A Bad Day Out...

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Steve H:

Grandpa:
Take it with a pinch of salt if you like Steve H, but Magistrates Courts are often called ‘Police Courts.’ The majority Magistrates do not have legal training and they are not professionals. The one with legal training is the Magistrates Clerk, the person who asked you whether you pleaded guilty or not guilty. It’s their job to advise the Magistrates about the law only to make sure there are no legal mistakes. Unless you can find someone who saw what happened and can back you up, the Magistrates get to choose who they think the guilty party are.

The appeal to a higher court isn’t going to work if your only defence is that the insurers paid up. The standards in a civil matter are different to that in a criminal case. I sympathize, but that’s how it works.

Hence the comment above about the amateur judiciary. Nothing is closer to the truth. We have two independent witnesses, an expert witness who provided tachograph analysis that shows extreme emergency braking, yet by all accounts I should have been prepared to stop.

This is the problem. They get to choose. The law shouldn’t and doesn’t need to work like that. It needs people to stand up to ridiculous decisions made by people that do not live in the same world we do. In this case they chose a 17 year old female that had had her licence for 5 weeks at the time of the incident and clearly made a mistake by failing to give way to traffic already established on the “A” road she was attempting to join.

None of us here were witnesses Steve H so we can’t judge either. Yet I’m willing to bet that the two witnesses said they heard a loud screech of brakes, looked and saw a truck hit a car emerging from a side road – a neutral statement of fact not culpability. Likewise, that the tacho’ proved you braked hard would be obvious and might even have gone against you in that it proved in the last few seconds you knew what was going to happen, but couldn’t stop in time.

So basically, it’s your word against hers and the charged offence and that’s the choice the magistrates had. Round one; weepy girl with hanky, police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) v Truck driver. Without factual camera evidence the decision was based on belief and in a Magistrates court the magistrate(s) are the jury. I say I sympathize because every day we’re all one step away from that happening to us. In an ideal world we’d all be driving defensively and expect the same from others and not worn out working 15 hours a day trying to meet tight deadlines and so this kind of thing wouldn’t be happening.

By appealing, not only are you wasting your money (a barrister is a lot more expensive than a solicitor), but without additional evidence you’re asking a Crown Court judge to overturn a decision based on the opinion of others who have already heard the same evidence. It isn’t going to happen Steve and it’s just something that you’ll have to accept.

22

I agree, you have had a barrister in a magistrates court and not convinced them, 12 good men and true will also side with the weepy teen, unless you can select 12 lorry drivers as jurors. DC&A is the minimum. I should spend your barista fee on a coffee.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

23

Just a little addition in how it works. An appeal is not a re-trial. The barrister submits the grounds of appeal, in this case against conviction which automatically includes sentence, to what is termed a ‘Judge in Chambers.’ Before that the barrister (a barrister is not the same as a solicitor) should warn the appellant’s solicitor in writing if there are reasonable grounds for appeal. If the barrister warns against an appeal it’s a 100% guaranteed it will fail.

A judge in chambers, which is a high court judge sitting on his own, will then decide what to do. He can order a re-trial, dismiss the conviction, or keep the conviction and amend the sentence. High court judges are notoriously biased against changing a conviction unless there’s a point of law, or additional evidence not heard at the original hearing is entered which would probably have produced a different result.

At this late stage the other party would have to retract their original statement and take the blame, or someone who filmed the incident to come forward. In other words, you can’t appeal on the grounds that you think a decision is wrong.

24

Steve H:

mac12:
You seem to think the magistrates are to blame for what’s happened to you, what about the evidence from the police to the prosecutors all showing you at fault with no evidence from your side showing different.

Vehicle A emerges from a minor road into a major road over give way line and is hit in the side by Vehicle B. Who is at fault?

After viewing the evidence you are

25

“In other words, you can’t appeal on the grounds that you think a decision is wrong.”

You can if you were convicted by magistrates

defence-barrister.co.uk/app … conviction

If the third-party’s insurers have admitted liability and the evidence is as stated (and the truck wasn’t speeding), then I’d say there are good grounds for appeal.

26

Steve H:

Gidders:
A few years ago near Wetherby on the A1M southbound a female vet in a car moved from lane 1 to lane 2 in her car failing to notice a tanker (Arclid?)close by her right shoulder.Her o/s rear collided with the n/s front of the tanker.Her car was swung round until it was pushed down the road by the tanker’s bumper bar.It has been seen on tv regularly in dashcam programmes.The tanker driver could not see the car.
The police found no evidence of any offence to pursue either driver in court.Seems strange to me.

It was obviously the tanker drivers fault!!! :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

The police attended the incident at the time and, as no one was injured and no serious damage done didn’t take the case any further.

After the twitter storm over the video footage, the truck driver was called before Beverly Bell for a conduct hearing. The car driver was invited as a witness, but chose not to attend.

Mrs Bell listened to the driver’s account of the event, agreed he had done nothing wrong and issued a statement praising him for his quick thinking in pushing both vehicles onto the hard shoulder and then helping the car driver.

