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

Sgarrista
Commissario
OP
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
8,921
Location
Bromsgrove
Damn, thought id have to smuggle you in an arse phone and some spice by now.

Haha.

So I can share some more details now as ive been informed that all the documents have been organized by a court lawyer from both sides and are ready for a judge to review.

Basically to review a Section 59 it has to fall under 3 reasons, unlawfulness, irrationality and unfairness.

For the point of my claim I filed under unlawfulness, in that the Section 59 was unlawfully issued because the standards to issue it were not met. Obviously the police backed their own and for all intents and purposes refused to speak to me except to review BWV of after they stopped me.

They refused to provide any BWV or Car footage of the alleged incident (later claiming it doesnt exist) and then eventually sent some mute video of where they pulled up to my car at a set of lights. A second BWV of another officer has also mysteriously disappeared. All this has been highlighted to the court.

So it then comes down to the statement of 1 officer (the others refused to give statements), whos evidence has all gone missing despite my immediate request to have it preserved, vs my statement and representations.

After months of to-and-fro they also changed their tune from "inconsiderate driving" to try and also add in "careless driving". This seemed to happen when the legal department got involved, no doubt as they know inconsiderate driving has a well defined standard as laid out in Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.

Accordingly I have also pointed out the change to the court and asked them to review if that is appropriate for the police to do.

Ultimately it comes down to the following points that the judge will review and decide on:

1) Did my driving cause actual inconvenience (the legal meaning of it, not what you will think) to anyone and can that be demonstrated.
2) Is that driving causing, or likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.
3) If 1 is found in my favor, the judge will also have to decide if 3 months down the line if it is appropriate for the police to change it to a broader charge of "contravening section 3 of the RTA" including careless driving.
4) If the judge Agrees with me on 1 but the police on 3 then they will also need to consider was my driving careless.

So basically theres a matrix of outcomes.

If I win 2 then I win my case regardless of the others.
If I win 1 then lose 2, 3 needs to be considered.
If I win 1, lose 2, lose 3, then 4 will decide the winner.
But if I win 1, lose 2 and win 3 then I win also.


Ultimately, it could go either way as a review gets very specific. In my mind and heart I know I did nothing wrong or dangerous, and hope the judge agrees with me. However if I lose then it just means gotta be on good behavior for another 7 months, not that I've changed my driving at all following this so its a case of "yea whatever".

I have also represented myself in all this (insert fool of a client quote here), and have picked up a huge amount of knowledge by doing so, so in that regard has been time well spent. Have also picked up a dash cam system I can install stealth on the car should anything further happen.
 
Sgarrista
Commissario
OP
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
8,921
Location
Bromsgrove
Here is the shocking footage of a maniac lamborghini driver.

Yes, this is the quality of video they sent me. Conveniently with no sound as this would prove I wasnt revving the engine at the lights (those who have seen when I rev the car it violently shakes, and that isnt in the video) and would also mean the police officer lied about it and would then be an unreliable witness and the case would be instantly found in my favor.


 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
83,158
Weird line they take pulling up on you - seems totally unnecessary like they already had a problem with you just for existing.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
42,751
Location
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Police can refuse to give statements? I thought they had too much paperwork these days so shouldn't they already have given them as evidence against you anyway?

you should cover your car in gopros or whatever cameras for the next time it happens
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
10,615
Regardless of any opinions, I'm not sure the judge will take kindly to large parts of evidence just disappearing. Luckily this is only a minor case, but imagine the same practices for a murder case - it would be absolute shambles.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Feb 2009
Posts
4,380
Location
South Wirral
Total layman viewpoint, but from those two videos I notice that A) You're in the left hand lane when either could be used to go straight on and B) You've left a good half to three quarter car length gap to the car in front. Those two (to me) are behaviours not indicative of someone driving like an aggressive knobber. They seem utterly pointless as "evidence" for what you're being accused of.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
19,607
Location
In the middle
Weird that the officers involved can refuse to give statements, probably with zero comeback. Hardly inspires confidence in them.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
28,915
Location
Shropshire
Weird that the officers involved can refuse to give statements, probably with zero comeback. Hardly inspires confidence in them.
I guess it's the same way Joe Bloggs can "No comment" an interview, it can be done but it's not going to be looked at favourably by the judge.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,922
Location
Northern England
Weird that the officers involved can refuse to give statements, probably with zero comeback. Hardly inspires confidence in them.

