My rights as a supsect.......

I believe that most consults with solicitors offer the first 30 minutes free.
After that initial consult, the charges begin.
Phone around various law firms and ask if you can get a free initial (30 minute) consult.

Also. DONOT trust the Police. ABSOLUTELY DONOT TRUST THE POLICE I cannot emphasize this enough. It is in their nature to treat you as guilty until proved innocent. They have already stated that they are treating you as a suspect.

If need be, you have the right to remain silent...never, ever forget this part. The Police hate it if you choose to remain silent and if they have no witnesses. At present, I believe it is your word against the BMW driver's, so I think the case can only proceed if you admit to causing criminal damage. If they can get footage of you causing criminal damage though, that'll be the nail in the coffin, otherwise, DONOT tell them that you may have kicked his car. That small statement may be all they need. Be careful with your words, as every word you say WILL be used against you, if they can make you look guilty.

I've seen in my time, Police attempt to stitch up a (partially) innocent guy, in a case which I gave evidence in. Luckily for him, he got off. Ever since that case, I have no trust whatsoever in the Police and especially the CPS.

I used to work for a train company and they normally keep video tapes for about 1 month, before they get rotated and taped over, so you may no longer have access to the video tapes.

I do feel that it is a bit "off" for them to ask you to travel 30 miles to their Police station. You might ask if you can give a statement in your local Police station as you cannot afford the time/cost to travel 30 miles.

There might be Police officers/solicitors on this forum, who might be able to offer you some advice on what your rights are.

In any case, if you genuinely are innocent, I hope this all goes away. This is a hassle that most people can do without.
 
what is the relevance of him owning a BMW? seems like you have a thing against BMW to start with.

your story seems strange though. how did you not notice a car? don't you look both ways before crossing a road? don't understand how you can get hit, not get hurt, and maybe damage his car? did you actually kick it because you thought he impeded on your right of way? which may explain why the driver confronted you. but i doubt you would openly say that on a forum. if he had almost hit you because he hadn't seen you and was driving like a mad man, then how would have he been able to identify you on the platform?

have you talked to the other commuter? was that person also contacted by the police?

that said if it's a zebra crossing then you have the right of way, but doesn't give you the right to kick a car

sounds to me like both you and the driver were wrong

i apologize if i sound like the devil's advocate. but i find that more often than not, crossing pedestrians feel like they own the road (i do except when i see a public bus), whereas most drivers are usually very warry of pedestrians since they know no matter what they will be in the wrong. so for him to seek ciminal damages there must be something more to it than what you say. otherwise the guy is nuts to bring attention to this matter to the police

anyway get a lawyer and CCTV if available. as others said do not trust the police under any circumstances - they want quick and easy convictions, the truth does not interest them. there is no justice in justice system, it is only the application of law. serious offenders get off and innocent get screwed, not always but it happens.
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
He did report the original incident though, seeing as you've got a witness to it all I can't see any reason why you should worry about speaking to the police.
Click to expand...

.... and do it RIGHT NOW !

BMW ****** is more worried about a dent than human life.... do it... do it now ... Less beemers on the road = better quality of life for the rest of us :D

( ps don't get get your rant on Fox :p )
 
Last edited:
Von Smallhausen said:
It's not as if lying, falsifying evidence, perverting justice and perjury are taken lightly and without consequence is it ?
Click to expand...
They certainly made me feel like the guilty one after some of my property which had been stolen was damaged while they kept it for evidence. They basically lied and accused me of trying to wrangle compensation out of them, whilst I knew fine well the good were not damaged when they were first recovered as I had to inspect/identify them.
I ended up around a £1000 down because of them, on top of the £3000 im down from the other stolen goods.

After many months of trying to get somewhere and them mostly ignoring my letters, I gave up. I wouldn't trust them at all now.
 
Sorry, Von. But I've seen it first hand. The Police "twist" words. They won't change the facts but witness testimonies can be given a slant, in order to make someone sound guilty. Even an innocent action can made to sound sinister.

Regardless of what you say, my mind cannot be changed as I have seen it happen first hand. I was absolutely shocked when the guy involved in the incident I witnessed was charged with something quite serious. I honestly couldn't believe it.