Unlike magistrates, TCs are mostly quite fair-minded. They have heard every excuse and sob-story in the book though, and are bored with most of them.

27

Sorry to be a doubting Thomas, but there has to be more to this than we are being told.
If it was a simple case of T boning a car which had misjudged it’s timing and emerged from a side road, I would be very surprised if even the most jobsworth Plod would be getting his book out. Even stranger if,as you say, there was evidence of you trying to stop, and that the other parties insurer accepted liability for the damage.

Perhaps you have been the victim of a very nasty miscarraige of justice, and if so then i wish you every success with your appeal, but I still think that there has to have been something damning in the evidence that you are not telling us.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong!

28

Steve H:
I shan’t bore you with the in’s and out’s of the whole story but there was a collision in which I hit her side on after some very heavy braking and swearing, which the tachograph analysis showed.

Which reads. I won’t tell you all the details of what happened incase TruckNet CSI haul me up before them and ask me in-depth probing questions.

I have have no further questions at this stage m’Lord, the defendant may be seated.

29

GasGas:
“In other words, you can’t appeal on the grounds that you think a decision is wrong.”

You can if you were convicted by magistrates

defence-barrister.co.uk/app … conviction

If the third-party’s insurers have admitted liability and the evidence is as stated (and the truck wasn’t speeding), then I’d say there are good grounds for appeal.

I beg to differ GasGas, but if I was a barrister I too would encourage as many appeals as possible. An appeal is not simply a succession of re-trials hoping the appellant gets the required result. I had a quick skim read through that link and I’ll tell you at best much of it is misleading and at worst, factually inaccurate. It’s a good plug for a barrister, but a barrister did not write that information. Just as an aside, the burden of proof in a civil matter of insurance is a lot less than a criminal charge.

To Steve I’ll just reiterate what I’ve already said. You’ve now been through the lower end of the system and you know how it works. Not impressed? Well, it doesn’t get any better, just more expensive. The decision you got won’t change the more money you throw at it. Unless you can argue a point of law technicality (your solicitor can order the court transcripts for you) or bring in further evidence, the decision you got was final. Let it go, this will bleed you financially dry if you let it.

30

Old John:
Sorry to be a doubting Thomas, but there has to be more to this than we are being told.
If it was a simple case of T boning a car which had misjudged it’s timing and emerged from a side road, I would be very surprised if even the most jobsworth Plod would be getting his book out. Even stranger if,as you say, there was evidence of you trying to stop, and that the other parties insurer accepted liability for the damage.

Perhaps you have been the victim of a very nasty miscarraige of justice, and if so then i wish you every success with your appeal, but I still think that there has to have been something damning in the evidence that you are not telling us.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong!

In his first post he said " I was unfortunate enough to encounter a moron who decided to do a U Turn on a single carriageway without checking her mirror" before going on to say she had emerged from a junction in a later post, so I’m assuming he was behind the car, the car then pulled over left into the entrance of a junction before swinging round to the right and back into the road to complete a U-turn. I’m assuming that’s why the magistrate felt he should’ve predicted what was about to happen as he would’ve been able to see what she was trying to do. Not sure it’s reasonable to say he should predict she wasn’t going to give way to him though.

31

On the facts stated we can only say the car entered the major road from the minor road, crossing the path of the truck.
If that’s all there is to it, then the car is a fault.
If the truck was speeding, or on the wrong side of the road, or the driver was watching Loose Women on his smartphone, then he at least bears some responsibility.
A big ‘help’ here are the distances given for safe stopping in the Highway Code. If she was within that distance when she pulled out in front of the truck then, officially, there was nothing he could do other than mitigate by applying maximum braking (as shown on tacho).
If the tacho shows he was knocking on at 56 mph though…

32

Don’t wish to be rude, but there is more to this.

33

GasGas:
On the facts stated we can only say the car entered the major road from the minor road, crossing the path of the truck.
If that’s all there is to it, then the car is a fault.
If the truck was speeding, or on the wrong side of the road, or the driver was watching Loose Women on his smartphone, then he at least bears some responsibility.
A big ‘help’ here are the distances given for safe stopping in the Highway Code. If she was within that distance when she pulled out in front of the truck then, officially, there was nothing he could do other than mitigate by applying maximum braking (as shown on tacho).
If the tacho shows he was knocking on at 56 mph though…

To take it one step further if i may. Our safety manager discussed situations like this and his position would be if our lorry driver had exceeded the speed limit for any length of time on that road then he would be in a place he shouldn’t legally be had he not exceeded the speed limit so he is guilty or at least partly responsible, even if he was not speeding at the time of the accident.

I know that’s a ‘what if’ and i don’t know how far a clever lawyer would go back but if they can find something to exploit they will.

I rest my case your Honour :wink: :wink:

34

Ziltoid:

Old John:
Sorry to be a doubting Thomas, but there has to be more to this than we are being told.
If it was a simple case of T boning a car which had misjudged it’s timing and emerged from a side road, I would be very surprised if even the most jobsworth Plod would be getting his book out. Even stranger if,as you say, there was evidence of you trying to stop, and that the other parties insurer accepted liability for the damage.