I had the same years back. My dad was pulled over for being on his phone. He wasn't. His phone was in a bag in the boot of the car.
Three officers in two cars. It was one of the officers in the double crewed car that claimed she'd seen him talking on it.
He went to court over it and the two other officers refused to submit a statement, despite all 3 being out of their cars and grilling him at the time.
Case was thrown out because we were able to prove the officer was a liar. She claimed she'd seen him on the phone from a distance of about 10m. We proved the closest she could have been beforehand was over 40m away (it was a very large roundabout). I worked for a phone company at the time and was able to get his records to show no phone activity had taken place on his mobile within the time frame given by the officer.
He'd offered to get his phone out of his bag at the time and the officer refused him the opportunity saying he'd dropped it down next to the seat yet no search had taken place to show that to be the case.

The judge didn't call her a liar but made it very clear that's what he thought she was.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Posts
2,636
Here is the shocking footage of a maniac lamborghini driver.

Yes, this is the quality of video they sent me. Conveniently with no sound as this would prove I wasnt revving the engine at the lights (those who have seen when I rev the car it violently shakes, and that isnt in the video) and would also mean the police officer lied about it and would then be an unreliable witness and the case would be instantly found in my favor.



Hanging is too good for the likes of you :(
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
22,857
Plot twist
The police manage to convince the judge of this...
2) Is that driving causing, or likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

By submitting the posts above out of context, as serious concerns from members of the public :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
42,032
I hope you win, these officers are a disgrace. You should have gotten out and sat on the road, they’d be powerless to intervene :p

Keep us updated :)

Surely the judge just throws this out? That footage is the most pointless thing I’ve seen. They’ll probably try and blame you for knocking down that road sign :D

I love how as they go by it says ‘0 mph’ the whole time. Your a danger to us all.

Weird line they take pulling up on you - seems totally unnecessary like they already had a problem with you just for existing.

That would be a combination of jealousy and being on a power trip. Knowing a few of my ‘friends’ who became police officers, I could completely see this happening.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2004
Posts
10,220
Location
Kent
Will there be any reprimand for the officers involved (assuming you win your case, which seems likely)? It would feel a bit galling if they can completely fabricate a story based on nothing, presumably just out of spite, and not have to suffer any consequences. These aren't the sort of people who should have any business enforcing the law.
 
OcUK Staff
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
36,097
Location
OcUK HQ
Will there be any reprimand for the officers involved (assuming you win your case, which seems likely)? It would feel a bit galling if they can completely fabricate a story based on nothing, presumably just out of spite, and not have to suffer any consequences. These aren't the sort of people who should have any business enforcing the law.

Agreed their definitely needs to be some form of disciplinary action for officers who essentially seem to bully or abuse their power because of jealousy or power tripping. These officers must of seriously been in a bad mood to pick on you that day or just jealous idiots.

I've done far worse, I've raced officers from the line and overtook them doing 90mph plus on the motorway, the first action got me a thumbs up, the second action got me a death stare, nothing came from either.
 
Sgarrista
Commissario
OP
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
8,921
Location
Bromsgrove
Surely the judge just throws this out? That footage is the most pointless thing I’ve seen. They’ll probably try and blame you for knocking down that road sign :D

And ironically that also is why this goes from a slam dunk win for me to a 50/50. Basically all "evidence" which would have shown the "offense" has disappeared.
 
Top Bottom