At the end of the day, the OP has to take care of No.1 (ie. himself). If that means being defensive though-out the case, then so be it.

If the OP is innocent, he has every right to be defensive and trust only his own team (ie. himself and his own solicitor). Only an idiot would trust the Police who have already stated clearly that they are treating him as a suspect. I mean honestly, they can't make it any more clear than that.
 
And what did you do about it ?

I ask because is a copper tried to twist my words, bend evidence and remotely try and stitch me then I wouldn't roll over and take it.

In over 11 years, I have been straight as an arrow and haven't done too badly as a result. Not once, not ever would I falsify and bend evidence for a result because I'm honest, have a mortgage, have a little un and I don't risk that for anything.

At the OP, I agree entirely he should take legal advice but generalisations against the police irk me at times although that isn't a dig at you.
 
Don't worry too much, if the have anything on you they will arrest you if not they will just drop it.

If you do get arrested then get proper legal representation. There is no point wasting 150 quid per hour if nothing is going to come of it.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

why did you not report the Hit and Run to the BTP instead of your local police station?

Also how did you manage to accidentally hit the car with your foot?
 
Dr House said:
If you do get arrested then get proper legal representation. There is no point wasting 150 quid per hour if nothing is going to come of it.
Click to expand...

If he does get arrested, he will definitely be entitled to legal representation, in which case during the interview, he can simply ask for the on-duty solicitor to sit-in with him.

The problem here is that they are saying that they won't arrest him and that they want him to attend of his own accord. In this situation, I'm not sure if he is entitled to free legal representation. Perhaps someone can clear this up?
 
As above get a lawyer, you are describing almost exactly what a friend went through last year. Although this was not on a crossing he was on his bike. The car hit him straight off not looking where he was going on a slow dual carriageway in town, and then took his reg and said that my friend had purposefully rammed him (sounds stupid as it caused damage to his bike and hurt him quite a bit, but the police initially took the guys side!)

Anyway after about 6 months, the guy was at fault as far as the police were concerned, and during the very rare and shocking APOLOGY (yes thats right folks) that he recieved, the police officer in question said that it is not uncommon for people to lie and divert blame, as not to suffer the consequences of their actions.

This could very well be what hes doing, and from what I hear he has committed the following crimes....

Stalking.
Taking your picture and using it without your consent.
Report him under the Anti social behaviour order for kicking off in the train station. :D

And some others relating to the accident:

CD10 Driving without due care and attention
AC10 Failing to stop after an accident
DD40 Dangerous driving
DR90 As he was clearly high while flailing about like a pixie taking pictures of train passengers for his collection.

And finally MS60 (Not covered by other codes) for being an absolute ***.

Seriously though, my mate went for this informal chat/voluntary interview and it was described as a mauling. Trust me, even if its just talking to an advice bureau, you need to make sure your in the know before you go.

EDIT: Oh and failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing!
 
Sorry for posting yet again, but i still cant believe the guy basically almost run you over and is now doing you for criminal damage....:/
 
Von Smallhausen said:
And what did you do about it ?
Click to expand...

I gave evidence in Court and as I was the closest and best witness to the incident, my testimony held greatest weight. They barrister asked me point blank if I saw the defendant do what he was accused of...I said, "no".

I think because of my testimony, the guy got off.


What I've noticed is that the Police will give every statement a sinister slant.

An example:
The truth: the defendant was walking along the street, reading a newspaper, and from time to time looked up to see where he was walking.

The Police's version: the defendant was walking along the street. From time to time, he was looking around him, in what appeared to be a nervous fashion, to check who was around him.

Now, the Police's version is not incorrect...however, it gives the defendant's innocent actions, a sinister slant.

This is where your own defence attorney comes in to play...where he can then ask the Police officer that "would it not be normal to be looking where you are going, if you are reading a newspaper and in otherwords, the behaviour of the defendant was actually normal, considering the circumstances".

A jury or judge (and their decision) can be swayed by the slight play in words.
 
Chris. said:
Seriously though, my mate went for this informal chat/voluntary interview and it was described as a mauling.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing an informal chat/interview?
If they are taking notes or recording the interview, then anything you say can land you right in "it". It's always best to say nothing until you have a solicitor sitting in with you.

You always have the right to remain silent. NEVER ever forget this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom