[Tom_77]

I submitted a video to Hampshire police back in January. Didn’t hear anything more about it until yesterday when I got an email saying it was going to court, so I may have to attend and give evidence. Has anyone here had to give evidence in court? What’s it like?

I’ve been in court once before, but that was as a juror in a Scottish court and a very long time ago.

Topic

[richliv]

My wife is a magistrate on
My wife is a magistrate on the Bath bench, reservist these days but will probably return. Magistrates have a whole host of guidelines and strictures so it’s balancing those and working out who is telling the whole truth and who is not. Not v easy at times but in her experience, the magistracy are not the conservative fogeys they used to be thought to be, so, bottom line, tell the truth and try to be sincere about it, is her advice.

[Tom_77]

A brief update – the first

A brief update – the first hearing was on Monday, I didn’t attend. I haven’t been told the outcome of the hearing yet, so I don’t know if I’ll be required to give evidence.

Emailed to ask what happened at the hearing, they said they’ll chase it up for me if I still haven’t heard anything in a couple of weeks. Trying to remain patient.

[Daveyraveygravey]

markieteeee wrote:

When I did jury service, I got the opposite impression. I sat on 5 or 6 cases over the course of two weeks and only one was found guilty (and that was on a split decision as we could not reach a unanimous verdict – I didn’t think the prosection had proven the case at all). Three were thrown out by the judge and you could tell they were going to be very early on. The others were unanimous not guilty. I came away from the experience thinking that if I was ever falsely accused of anything, I would defend myself and save the money on a defence because the cases were mostly a waste of court time. 

I’ve done jury service twice, once in Leeds maybe 25 years ago, and then more recently in Hove.  Both times, we got through 3 cases, all were unanimous, guilty.  One caused a lot of debate, and I think it was 10-2 for a while, but someone put up a convincing argument and they changed their mind.

[Recoveryride]

To add to the chorus below, I

To add to the chorus below, I was a pedestrian witness to a (non-cycling-related) traffic accident many years ago now, probably about 15 from memory. The police took my statement at the scene (basically ‘the bloke came over the brow of the hill far too fast and rear-ended the car on the other side that was stuck behind someone waiting to turn right’).

Months later (6?) I got a letter telling me I’d be needed in court in about a month’s time.  A week later, I got another letter telling me the case had been dropped. No explanation was offered.

I think such is the pressure on the court system, the CPS and police are keen to resolve what they regard as non-serious matters outside of court wherever possible. While that is itself understandable, in the case of incidents against cyclists that regrettably often means simply ‘warning’ the offender. Quite why they can’t just issue 3 points in those cases is beyond me, but that’s a separate issue.

[markieteeee]

When I did jury service, I

When I did jury service, I got the opposite impression. I sat on 5 or 6 cases over the course of two weeks and only one was found guilty (and that was on a split decision as we could not reach a unanimous verdict – I didn’t think the prosection had proven the case at all). Three were thrown out by the judge and you could tell they were going to be very early on. The others were unanimous not guilty. I came away from the experience thinking that if I was ever falsely accused of anything, I would defend myself and save the money on a defence because the cases were mostly a waste of court time. 

[Daveyraveygravey]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Well, this was my experience today… I was in court as a witness against the driver in this incident, which some may recall from a while ago as NMOTD 549 on here. He was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that “there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving.” The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterise as “veering wildly into my right of way”). The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in “an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway”. But here’s the real kicker: he claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 m behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was “completely untrue” (he should have a word with the missus, who was 40 m behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was “two to three metres ahead” when I pulled out. Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I’m not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second. As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 m ahead of him when I pulled out, he would’ve had no alternative but to have hit me, it’s literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 m behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would’ve had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that. The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable. Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them. It does make one wonder if it’s actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjU4cQRnPs0

 

Christ that is depressing.  Wonder if the three beaks got together and thought they might not be the best drivers in the world, and perhaps they shouldn’t drive home pissed after their massive lunches/bridge nights, so they better throw this cycling story out of court?

