Advice with SJPN

[M.lorrimer]

Looking for some advice, please.

I have just received a SJPN.

For some context, back in October 2023, I had a car crash. I was over taking parked cars on a uphill street, and there was a car driving on the other side coming downhill. From my account, I was over taking the parked cars, and I thought the car coming towards me thought they had room to pass. We ended up crashing. My driver side were damaged and the other cars bonnet was caved. Everyone seemed okay, just shaken. A witness in a car behind me phoned the police.

When the police arrived nothing barely was said, we was merely asked what had happened. No-one was interviewed at the side of the road, questioned, or arrested; I wasn't accused of anything at the time. The cars were taken away, insurance info was swapped, and we were more or less on our way.

After I dealt with the insurance, I assumed that, that was the end of it.

Then comes a letter in the post in-between Christmas and New year. Apparently the officer at the scene couldn't get in touch with me, and I needed to contact them to do a voluntary interview. Not thinking much of it as the letter wording, I emailed and had an interview at home arranged for the 12th January 2024.

When interview day arrives the officer reads me my rights, but states, I wasn't under arrest. I was asked what had happened, and what I am assuming is the normal interview questions. Then concluding the interview, she stated she was forwarding the interview to her superiors. Confused, but nodded along as I thought it was just been tied up.

Now fast forward, and I've had this notice letter on 6th February with 21 days to reply.

Like I stated earlier, I believed it was an accident. But, I've been accused of: Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road / in a public place without due care and attention (with the officer and witnesses agreeing).

The other driver has said I stayed in the middle of the road and headed straight towards his car. It states there is dashcam footage from the driver. I wasn't aware there were any. Do I have rights to see it? Was I meant to be shown it at what I thought was the interview?

Also, it states there were multiple witnesses at the scene, but I was only aware of the one passenger in the other car, and a woman in another car. The woman was the one who phoned the police and was stating to all involved that she saw I was going around parked cars, but now in the notice has sided with the driver. Also, it turns out the woman had taken the driver to hospital, which I was unaware of. I didn't even know he needed to go.

My son was with me during the accident and he has special needs, so I was a little distracted to things going on as he is non-verbal and my concentration was on him. But still, the whole statement from the driver seems to be completely exaggerated from what I thought happened at the scene. Like I stated, we were a bit shocked, but was all stood around talking when waiting/when police arrived and waiting for the cars to be taken off.

I'm just so confused as to how this seems to have escalated from what I thought was a mild car accident. Has anyone any advice? I didn't feel the need to have a solicitor, I thought this was something and nothing, and now I don't know what to do.

As you can tell, I've never once in my 36 years dealt with the police or been at fault in an accident. Thanks in advance.

[islandgirl]

If you believe you are innocent plead not guilty and it will go to trial. You will need a solicitor for the best chance of winning. You will then be entitled to see the evidence against you including the dashcam. If you are found guilty after trial the penalty will be heavier
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/
I do seem to remember something from the highway code about vehicles coming downhill having priority but I may be wrong?
You made a big mistake going to see the Police without a solicitor, sorry.

[HandyAndy]

You made a big mistake going to see the Police without a solicitor, sorry.

Alas the interview was at home and not at the Nick, ig:

...and had an interview at home arranged for the 12th January 2024.

If you had been interviewed at the police station you would have been entitled to free legal representation and the interview would have been recorded. However, what's done is done.

A person is guilty of careless driving if "...the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver." Of course competent and careful drivers do not collide with other vehicles where space is tight. Obviously the same might be said of the other driver (although that won't particularly help you). But it is very difficult to give an opinion on whose fault a collision was from a verbal description from just one of the parties (who, with the best will in the world, will find it difficult to provide an unbiased account).

I presume the latest letter you have is a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" charging you with driving without due care and attention (careless driving). Please confirm if it is. You should also have been served with the evidence that the police intend to rely on to convict you. Do you have this? If so, what does it consist of?

[islandgirl]

It was a voluntary interview wherever it took place and should not have been done without a solicitor. That was a huge mistake although understandable if you have had no dealings with the police in the past.

[M.lorrimer]

Thanks for the replies. Sorry, I don't know how to do the blue quote bubble, so, I'll just reply in paragraphs.

No, cars going uphill have right of way. Although, I was already maneuvering around the parked car, as their car came down the road (if that matters).

I guess I am going to be bias, as to me, I was just passing a parked car. I was finishing maneuvering, they should of stopped and waited completely, not slowed to a walking pace as they've stated. The officer stated the dash cam shows, me, driving around a parked car and then continue to drive along the wrong side of the road before crashing head on into the other car. Can it be interpretted differently? To me, I was finishing going around the parked car, I hadn't started to move over yet, not that I was just driving in the middle of the road. Is there a certain amount of time I've got to maneuver back? I didn't want to clip the parked car. Maybe I was overly cautious going around, too wide, too long, I don't know, I don't think it should be classed as careless driving. Also, to add, it states head on crash. The damage to my car was the corner driver, the headlights, etc. The middle of their bonnet was dented in. Wouldn't my damage be on the bonnet also, not to the side? Sorry, could go on forever I suppose. I was so sure, but I'm just doubting myself reading what they've said now.

Yes, the letter is the SJPN and the charge is: Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road / in a public place without due care and attention.

