[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

[Steve K]

mdavidford wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Being interviewed (even under caution) is very much not the same as being charged.

Ok – would they interview me under caution in those circumstances.

[the little onion]

Apparently self-defence

Apparently self-defence applies here. So as I used the “f-bomb” as an alarm call to get the driver to not hit me, then I presume this is a reasonable defence. Will speak to a solicitor.

[Hirsute]

That’s the wording of the law
That’s the wording of the law.
Wouldn’t you want your solicitor to demonstrate that your defence met the legal requirements?

[mdavidford]

There’s a complaint to be

There’s a complaint to be investigated; the result of that investigation determines whether they think that there’s a crime to pursue charges for.

[wtjs]

The police are taking it

The police are taking it further with the driver, apparently…

That’s what the police want you to think- the ‘taking it further’ will, at best, likely be another letter to hang on a nail in the toilet with all the others or, more likely, nothing at all

[Benthic]

This action is symptomatic of

This action is symptomatic of an organisation which is overstaffed and overfunded.

[Benthic]

The defence is under no

The defence is under no obligation to prove anything.

[Benthic]

If there’s no crime to

If there’s no crime to investigate then why bother with an interview?

[mdavidford]

Being interviewed (even under

Being interviewed (even under caution) is very much not the same as being charged.

[Steve K]

If someone swung a baseball

If someone swung a baseball bat near my head and I swore at them for doing so, would the police charge me with a public order offence?  It’s ridiculous.

[Steve K]

Hirsute wrote:

If you are on twitter @markandcharlie Recently retired top road cop sympathetic to cyclists. Pretty sure he has made comments on this sort of issue.

edit:

“Anyone ever worrying about swearing on #3rdpartyreporting videos just listen to how many bleeps that have to put over my bodycam footage at the end of this “

https://x.com/markandcharlie/status/1511382988344508423

Good advice – if you are straying on to twitter, you might drop a DM to Rory McCarron @CyclingLawLDN and see if he has any advice.

[Tom_77]

the little onion wrote:

Well, for the initial two instances of swearing, it was more a “F – off”, as a distressed shout when I suddenly found someone driving about 10cm from my elbow, trying to squeeze me against a barrier. The second two F-bombs came less than 5 seconds later when the driver wound down the window to call me a “f-ing danger”, and which I pointed out where the real “f-ing danger” was. 

 

To my mind, there is absolutely not a case for me to answer. The driver is deluded in pursuing this. My worry is why the police have chosen to pursue this.

See Section 4A under https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

AIUI, the prosecution would need to prove that your words caused harassment, alarm or distress to the driver. But if he has used the same language, I don’t see how he can claim to find such language distressing.

I’m assuming nobody else was in ear shot.

[GMBasix]

If you are to be interviewed

If you are to be interviewed under caution, make sure they are providing you with a lawyer, and make sure you have conferred with the lawyer before answering any questions other than basic identity questions. Even [especially] casual, off-the-cuff, ‘inconsequential’ questions, (“… and you’re here to discuss your swearing, aren’t you?).

Don’t be tempted to give any preliminary answers, because they may stray into territory you haven’t been advised on beforehand.

Don’t be tempted to answer ‘no comment’ except where your solicitor has advised you to…

The prescribed caution read to you will say, 

“You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”

You are unlikely to know when it may or may not harm your defence to say nothing, but I suggest it is less likely to harm you if you can say you were acting on legal advice to say nothing.

I would hazard a guess that any leverage from your interview under caution to lead to an outcome that is ‘6 of 1/…’ is likely to lead to the police taking NFA. Your solicitor should be able to find a path to dismiss the ‘public order’ nonsense consideration out of hand while retaining the prosecution of the driver.

Your solicitor is also the better person to be asking counter-questions in an interview – when did the notion of a public order offence arise? what do they expect somebody who feels their life at risk to say? Your solicitor can be argumentative because they are not part of the equation. You need to appear very reasonable and unriled in all but the most life-threatening circumstances.

In all moments, you need to have in your mind the ‘Yeronna’ test… “and that is why I said that at that moment, Yeronna.”

HTH (IANAL)

[the little onion]

Well, for the initial two

Well, for the initial two instances of swearing, it was more a “F – off”, as a distressed shout when I suddenly found someone driving about 10cm from my elbow, trying to squeeze me against a barrier. The second two F-bombs came less than 5 seconds later when the driver wound down the window to call me a “f-ing danger”, and which I pointed out where the real “f-ing danger” was. 

 

To my mind, there is absolutely not a case for me to answer. The driver is deluded in pursuing this. My worry is why the police have chosen to pursue this.

[levestane]

You were not swearing at the

You were not swearing at the driver but as a stress response to their actions.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10171984/

“The current study contributed to the existing body of scientific knowledge by correlating profanity with stress, anxiety, and depression. The study viewed the positive effects of profanity similar to the role of self-defense mechanisms in releasing psychological distress. Furthering the existing studies on pain and stress management, the current study highlighted the cathartic role of profanity in stress, anxiety, and depression as well.”

[Author]

Replies