My original post was going to be about doing jury service recently, and the feeling that if the police and CPS have actually got a case as far as court, they are pretty damn certain they will get a conviction. 

[Anonymous]

I’ve been to magistrates

I’ve been to magistrates court on a non-criminal matter before and what I’d say is that the presentational aspect of the case shouldn’t be underestimated (there were 3 magistrates, don’t know if that’s standard for criminal). Make sure you dress smartly (I don’t mean you have to wear a suit but look smart-casual at least, it just makes you more credible) and speak properly, maintaining good eye contact and a serious but personable and polite persona. Try not to be drawn into any arguments or squabbling matches with the opposing legal team and just take it easy, relax and don’t worry.

[Rendel Harris]

Well, this was my experience

Well, this was my experience today… I was in court as a witness against the driver in this incident, which some may recall from a while ago as NMOTD 549 on here. He was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that “there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving.” The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterise as “veering wildly into my right of way”). The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in “an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway”. But here’s the real kicker: he claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 m behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was “completely untrue” (he should have a word with the missus, who was 40 m behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was “two to three metres ahead” when I pulled out. Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I’m not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second. As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 m ahead of him when I pulled out, he would’ve had no alternative but to have hit me, it’s literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 m behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would’ve had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that. The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable. Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them. It does make one wonder if it’s actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjU4cQRnPs0

[Dave Dave]

https://3lib.net/book/5869963

https://3lib.net/book/5869963/41dcb8

There’s a good section on magistrates courts in that book. 

[SaveTheWail]

I’d be less surprised if they

I’d be less surprised if they hadn’t heard anything, ever.  Just surprised that the police don’t let you know sooner that the video is required – don’t they have to review the footage within two weeks or something?  Or do they leave it six months in the hope that you won’t have the video any more?  Derbyshire police’s portal tells you that you will not get a response from them, as they have far too many videos to review…

[SaveTheWail]

I know; I have it set to loop

I know; I have it set to loop and I have been deleting all the files which are of no interest, but it’s a pain to have to keep doing that whilst ensuring I don’t delete the required files.  (Admittedly, that’s only one file so far, but it is rare to go out without encountering some report-worthy driving, so six months’ worth could become a significant number.)  I’m just wondering what would happen if they told me it was going to court and I didn’t have the file.

I’ve just bought a head-strap mount to see if that will work – I didn’t really want it on my head/helmet because (a) I often use a helmet cover because it’s mostly cold or raining, and (b) it’s a bit heavy.

 

[wtjs]

You didn’t hear anything for

You didn’t hear anything for six months??

Why the surprise?! The police and CPS, in Lancashire at least, are trying to get rid of cases involving cyclists by fair means or foul. Here, you will rarely hear anything, they’re settling nearly all cases by ultra-joke ‘words of advice’, super joke ‘warning letter’ and joke ‘driving course online’, but they won’t tell the cyclist anything because they don’t want you to know the above.

[Hirsute]

They are designed to be fixed

They are designed to be fixed to a helmet and I think they were more aimed at motorcyclists than cyclists.

You don’t need hundreds of SD cards, you can set up the loop function and only record the incidents you require, so I’d have thought 3 would be fine as few cases get as far as court.

[SaveTheWail]

You didn’t hear anything for

You didn’t hear anything for six months??   When I submitted a video to Derbyshire police, it said you need to keep the video, on the original recording device, in case it goes to court.  I assumed they would inform you of this in reasonable time, say two weeks.  I record many examples of bad driving and I am not buying hundreds of SD cards to keep to one side just in case I get asked for them several months later!  (I have only submitted one so far because I’m having difficulty with the camera – it’s a Ghost XL without image stabilisation, handlebar-mounted, and the registration numbers are rarely legible.)

[Tom_77]

Thanks for the responses.

Thanks for the responses.

I’ll post an update when I find out what’s happening.

[Author]

Replies