Perhaps you have been the victim of a very nasty miscarraige of justice, and if so then i wish you every success with your appeal, but I still think that there has to have been something damning in the evidence that you are not telling us.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong!

In his first post he said " I was unfortunate enough to encounter a moron who decided to do a U Turn on a single carriageway without checking her mirror" before going on to say she had emerged from a junction in a later post, so I’m assuming he was behind the car, the car then pulled over left into the entrance of a junction before swinging round to the right and back into the road to complete a U-turn. I’m assuming that’s why the magistrate felt he should’ve predicted what was about to happen as he would’ve been able to see what she was trying to do. Not sure it’s reasonable to say he should predict she wasn’t going to give way to him though.

This is exactly what happened. I was following vehicle “A” along a single carriage at approx 75 Km/h. Vehicle “A” Accelerated away from me and indicated to turn left into a minor road. Instead of carrying on into said minor road, a U turn was performed directly over give way road markings and into a major road from a minor, and I drove directly into the side of the vehicle, as to be expected.

Highway code rule 172 for those that are interested :

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

To be fair, I assumed a lot of you would have known this as professional drivers!

This along with the independent witnesses, tachograph analysis proving that i was below the speed limit and took immediate evasive action, was the evidence relied on i court, apparently not enough.

Was it a miscarriage of justice - I believe so.

I still think that there has to have been something damning in the evidence that you are not telling us.

I don’t have time to waste making things up for the benefit of strangers that I don’t know, though I do know that is the general consensus of truck net and the internet in general. (Sadly).

To Steve I’ll just reiterate what I’ve already said. You’ve now been through the lower end of the system and you know how it works. Not impressed? Well, it doesn’t get any better, just more expensive. The decision you got won’t change the more money you throw at it. Unless you can argue a point of law technicality (your solicitor can order the court transcripts for you) or bring in further evidence, the decision you got was final. Let it go, this will bleed you financially dry if you let it.

Your sentiment is appreciated, though I have been through the system many many times, at all levels, from magistrate, Crown, Traffic Commissioner, Etc… I am well aware that the system is massively flawed, and no, I am not impressed. I am not one that is frightened to tackle those in authority, indeed I have in the past been more than successful. My younger brother fell victim to something very similar in which he clipped a parked car on a side-street in London in a car transporter. He didn’t even feel it. A helpful member of the public phoned the police and reported it for him. A summons for Fail to stop & Fail to report. We were in and out of Waltham Forest Magistrates Court in under an hour. Cant report something if you didn’t know you’d done it.

I only posted my little tale of woe in case it helped some other poor ■■■■■■■ in a similar situation, not to start a mass debate on whether I was in the right or wrong.

35

Yup Remy that’s what my boss says the insurance stance is if you hadent been speeding earlier on you would not be involved in the accident.

36

I wonder why you think professional magistrates would be any more favourable to truck drivers?

37

Sorry - irrelevant comment

38

Your sentiment is appreciated, though I have been through the system many many times, at all levels, from magistrate, Crown, Traffic Commissioner, Etc… I am well aware that the system is massively flawed, and no, I am not impressed. I am not one that is frightened to tackle those in authority, indeed I have in the past been more than successful. My younger brother fell victim to something very similar in which he clipped a parked car on a side-street in London in a car transporter. He didn’t even feel it. A helpful member of the public phoned the police and reported it for him. A summons for Fail to stop & Fail to report. We were in and out of Waltham Forest Magistrates Court in under an hour. Cant report something if you didn’t know you’d done it.

I only posted my little tale of woe in case it helped some other poor [zb] in a similar situation, not to start a mass debate on whether I was in the right or wrong.

If you’ve been playing with the big boys at Crown Court level you don’t need advice as you’ll already know there’s a time to fight and a time to give up. You lose today, you win tomorrow. ’Justice’ is the process itself, being judged by your peers, being allowed to have a say … It’s not necessarily the outcome. You say, ‘I am not one that is frightened to tackle those in authority …’ but you will not beat the system Steve. You will have the odd victory, but it’s designed so that you can’t and you’ve just found that out. It won’t have been mentioned in court, but the magistrates will also have had access to details that you’re not new to all this.

Fortunately, I’ve never been on the wrong side and I get my information from having done a Master’s degree in criminology many years ago. That doesn’t mean I’ve kept up with statutory law, but it means I know how the Criminal Justice System works. You obviously weren’t speeding as your tacho’ would prove (dangerous driving), so they threw a catch 22 law at you; due care and attention. Your problem Steve is that you didn’t have any witnesses and so the Magistrates were left to make a decision. That decision went against you and an appeal is based on having ‘reasonable grounds’, not just that you disagree and want a second opinion.

There but for the grace of God … What happened to you can happen to anyone of us and is why more and more drivers have dashboard cameras.