[the little onion]

So here’s an odd one. Just posting it here for any advice, though as a CyclingUK member, I’ll also contact them to hear their view.

 

I was close passed in a really bad way a while back – basically, nearly squeezed between a barrier and a badly driven car. During the process, I “dropped the f-bomb” four times. I submitted the footage to the police, including an apologetic note for my language in the footage. The police are taking it further with the driver, apparently, but the driver has now complained that I was using foul and abusive language, and thus a public order offence. I’m now going to be interviewed under caution for a public order offence!

 

I’ve sent some footage to the police before which has included some fruity language, but never had anything like this before. Frankly, the whole thing is embarrasing that this has been taken this far. Surely there is no public interest in pursuing someone who lets their language standards dropped when narrowly escaping a serious road incident?

 

Any thoughts or advice welcome.

Topic

[wtjs]

I did think it would be very

I did think it would be very difficult for me to despise the police any more- difficult, but not impossible as this case demonstrates. It all resembles the police and hyper-junk press outrage at cyclists passing traffic lights at red, with demands that the full wrath of the law be set upon them, while these offences below go completely ignored, and therefore approved, by Lancashire police because ‘everybody does it’

https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/pl68tev_polo_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/da21sww_leon_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/kl04ndo_vw_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/jo55chb_kiasportage_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/

[hawkinspeter]

HoarseMann wrote:

This won’t involve a jury, it’ll be heard in front of a magistrate. They will likely be more matter of fact of whether the evidence meets the threshold for the offence. I’d be talking to a solicitor.

That could be interesting. The swearing itself would be a matter of fact, but whether or not the driver was “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby” is more an opinion.

[HoarseMann]

the little onion wrote:

I don’t know what the condition was. Didn’t find out. I remain gobsmacked. 

I don’t know if the CPS is going to take this further. I’ll keep people updated. It will be a magistrates court in any case.

This is unlikely to go anywhere near the CPS. This offence is on the list of ‘police led prosecutions’ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-led-prosecution-list-of-offences

In a similar way that the Post Office was able to take postmasters to court over the Horizon fraud allegations, the Police are able to take offenders to court without oversight of the CPS for certain offences.

Whether this goes to court or not is likely to be a decision solely made by the officer dealing with your case and their senior.

I am also gobsmacked, but you can’t rely on the process to be reasonable unfortunately.

[the little onion]

HoarseMann wrote:

Blimey – a conditional caution is one up on a simple caution. What was the condition, don’t be the victim of dangerous driving again?

If you refuse the caution, I believe they are almost certain to take it to court:

15

 

I don’t know what the condition was. Didn’t find out. I remain gobsmacked. 

I don’t know if the CPS is going to take this further. I’ll keep people updated. It will be a magistrates court in any case.

[HoarseMann]

This won’t involve a jury, it

This won’t involve a jury, it’ll be heard in front of a magistrate. They will likely be more matter of fact of whether the evidence meets the threshold for the offence. I’d be talking to a solicitor.

[brooksby]

hawkinspeter wrote:

I can’t see it going to court, or if it does, I’m sure it’ll get thrown out as a complete waste of time. I can’t imagine any jury that wouldn’t just laugh at the idea that a driver was caused offense by their victim swearing.

Seems to me like they’re just trying it on to see if you’ll play nice and rollover for them.

Maybe little onion breathes fire or something, but I agree with your second point 😉

[HoarseMann]

Blimey – a conditional

Blimey – a conditional caution is one up on a simple caution. What was the condition, don’t be the victim of dangerous driving again?

If you refuse the caution, I believe they are almost certain to take it to court:

15.1.4 Where the offender indicates that they do not wish to accept the caution or any of the conditions at that stage, the case will be considered again by the decision maker who will determine whether alternative conditions are appropriate or whether the case should proceed to prosecution. Where it proves not to be possible to give the caution because it is not accepted or reasonable conditions are declined the offender should be charged with the offence. In such circumstances an alternative out of court disposal may not be offered.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/conditional-cautioning-adults-dpp-guidance

[hawkinspeter]

the little onion wrote:

Further update – they have offered me a conditional caution, which I have refused. I await to see if they take this to court. 

One other thing that really bothered me – as part of their evidence, they cited the fact that in the 50+ submissions that I have uploaded in recent years, four of them had swear words in them, and this was evidence that I’m a frequent offender. I had to point out that this same evidence indicated that in 90% of cases, I didn’t swear. I asked them if they had ever been in a dangerous road incident, and if so, did they swear. They admitted that they had been, and they did swear.

I know they are supposed to have a certain strategy of questioning, but that is ridiculous.

I can’t see it going to court, or if it does, I’m sure it’ll get thrown out as a complete waste of time. I can’t imagine any jury that wouldn’t just laugh at the idea that a driver was caused offense by their victim swearing.

Seems to me like they’re just trying it on to see if you’ll play nice and rollover for them.

[quiff]

the little onion wrote:

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about – in other incidents where people involuntarily swear, they sometimes NFA it based purely on what they mutter. The example was someone exclaiming “F***er” during a close pass

That’s what I was getting at – I wonder if would make any difference if it was “f***” (exclamation) rather than “f***er” (arguably directed at the individual). I suspect their reasoning doesn’t get into that level of detail though and, either way, it’s nonsense. But I will do my best to restrain my mouth in future…  

[the little onion]

Further update – they have

Further update – they have offered me a conditional caution, which I have refused. I await to see if they take this to court. 

 

One other thing that really bothered me – as part of their evidence, they cited the fact that in the 50+ submissions that I have uploaded in recent years, four of them had swear words in them, and this was evidence that I’m a frequent offender. I had to point out that this same evidence indicated that in 90% of cases, I didn’t swear. I asked them if they had ever been in a dangerous road incident, and if so, did they swear. They admitted that they had been, and they did swear.

I know they are supposed to have a certain strategy of questioning, but that is ridiculous.

[wtjs]

I suffered a close pass by a
I suffered a close pass by a BMW driver 2 or 3 years ago. 10 yards later he was stopped by temporary lights. It’s all on video: there’s no swearing at all by me, and he threatened to “fucking flatten” me and “you WILL be knocked off” your bike. The PC who was allocated the case almost immediately claimed to have been transferred to another station. I kept on harping on about it and over a month later, I received an email from the officer saying “I have spoken to the driver. He shouldn’t have spoken to you like that”. No mention of the close pass- all on video. That was it. This horror of swearing displayed by these precious, sheltered officers is simply a dodge which is only applied to cyclists and is transparently designed to get drivers off offences the police refuse to accept as ‘real’.

[the little onion]

Rendel Harris wrote:

the little onion wrote:

I await further information of whether I will be cautioned for a public order offense. I have no intention of accepting any caution.

Good for you, don’t!

I can’t work out whether they are still proceeding with action against the driver?

They have been issued with a NIP, which I think is for careless and inconsiderate driving. So probably 3 points on their license…. 

 

[Rendel Harris]

the little onion wrote:

I await further information of whether I will be cautioned for a public order offense. I have no intention of accepting any caution.

Good for you, don’t!

I can’t work out whether they are still proceeding with action against the driver?

[the little onion]

Hirsute wrote:

Does this mean no action against you ?

The rest is just an excuse to do nothing.

I await further information of whether I will be cautioned for a public order offense. I have no intention of accepting any caution.

[David9694]

This is a staggering case of

This is a staggering case of bothsiding by the police!!

[Author]

Replies