Received letter from Police

[islandgirl]

I have asked many times if the OP was elsewhere at the time and can prove it. There is a witness who saw the driver and who may be able to identify them I believe. If you run a trial on fail to stop and are found guilty there will be high costs to pay, there is no getting away from that. However I have told you of a similar case I heard where the person was unaware of the accident (and did not actually cause it although was accused of doing so) and was found not guilty

[HandyAndy]

However I have told you of a similar case I heard where the person was unaware of the accident (and did not actually cause it although was accused of doing so) and was found not guilty

There are two issues involved here: the failure to stop/report and careless driving. The OP may have a defence to the former if he can show he was unaware of the incident but that will not provide him with a defence to the latter.

I have asked many times if the OP was elsewhere at the time and can prove it.

Before he worries about that he needs to know what evidence the police have to show he was the driver. Without that he has no need to prove he was elsewhere. However, we are still very much in the dark about the evidence of the driver's identity. This is a critical element in all three charges that he faces. It would not be at all unusual for a solicitor to simply assume that evidence of the driver's identity was not an issue - if for no other reason that it would be equally extremely unusual for the police not to have obtained that evidence by the usual method (a s172 request). However, I've looked through this entire thread a couple of times and nothing Boltstar has said gives any indication that evidence of the driver's identity is available. There are lots of "ifs, buts and maybes" (e.g. "...it was a questionnaire just asking who drives the car, insurance details etc and since i am the only one with access to the car, i put down my details" and "There is a witness who saw the driver and who may be able to identify them I believe") but nothing concrete. Anybody witnessing the incident would only be able to identify the driver if they knew him. There is no indication that any of them did.

I very much doubt the police would have launched these prosecutions without evidence of the driver's identity but strange things sometimes happen. My advice would be to find out what evidence is available before any plea is entered.

[Manxman]

I think it's safest to assume that BOLTSTAR has received and responded to a s172 request.

On 01 August I asked him if he had received a request to name the driver at the time of the incident, and he replied:

"That was what i was sent in the post. To identify who owns the car and might have driven it and i am the only one with access to the car, so i put my details down. [My emphasis] As stated above, i am the only person with access to the car and the location of the collison stated in the letter is a road i do take to work. I will take your advice on board but i am hoping it never reaches that stage"

Also, in answer to EFPOM's question as to whether he'd received a NIP, the OP had replied that he didn't think so, and I therefore asked on 06 August:

"The way you've said that ("I don't think etc...") does that mean you did not keep a copy of what they sent you and what you replied?"

but BOLTSTAR never responded to that question.

In the absence of more concrete information - apart from the fact that BOLTSTAR has subsequently been charged and a solicitor he has consulted seems a bit pessimistic about his chances - I think the most reasonable and prudent assumption is that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to identify BOLTSTAR as the driver.

It's a pity that he seems not to have kept a copy of what he was sent by the police and what he replied. Or if he did, that he hasn't checked it to see whether this "questionaire" he received was a valid s172 that would satisfy a court..

[islandgirl]

There are two issues involved here: the failure to stop/report and careless driving. The OP may have a defence to the former if he can show he was unaware of the incident but that will not provide him with a defence to the latter.

In the case I spoke of it did - the cyclist had not been clipped by the car but clearly fell off though in his mind he believed the car had caused it. CCTV and witnesses proved otherwise - not guilty to careless driving and fail to stop etc

[HandyAndy]

In the case I spoke of it did - the cyclist had not been clipped by the car but clearly fell off though in his mind he believed the car had caused it. CCTV and witnesses proved otherwise - not guilty to careless driving and fail to stop etc

Indeed, but the point I was making is that whilst not being aware of an incident would provide a defence to failing to stop/report, it would but not do so for careless driving. In the case you mention the defendant was acquitted of careless driving because the incident didn't happen (or at least, not as alleged), not because he wasn't aware of it.

[islandgirl]

Yes sort of correct. The incident happened, The cyclist fell off his bike and was quite badly injured. He thought the car did it. CCTV showed it did not (he must have hit something and fallen off just as the car went past)

[BoltStar]

I am really sorry for my lack of response to follow up on this. I just tried not to read any comments so i wouldn't have to think about it. My case was today, so i thought i'd give an update today since it's now over.

