I'll try and keep it brief.
X (it's not me - honestly!) was parked facing oncoming traffic. X pulled out and was hit by a car approaching from behind, which was speeding and overtaking another car (and was hence, on the "wrong" side of the road). The insurance have said that X is still to blame for the accident, even though Y clearly played a part with his silly driving and overtaking on a 30mph road.
After the accident, X and his friend parked the car again and walked over to the other, much more badly damaged car, which had hit something big and concrete after glancing off X's car.
The driver of that car, Y, visually uninjured, said that he did not want the police involved. X assumed that it was because Y had something to hide, like no insurance. They agreed to each pay for their own damage, no insurance companies involved, and X and his friend drove off.
After X drove off, the theory is Y went round the pubs where the accident happened and said "Did you see that accident! The guy has just driven off!" Y has a couple of witnesses and of course, no insurance details were exchanged. Quick thinking Y also claimed injury once the police arrived.
X questioned an hour later by police. Accused of drink driving, hit and run, failing to report an accident. Cleared of the drink driving down the station.
X answered bail today. Told that there will be a preliminary hearing at a magistrate's court. What does that involve?
Moral of the story: if you have an accident which you think is partly/mostly your fault, and the other driver says "don't worry about it", don't be so quick to think it's your lucky day and drive away.
Edited by pendulum on 19/05/2008 at 23:11
|
I assume in that case that X has been charged with FTS and fail to report? In which case, if not already, get a solicitor sharpish. It'll involve (probably) a date setting for trial, and maybe a plea entry.
Easy in hindsight, but this bump sounds like quite a major one, and I would have thought common sense would dictate a call to police at the time.
|
|
Too many people come out of petrol stations and off driveways and only look one way-why shouldn't you overtake in a "30" limit? and what about parked cars making you use the right hand side of the road.
|
He did stop at scene from post no offence.
Obligation because of damage to exchange details, name of driver, vehicle details and owner. If not done at the scene then obligation to report personally to Police as soon as reasonably practicable and in case within 24 hours.
If details not exchanged then - offence.
Who was doing the unusual manouevre ? Both by the sound of it and depending on independent witnesses both posisible due care?
Get the ring of steel from the legal profession.
dvd
|
Moral of the story: always carry a camera/camera phone. Just the simple act of taking a couple of photos at the scene would show without a shadow of a doubt that X had in fact stopped. And it could be useful to show Y was at least partly responsible.
And if in doubt, and especially where the other party does NOT want to call the police - call the police! They might simply turn up, check there are no injuries, traffic is moving OK and ask a few questions and decide not to take action, but there will be an incident number and no question of FTS: what better witness to that than one in uniform?
Best of luck to X in what sounds like a classic try-on ("Can't nove, got whiplash, going to be off work for months with this; I'll settle for 20 grand...") King Solomon's judgment here would be knock-for-knock: both drivers took a risk and contributed to the crash.
In a lot of countries it is actually illegal to park facing oncoming traffic, regardless, so X would probably come off worst.
|
|
|
dvd
yes, saw he says he stopped, but thought other party subsequently stated that he didn't, and produced "witnesses" to that effect?
I did reply halfway through a night shift though...
O
|
So the job of the defence brief is to get the "witnesses" to understand the meaning of perjury, and likely sentence on conviction of that offence. It's up to seven years.
That'll concentrate the minds of at least 95% of society. The other 5% won't be credible in court anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
X questioned an hour later by police. Accused of drink driving hit and run failing to report an accident. Cleared of the drink driving down the station.
What was he charged with? That's the important question. It would also be interesting to know what he said when questioned. I'd be less concerned about his "witnesses": if it's as he tells you (how does he know?) then their accounts won't be impressive (that is, if they're prepared to make a statement: remember, it's not for Y to provide witnesses, it's for the police to investigate what happened and to speak to these witnesses if indeed they're prepared to say anything.
X answered bail today. Told that there will be a preliminary hearing at a magistrate's court. What does that involve?
He'll be asked to enter a plea. He won't impress if he asks for an adjournment to see a solicitor, so (as athers have said) he needs to see a solicitor asap.
Random thought: this isn't an urban myth, is it?
|
It's not an urban myth, it's happened to a close family member.
Apparently the police told him he was entitled to some free legal advice for the hearing but he turned it down, as he would like to explain what happened himself. I advised him against that, but he's made his mind up. He thinks that if he seeks legal advice, it makes him look guilty, and there's no changing his mind! :o(
He'll plead not guilty. He's charged with leaving the scene and failing to report. He knows there are apparently witnesses because the police told him, when they kept him in for questioning nearly all night. Annoyingly, the police barely questioned X's friend who was at the scene, and could back X's account up, because he would be a "biased" witness.
I take it that X does not need to take his friend/witness along to the preliminary hearing? I know this is something X should be asking his solicitor. I'll try and change his mind again about turning down the legal advice because it's not going to help him.
Edited by pendulum on 21/05/2008 at 10:40
|
The old story is that a person who conducts their own defence is a fool twice, once to the court, and the second time to themselves.
He needs to understand the potential cost of a conviction, which he could appeal, clearly, but at huge cost of time, fees etc. His employer may well be unimpressed as well.
He needs an experienced solicitor, now.
Liken the use of solicitor to the use of a professional in any other situation. I doubt he'd buy house without a survey, or using a lawyer for the transaction. This is no different, but could be far more expensive. The CPS expect to win, or they would not have proceeded thus far.
|
|
|
He thinks that if he seeks legal advice it makes him look guilty
and if he doesn't, he'll probably be found guilty.
I take it that X does not need to take his friend/witness along to the preliminary hearing?
Correct. He would also be well-advised to get his friend to jot down notes of what happened - memories fade.
And cross-examination of witnesses is not something ever seen done successfully by laymen. Why does he think lawyers can charge so much?
He's unlikely to get free legal advice because this sort of offence isn't - AFAIK - covered by the Legal Aid scheme.
|
Get a solicitor now.
Apart from anything else, he won't wind the Mags up. No-one actually likes seeing litigants in person - there are too many holes for them to fall into. PU I am sure will agree... It also means that his point can be put across calmly and dispassionately and not in a shouty sweary way, which can happen if X gets flustered. I don't know whether that is in X's character, but better not to find out in the box.
Whereabouts in the country is it?
Pervert Course Justice is another potential offence for "witnesses" though also for X and the other motorist.
You may then get a costs order against the other side if you win - but first, concentrate on sorting X's own non-conviction out.
Oh, and another thing.
Get a solicitor. Now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
