Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Is Prosecution likely?
4 Answers
I am an HGV driver - in October last year I was driving through a village to do a delivery b ut due to traffic congestion I could not get parked to off-load at the address. About a further 200yds on I pulled into telephone the consignee that i could deliver and would try later and also at that time got out to secure the pallet truck in the back of the lorry which had broken loose. When I approcahed the back of the lorry I remembered I had left the key for the back door padlock on th edashboard and so returned to the cab to get it - as i returned to the cab the traffic had backed up in fornt of me ( I was parked on the wrong side of the road) so I decided just to drive on and secure the pallet truck at the next stop which was less than a mile away.
When I got back to tthe depot some hours later my boss asked me had I come in contact with any vehicle as a woman was claiming she has an eyewitness that I cleaned her wing mirror off.
At that time she claimed she had been parked between 10.30 and 3.30 and that the eye witness saw me stop, look upm the street and then drive off.
My reply to my boss was that I thought whe was trying it on.
We didn't hear anything from her again until last week when the police got in touch and said they were investigating an incident in which a driver failed to stop and that they have a partial registration of the vehicle involved. And that the incident occured between 2.20 and 3.40
How can they investigate something which happened three and a half months ago?
I checked the vehicle after my boss had told me and there was not a single new fresh scratch on it. So thought nothing more of it until last week.
When driving through the village I was "behind" a skip lorry that was reversing up my side of the road and in my opinion was closer tho the parked cars than I was.
Your opinions please.
When I got back to tthe depot some hours later my boss asked me had I come in contact with any vehicle as a woman was claiming she has an eyewitness that I cleaned her wing mirror off.
At that time she claimed she had been parked between 10.30 and 3.30 and that the eye witness saw me stop, look upm the street and then drive off.
My reply to my boss was that I thought whe was trying it on.
We didn't hear anything from her again until last week when the police got in touch and said they were investigating an incident in which a driver failed to stop and that they have a partial registration of the vehicle involved. And that the incident occured between 2.20 and 3.40
How can they investigate something which happened three and a half months ago?
I checked the vehicle after my boss had told me and there was not a single new fresh scratch on it. So thought nothing more of it until last week.
When driving through the village I was "behind" a skip lorry that was reversing up my side of the road and in my opinion was closer tho the parked cars than I was.
Your opinions please.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
I'm not sure why you've included all this information about securing/not securing the pallet truck- or are you including it to explain what you were doing when the eyewitness saw you and assumed you were checking the damage.
21:22 Sun 12th Feb 2012
I'm not sure why you've posted this under 'civil'. All driving offences (whether they be speeding, failing to stop, or whatever) are criminal matters, not civil ones.
However the police (and CPS) have up to 6 months to 'lay information' before a magistrates' court, so they're well within the time limit.
Even so, a 'partial registration' (unless it's accompanied by supporting evidence, such as the company's name on the vehicle) would be insufficient to pass the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test required for a criminal conviction. It's therefore unlikely that the CPS would see any merit in pursuing a prosecution.
Chris
However the police (and CPS) have up to 6 months to 'lay information' before a magistrates' court, so they're well within the time limit.
Even so, a 'partial registration' (unless it's accompanied by supporting evidence, such as the company's name on the vehicle) would be insufficient to pass the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test required for a criminal conviction. It's therefore unlikely that the CPS would see any merit in pursuing a prosecution.
Chris
1 to 4 of 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|