ever came to court. It didn?t. When my brother-in-law finally arrived to take me home the policeman said to him ?watch her, she is about to blow?.
At a later point I was telling my policeman neighbour about the aggressive stance of the policewoman and he told me that she was probably just out of Police College and was being what was then known in the trade as ?puppy walked? whereby an experienced officer takes charge of a novice and teaches them the finer points of their trade. He (my neighbour) also said that the novices were always gung-ho and acted like rottweillers until the novelty of wearing the uniform began to wear off.
The policeman may have been doing no more than his statutory duty but he did it with a finesse and understanding which I have always appreciated.
Rita
|
Rita
You said the other day in a parking ticket threadthat you were"just a well read cockney girl!!" It strikes me that you are a whole lot more, and that the Met may have met its match!
What interesting advice, and I wonder what the legal eagles out there have to say in the light of the slightly differently worded caution in use to day.
Best wishes
DD
|
|
Of course you should be careful what you say and generally should not say anything until you have spoken to a lawyer. But if you are innocent it can help to tell the police what happened early-on. If you say nothing your silence can be raised as an issue if it ever gets to court.
|
|
But how do you know you are safely "innocent"? They came to bully me when I was lying on a trolley in Casualty with a compound tib and fib and a crack on the head, before SWMBO got onto the job and fetched the marines; I must have been alert enough because they only got my assailant in the end, although he probably was, let us say, more socially compatible. But, safer to say nothing till you have advice, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
DB Thanks - your last sentence nicely rounds off the point in my last sentence.
DD
|
|
|
Trouble is you are more likely to get the truth immediately after an accident which is why many Plods will push for a verbal account at least (under caution if necessary).
Left a week, events are mulled over and an acceptable guilt free account emerges in the mind which is then related and can bear little resemblence to the truth.
Agree however there is no need to act like a rotweiller. Softly, softly catchee monkey?
DVD
|
|
|
Agreed, Normally the Police at the scene will ask for a brief "verbal explanation"
just to get picture of what happened. This is generally made under caution, basically whether the drivier is to blame or not, simply to make sure that this can be used as admissable evidence later on. Just watch what you say and keep it simple. Blame can be difficult to apportion until all the evidence is to hand. I, naturally, would suggest that you have solicitor present when interviewed (well i would say that wouldn't I) if you are interviewed at a later date either on tape or on paper. Police Officers prefer to interview people in comfortable enviorments be it at your home, nick or brief's office. Police cars are not good places to interview. The process of an Accident investigation is complex, even in simple prangs and Officers are aware of CPS ground rules about which cases are likely to go to Court, so you may find that beyond the initial explanation that no further interview is made. Expect to be asked to sign any verbal explantion at the scene, either in the accident booklet or the Officers Pocket note book. Just watch what you say and read what you sign. Don't be afraid to challange or even alter any wording that you disagree with. Officers are aware these days that any admission of guilt made soon after the prang may be challanged in Court simply 'cos the driver was under stress.
|
|
|
Other than bald facts, I would agree with Tomo.
I think you should feel confident to say "I am sorry, I do not feel well, I am not able to make a statement at this time".
Complete with all relevant contact details, of course.
I don't have any experience of the "bullying", but I have said some things I would rather not have done after an accident when not thinking straight.
|
|
|
Because I am aware that I am congenitally unable to use one word where two will do, when I originally posted I was trying to be as concise and precise as I could. The accident happened over twenty years ago when I think different wording of the caution was used.
I take pugugly?s point about the police at the scene asking for a brief ?verbal explanation? generally after a caution has been given. No caution was given to me other than as described in my post.
After the collision I was sitting in my car (Volvo saloon) to avoid all the activity that was going on around me; I was feeling very, very lonely. The rottweiller got into my car and asked me what happened. I told her that I was overtaking a juggernaut, noticed that a small car in the line of approaching traffic had pulled out presumably to overtake a car on his side of the road. He then slowed speed and seemed to meander. I had held my speed to allow him to complete his manoeuvre. Realised with mounting disbelief that the car was now drifting on a trajectory that would have me caught, to coin a phrase, between the juggernaught and the car. I then accelerated (using the vernacular, I gunned it), in an attempt to get ahead of the juggernaut. We then collided just ahead of the juggernaut as I was turning the wheel to get ahead of it. I don?t think that I could have been any briefer than that.
She then started coming all over officious, barking question at me like Ironside on a bad hair day. I took exception and told her that I was going to get out of my car as I thought it was going to blow up because smoke was coming from under the bonnet but she was welcome to stay there if she wished.
As an aside, the impact stopped the other car in it?s tracks; and I carried on driving my car in front of and far beyond the lorry and parked up. Best bit of driving I have every done. This much I do know, if my car had had an air bag which deployed I would have lost control of my car and there would have been carnage.
I do know that I must have now begun to slide into shock. Everything seemed to be moving in slo-mo particularly my thought processes. My brain definitely took a fuzzy turn for the worse. When the policeman asked for my bro.-in-law?s telephone number I had all the numbers but kept transposing them. Ultimately I recalled the name of his company. The policeman got on to his station and they accessed the number.
At this point I will respond to Dwight Van Driver?s post. I take his point about how time can refresh ? or maybe just clarify - a person?s point of view as to truth or not. This does not necessarily mean that the truth is not told. After all, witnesses in criminal cases are asked to recollect incidences that may have occurred many years previously and if then not disproved or had doubt thrown on them by the defence the witnesses? accounts are often accepted to be the case.