So, i had entered a guilty plea for careless driving and not guilty to failure to stop and failure to report. I was initially given a hearing date in March but since i pled not guilty to 2 of the charges, a new court date was given....which was today.

All 3 witnesses showed up (cyclist and 2 witnesses whom are also cyclist). Prosecution did not have any CCTV evidence. Cyclist said in his witness statement that i had cut him off a junction as i turned left and it was his tire that had made first contact with my vehicle and this was it. But today in court, he talked about how his bicycle had made a loud bang on my vehicle and he had also been thrown up against it before ending up on the road. My lawyer said he hadnt mentioned all this loud bang in his statement nor said he made any contact with my vehicle. Cyclist said it had been a busy road that morning. He also stated he had collided with the rear side towards the end of my vehicle.

Witness 1 said in his statement that i cut the cyclist off which resulted in a collison and then i drove off without stopping. Today in court, he says that i stopped for and i quote "0.5-2secs" before speeding off.He said he was 5 meters behind the cyclist. My lawyer then asks how he had been able to see whether or not i stopped when i had already turned a corner (now, there's a building right at that junction that obstructs the view of the next road). In his witness statement, he had said nothing about me stopping, he said i didn't stop and just sped off. Then when asked about this, he said he just quickly gave a short version of the event but my lawyer said "but you knew your statement could be used for evidence when you submitted it, so why wouldnt you tell the whole truth?" plus the witness tried to say he thought the question was asking if i had stopped to check up on the cyclist.

Witness 2 said he's an architect hence the visual drawing he had drawn as part of his witness statement. This witness stated he was on his bicycle waiting opposite the road i had turned into. He said he had heard a loud horn before then seeing the collison happen. He said the cyclist collided against my passengers side door and then when i turned the corner, i slowed down which allowed him to get a look at me, i turned my head to look at the scene of the incident and then sped off. My lawyer asks him why he had stated in his witness statement that he could not for certain identify my sex but is now saying he had a look at me but he claims he saw the back of my head. My lawyer said if he indeed had been staring at the collison when it happened and my window was down as he had claimed, he should have been able to tell my gender. This gentleman had also claimed it was a "quiet" morning post covid. My lawyer mentions the discrepency between where he'd said the cyclist collided with my vehicle and where the cyclst himself has said the collison took place. Anyway, they went back and forth for a while.

I was then put on the stand and my lawyer asked why i had plead guilty if i'm claiming to have not been aware of any collison. I said since there were 3 independent people claiming to have seen the incident, then i had to take responsibility for the fact that it might have happened even if i have no knowledge of it. Then he asked why i was then pleading 'not guilty' to the other charges when i'd pled guilty to the first. I said because if i had been aware, no way would i have driven off etc. Prosecutor obviously does his job by trying to ask me trap questions e.g. that morning, did you see the cyclist? how busy was the road?. Of course i don't remember the day in question, so how can i give answers to them. He went on to say i must have been aware of the incident because even if a twig hits a vehicle, we hear it, so how is it that a bicycle collides with my vehicle and i claim to not have heard it? In his opinion, i panicked and sped off. I obviously disagreed with this statement.

Both lawyers gave a closing statement and the magistrates went off.

They came back and sad they found all witness statement and my statement credible. Their conclusion wass that they believe i hadn't been aware of the incident and therefore wouldn't have stopped nor reported to the police within 24hrs. NOT GUILTY

For the driving without due care which i had pled guilty to, i received 5pts and have to pay rounded up £240.

I honestly cried and by the time i walked out, i was mentally and physically tired especially as i hadn't eaten the whole day (finished at 5pm). Took an hour to sort cab back home because i had been advised not to drive there. I will most certainly be taking the day off tomorrow to catch up on sleep and let my mind recuperate.

Thank you all for the advice and i hope this can help someone else hence the lenghty but short version of the case.

[des8]

Thank you for the update
Seems like a fair outcome

[HandyAndy]

Thanks for the update. If only you could tell us how they knew you were driving!

[BoltStar]

Thanks for the update. If only you could tell us how they knew you were driving!

They never identified me as the driver but i had obviously told them it is a route i would have taken to work on the day of the incident

[HandyAndy]

They never identified me as the driver but i had obviously told them it is a route i would have taken to work on the day of the incident

You must have told them more than that, but it doesn't matter now.

[islandgirl]

Thank you for the update and well done