I haven't been served anything other than this SJPN. The contents don't specifically say anywhere what they would be using. It contains; the charge itself and the plea form to return, the statement from the officer, and the statement from the driver of the other vehicle, and then my interview at the end. If I'm understanding your question correctly.

I thought voluntary interview was different to been questioned. If I'd have known, I wouldn't have done it at home, alone, believe me. Also, I now have my own dash cam. I was stupid to not already have one really.

[HandyAndy]

No, cars going uphill have right of way.

Do they? If you're going to cite that as part of your defence you need to be able to quote a source for it. I can't immediately think of one.

The two statements are undoubtedly what they will be relying on to convict you. The choice for you is do you plead guilty or do you defend the charge at trial. Only you can decide, but bear in mind the definition of "careless driving."

The cost of each option? Pleading guilty you will face an income related fine which will be reduced by a third for your guilty plea. You will also pay a "Victim Surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs of about £90. If you are found guilty following a trial there will be no discount on the fine and prosecution costs will probably be £620. The penalty points will be identical in either case, minimum three, maximum nine. The alternative of a ban is also an option to the court though I see no reason why one should be imposed.

[M.lorrimer]

Again, thank you for responding.

I found this, if that would be classed as adequate:

"Driving on hills, in particular, brings its unique challenges. The UK’s Highway Code Rule 155 advises drivers to yield to vehicles ascending a hill when feasible. This is because a vehicle moving uphill may find it harder to regain momentum if forced to stop, increasing the risk of accidents."

Also:

"Rule 163 of the Highway Code: Give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles. However, this rule is qualified by another rule: commitment. If you’ve already started your overtake, oncoming traffic should give way to you. Likewise, if an oncoming driver has committed to an overtake, you should give way to them. In either instance, which side of the road the vehicles are parked on doesn’t matter.

I thought the dash cam would what they would be ultimately relying on? Couldn't statements just be argued as he said, she said?

Thank you for clarifying what might happen going forward, it's much appreciated.

[islandgirl]

You could get a free 30 min meeting with a solicitor to help you decide?

[M.lorrimer]

Yes. I think I will. Thank you, again, too.

[HandyAndy]

Rule 155 relates to single track roads. You could argue that the principle should apply in your circumstances because the reason for the rule (that vehicles travelling uphill would have more difficulty regaining momentum) would be equally valid. Of course even if you can establish that you had the "right of way" it does not give you carte blanche to plough on, regardless of what the other driver might have done.

I thought the dash cam would what they would be ultimately relying on?

Of course offences like this were successfully prosecuted before dashcams were invented, often simply on witness statements.

Couldn't statements just be argued as he said, she said?

Yes they could (and almost certainly would). That's where the court comes in. It must decide which evidence they prefer. Where there is conflicting evidence (as there almost invariably is) the court must be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence was committed.

What concerns me about this is that the police have seen fit to charge you. From your description it seems to be very much an "accident". Two drivers, not quite grasping what the other might do, each perhaps guilty of misjudgement. These incidents are often the result of careless driving (in the legal sense) but where there is doubt as to liability the police do not usually choose one driver or the other to prosecute. But they've charge only you (I assume it's only you) with careless driving. That's what makes me think they may have taken a slightly different slant on the incident than you.

[Manxman]

HandyAndy and islandgirl - apologies if I'm wrong, but doesn't driving without due care etc require a NIP within 14 days?

It would appear that police attended at the scene, but - according to the OP's account - they weren't told at the time that they could be prosecuted.

Is DWCA one of those offences that doesn't require a 14 day NIP? (Assuming the driver wasn't warned of possible prosecution at the time)

[HandyAndy]

Is DWCA one of those offences that doesn't require a 14 day NIP? (Assuming the driver wasn't warned of possible prosecution at the time)

.

No NIP is required if an accident has occurred (Road Traffic Offenders' Act, s2(1))

[Manxman]

.

No NIP is required if an accident has occurred (Road Traffic Offenders' Act, s2(1))

Thanks.

One other thing. If I've understood correctly the OP has twice posted that the police have told him that dashcam evidence exists and that it shows him committing the offence. Shouldn't that evidence be disclosed to the OP when he receives the SJPN?

If he's been told it exists and that it shows an offence, should he be a little suspicious if it hasn't disclosed?

From post #5: "...The officer stated the dash cam shows, me, driving around a parked car and then continue to drive along the wrong side of the road before crashing head on into the other car. Can it be interpretted differently?..."

(Of course I may have misunderstood what the OP was saying...)

[islandgirl]

If he pleads not guilty and the footage exisits he will be entitled to see it well in advance of the trial. No idea if he has any entitlement to see it at this stage but would doubt it under the SJPN system, His solicitor will be able to advise

[HandyAndy]

If he pleads not guilty and the footage exisits he will be entitled to see it well in advance of the trial.

Only if the police intend to rely on it to convict him (though I can't imagine why they would not). But if they don't it should be listed on the schedule of "unused material". The defendant should be served with that schedule and he must make an application to the court for it to be provided. He must persuade them that it either assists his case or undermines the prosecution's. It will be for the court to decide if it is to be provided.

CCTV footage and the like is not usually provided at the SJPN stage. The Criminal Procedure rules say that (if it is to be relied upon) it should be served as part of the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" before the first hearing.