I will just add at this juncture that when discussing the accident later with my policeman neighbour that I hadn?t seen anyone writing things in notebooks, he said that notebooks were often written up back at the station. Nice to know that their recollections of all things said and done at the scene are foolproof!
To continue the story, the case did not go to court. The driver, a retired gentleman, had had a heart attack at the wheel. He died. He was due to go into hospital two days later for major heart surgery. He had had virtually everything internal removed due to cancer. He was on major doses of prescribed drugs.
At a subsequent meeting with the Claims Manager at my Insurance Company I was told that he had assessed that on the balance of probabilities after reading witness statements that I was the one at fault. Therefore the Company was going to settle on a knock-for-knock basis. I was absolutely incandescent with rage which as always I hid behind a very cool exterior. Asked to see witness statements. He refused.
Subsequently I managed to obtain copies of 5 witness statements from the police. I also acquired a copy of the autopsy report, which made for very interesting reading.
Contacted the AA to get legal advice re going for our uninsured losses. They were most unhelpful, almost contemptuous. Didn?t have hope in hell?s chance, insurance companies settling knock- for-knock, blah, blah, blah. We?ll see, sez I through clenched teeth. .
I put claim in to the other driver?s Insurance Company. They repudiated liability as they said that they had not been informed of their driver?s medical condition and would not have insured them had they known. But I reasoned that as they were settling knock-for-knock they ipso facto had accepted liability if only to a limited degree
I decided to fight them not just for the financial losses we had incurred as a result of the accident but I was adamant that I did not want it on my record that I had been responsible for this accident. After I had analysed the statements I realised that all bar one were full of provable factual errors, opinion and contradictions. The one favourable witness mirrored my own statement to the extent that we could have been suspected of collusion. I didn?t know this man from Adam.
Ultimately after about 10 months, lots of hard work in demolishing the statements line-by-line, clause-by-clause, the Company accepted that the balance of probability had swung in my favour and that they would negotiate an agreed settlement.
So that was that apart from the whiplash injury which I suffered for 7 years.
The only funny thing that occurred was when the policeman wanted to check our respective license plates with the DVLA. He couldn?t find the other driver?s number plate. Realised it was embedded on the front of my car. Read it out to DVLA. Answer that came back was that this plate belonged to a motorbike. ?Just about make my day complete? he remarked sotto voce. I have always wanted to use that phrase. Good, innit.
Verbosity really has nothing to commend it, has it?
So, out the lights, snuggle down, that is the end of the story.
Rita
|
Excellent account Rita. It goes to prove my thoughts that there is a very fine line between the motoring fun/talk/theories and it suddenly all getting very serious.
David
|
|
|
|
>Therefore the Company was going to settle on a knock-for-knock basis.
Knock for knock is not now, nor has it ever been, related to attribution of blame in anyway whatsover. It does not mean blame was 50:50, it does not mean that one or other person is at fault. It means absolutely nothing concerning who was at fault.
The knock for knock agreement comes from two things. Firstly it is a recognition that most major insurers were one week getting money from another, and then the following week having to pay it back. This was expensive and pointless.
Therefore the agreement was that in future all would pay their own AD expenses.
Secondly, it was particularly driven into existence after a few of the insurers used the old method to drive another out of business who was quoting cheaper than them and getting all their business.
However, where blame becomes involved is this; In the old days when Ins. Co. 1 got the money from Ins. Co. 2 it was clear that it could be accepted that Ins. Driver 2 was at fault - by virtue of his insurer coughing up.
However, since this is no longer done, another method is used to determine blame - and this is typically uninsured losses (your excess plus other stuff). If you can get this back, then your insurer will accept that you are not at fault. If you cannot, then they frequently will assume that you are at fault.
There are three difficulties. The other guy might refuse to pay, and you may not want to sue him for 25 quid or whatever it is. However, you run the risk of losing your NCD. or you may have no uninsured loss.
In either cases, you can frequently, but not always, batter your insurer into reinstating your insurance NCD.
Never waste your time arguing with the person dealing with your claim or who wrote the letter to you. Neither of them will have any authority. Go for supervisors/managers.
|
|
|
Mark - I take on board all you said. I used to work in motor insurance for a wee while when nobbut a lass before moving on to other facets of the insurance world. Mind you, I expect everything has changed in the intervening years.
My NCB was protected so that was not an issue. The question of blame mattered to me personally as I wanted it recognized that I was not responsible for this accident even if it was only on a balance of probability basis.
Our uninsured financial losses were considerable which of course had equal weight. I was happy with the outcome on both counts.
As to going for supervisors/managers, my insurance chappy was the head honcho of the Claims Managers. Fat lot of good it did me. Although as a policy I think you are absolutely right. Have a problem with the Volvo - get the Chairman or settle for no less than the Managing Director. With Asda then it had to George Davis etc.
Incidentally, one thing that an old hand who worked in my particular department told me was if you ever have a claim then tailor it to your policy conditions not the other way round. Never could make out what he meant. Another rule of thumb was that anything not specifically excluded was deemed to be included. It is worth reading your policy before your make a claim.
Rita
|
|
|
Rita,
>Incidentally, one thing that an old hand who worked in my particular department told me was if you ever have a claim then tailor it to your policy conditions not the other way round. Never could make out what he meant. Another rule of thumb was that anything not specifically excluded was deemed to be included. It is worth reading your policy before your make a claim.
Difficult to know which of those is the best piece of advice - both excellent.
|
|
|
