Nottingham Hit-And-Run Cyclist Speaks Of 'injustice'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35486855

I can't understand this. There is clear evidence that this cyclist was run down, and yet the Police say that "it cannot prove who was driving the hire vehicle"

I can understand why the cyclist is feeling a tad let down by British Justice !

[Islay]

What can't you understand? If there is not enough evidence of whom was driving who do you want prosecuted? The hirer?

[TWR]

The hire car must have been booked by a Hirer, the hire company must have the Drivers details for him / her to drive the car, the day of the hire must have been recorded, also the time / date, what more evidence do the police need? I would appeal.

[Islay]

The article states that the hirer can only be charged with stating who was driving - therefore there is not enough evidence for the police to charge the hirer!

[webbo3]

Dont you normally show your driving license and a bank card when you hjire a car. ?



Dave.

[TWR]

Yes, you must produce your Documents.

[webbo3]

So, they know who hired and paid for it then, and as hire cars normally need a named driver they would know who was driving.




Dave.

[youngmafbog]

So the person hiring the car was fined 150 for not supplying details on who did it.

If Plod cannot prove who was driving, how can they prosecute any more than they have?

[mikey4444]

I don't think the Police have covered themselves in glory in this case.

It seems to me that all you have to do in cases like this, is to keep saying

"It wasn't me Guv"

The ultimate defence it would seem !

[jno]

yes, somebody has to prove who was actually driving the car, not just who hired it. You can't assume they were the same.

[mikey4444]

No, I agree jno, but couldn't the Police have tried harder ?

[mushroom25]

this was a while ago so can't tell if it still applies - but it was certainly the case then that it wasn't just motoring offences where invoking the "shaggy defence" would get you off.....
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/apr/19/childprotection

[jno]

no idea how hard they tried, mikey. If nobody actually saw the driver then it can only be supposition, and any half-good lawyer would have the case thrown out.

[Milvus]

An earlier version of this report by the BBC, states that there were two eligible drivers for the vehicle. The summary for the CPS only prosecuting for failing to provide drive details is at the end of the report

[Milvus]

Meant to add the link :(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

[cassa333]

When ever we have hired cars you have to say who the driver will be at the time for insurance purposes.

If I remember rightly they just wouldn't say who was driving at the time.

I wonder what would happen if the cyclist posted the details of the couple who did it with the question 'DId one of these two people that hired the car and were the only ones insured to drive it knock me over and then fudge a response to the police and courts?'

[Canary42]

I understand the fine was for refusing to give the details when asked.

So why don't they ask again....

and again....

and again...

Each refusal being a new offence, slap another £150 fine on him each time - soon change his mind I suspect.

[shoota]

//couldn't the Police have tried harder?//

What more would you have them do?
Haul the hirer in and waterboard him?

[jno]

some charge along the lines of perverting the course of justice might be useful, canary

[sandyRoe]

If there were two people who could have been driving could they not both be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

[Canary42]

Better still, charge one and if/when they plead Not Guilty charge the other and use the first one's plea as evidence. Simple.