The Cryptolambo had gone to the moon... Time for Cryptolambo 2!!!

[kindai]

It is very hard to 'get offended' when you know full well you've taken this vehicle well over legal limits before.

If I ever get done for doing something genuinely wrong I'll stick my hands up and admit it. But I wont take it lying down for made up crap.

Little they could do, I was doing nothing wrong when they followed me bar a couple of MPH over in one part during an overtake and I took a really tight corner I know well at pace, but legal pace, which triggered them I feel. On came the blues and twos but police woman was spot on, friendly and non condescending which is refreshing too. Quiet night I felt.

Yep everything I did was in the legal limits.

Sounds like you got the arrogant sort. Worth a follow up if they had no cause.

Yea could tell he has a stick in his arse for the day the one who pulled me, the others didnt seem bothered.

 

[kindai]

Yes chaps, 6 coppers in 2 unmarked cars went in hot pursuit to pull this guy over

3 cars, one drove off before I got the pics.

 

[kindai]

attitude test

Attitude test went out the window when the first thing he did was caution me. At that point I am not going to be friendly with him nor say anything which *may* self incriminate, so my answers were short and relevant or no comment.

Given it now turns out based on a few hours of looking at case law and CPS guidelines, he doesnt have a leg to stand on, plus 3 cars and 6 coppers (intimidation factor?) (expecting me to gun it?) and the lovely fact that the only thing it can cost me at this point is some time and maybe some cash, then why not, nothing to lose.

 

[kindai]

Was the warning in the form of a Section 59?

Its a "Warning notice" form which states they could seize the vehicle within the next 12 months under section 59. Though doesnt seem to imply the form itself is a section 59 form.

Its labeled as PRA59W.

 

[kindai]

ACAB, without any facts or evidence I'm siding with the public over any cop, the police have too much motive to lie and too much of a history of it.

Innocent until proven guilty.

So I got an email off the police officer tonight stating that he would not discuss my "inconsiderate driving".

Accordingly I have put in a complaint and escalation to the duty inspector/chief inspector as the objective tests for issuing a S59 have failed.

Examples are provided by the CPS (https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences) include:

• overtaking on the inside;
• driving too close to another vehicle;
• driving through a red light by mistake;
• turning into the path of another vehicle;
• the driver being avoidably distracted by tuning the radio, lighting a cigarette etc.
• flashing lights to force other drivers to give way;
• misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers;
• unnecessarily staying in an overtaking lane;
• unnecessarily slow driving or braking;
• dazzling other drivers with un-dipped headlights.

In other words, and according to Section 3ZA a reasonable test would be as follows: "A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving".

Which, no other person was inconvenienced, as the area was otherwise devoid of people

AND

is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

To which, as the area was devoid of people, and was a short (2 second) blip of the throttle would fail to alarm distress or annoy anyone, with the officer also stating he would have been happy for me to rev the engine while stationary, so any noise-concerns are likewise gone.

 

[kindai]

I wish you the very best of luck but every tale on these lines I’ve heard from anyone or ever read online is the same - absolutely nothing will happen to undo what has been done.

I imagine nothing will, but who knows.

 

[kindai]

No point in cutting off your nose to spite your face - how on earth did you think giving them a the attitude would end well?

Lets just be clear, I was not disrespectful, but I was not chatty to them.

Its a lesson everyone should know. If you are under caution either STFU or make sure your statements are ironclad/accurate.

 

[kindai]

What do you mean you were 'under caution'? Interested as I only know that to be once you've had rights read to you/you're under arrest?

As soon as I got out the car they gave me the "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

 

[kindai]

Edit: why did you get out of the car?

They asked me to.

It sounds to me like they wanted to scare the hell out of kindai, shake him up a bit and see what fell out. People say all sorts of things and (under caution) all of that is admissible should they want to really take their pound of flesh. Underhanded perhaps but still...

Yup, they got nothing from me, after giving me the caution the first question was "can you explain why you drove like that" or words to that effect. Extremely vague and leaving the door open to shoot myself in the foot, even a "like what" statement could potentially be seen as driving without due care and attention.

I took a moment to think back about where id just driven, and how, so gave him "No comment" as nothing id done was wrong, I know he hadnt been following me until he caught up at some traffic lights.

Thats when the fishing expedition came, implied threats of various offenses and then when they know they have nothing to stand on, due to my tight lipped nature, they "settled on" the S59 warning for inconsiderate driving.

If nothing comes from my complaint, I might apply for permission for a Judicial Review, the application is cheap and apparently if granted, simply being given the permission is enough for most forces to overturn it.

 

[kindai]

"may harm your defence" bit

May harm your defence is if you say nothing even at court, the right to remain silent is absolute and saying nothing, is not, and can not, by law, be seen as an admission of guilt.

 

[kindai]

Well I've had some interesting correspondence back today.

At this stage I'm not going to post what it is exactly as I need to look at how best to use it, but I have in writing a statement that shows 4 of the officers have lied/made misleading statements to their senior officer as to how the car was being driven and/or actions related to it.

 

[kindai]

I am guessing you don't have a dash cam @kindai?

At this point I may invest in one, but no, on the way in and out if this Morisons theres a small road in and out with walls that makes a nice sound, so I just blipped the throttle down there before having to brake as you come upto a junction on a blind bend.

 

[kindai]

still have a hard time proving they lied.

This in theory should be a slam dunk, if I had a dashcam then I would prove it, but the evidence will be on the police cars cams at this point so just making inquiries how to ensure that footage doesnt mysteriously go missing before tipping my hand.

 

[kindai]

I'm not saying anything you did or did not do is wrong but seems very odd they would risk so much by lieing without knowing whether you had dashcam etc.

When I opened up the email I was absolutely flabbergasted at what was there.

It involves doing something with the car that I dont do, out of mechanical sympathy and also because I dont enjoy doing it and in general people who do it are absolute nobbers in my eyes.

 

[kindai]

What force is it?

West mercia.

I presented them with the evidence earlier today, despite previous emails (all of them) getting replies within 30 minutes. Its gone very quiet.

 

[kindai]

As of today, no reply to my last email.

I have also requested all footage from the cars and bodycams on my incident be saved for potential judicial review at the high court.

 

[kindai]

Not true, the uk courts can infer from your silence now days.


Mainly if you just say no comment then give facts supporting your version later in court they can infer you are lying as you should have mentioned those facts at the time.

That's what the last hit is about

You need to re-read what I posted.

Because your quote is about something different.

 

[kindai]

It's not an admission bit the jury can be directed to infer guilt by saying nothing at first. The bounds they can infer is also set by the judge

Also not true unless specific provisions allow for adverse inference are triggered, there are also numerous provisions which prevent adverse inference being applied.

But getting into the nitty gritty of trial procedure is missing the point of generally keeping your mouth shut.

 

[kindai]

Owing to any lack of reply, I am today drafting up my final letter before action to send to the station.

In addition to this, also putting together an official complaint against the 4 officers and their sergeant for failing to apply the law as per the guidelines set out. (I quoted the phrasing used by the CPS when applying inconsiderate driving, to be told "i dont agree with that interpretation", so if they arent using the official guidance, then what are they using to apply/hand out these warnings?!!?)

 

[kindai]

Kindai, you gonna be my prison wife?

As long as im top bunk.