Other Sports0 min ago
driving offence
hi, if i am stopped by police for a driving offence, then receive a court summons, do they have to list all evidence against me, statements, cctv ect. the reson i ask i all they have as evidence is the police officers statement, which has several key mistakes, date of offence, location of offence, 2 different drivers names listed. if they had cctv from the police vehicle, would they have to disclose that in the summons for the defense to look at before entering a plea?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ste777. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no, in english law innocent until proven guilty, if they want me to enter a plea, then surley they must tell me what evidence they have so i can defend against it as the eveidence may be incorrect, not wether i did it or not, its about my human rights to defend myself, police have lied and fabricated evidence loads of time, do you read the papers and watch the news? its suppose to be a fair trial, so does anyone know the answer to the question? without making daft answers up that gets us nowhere
-- answer removed --
It is not quite as straightforward as woolfgang and 2shortplanks suggest.
It is quite true that a plea should reflect what you believe you have (or have not) done. However you are entitled to see the evidence against you before entering a plea to see if sufficient evidence exists to support the charge. If you initially plead not guilty but subsequently change your plea you lose the opportunity of the maximum discount for a guilty plea.
Consult a solicitor if you have difficulty gaining sight of the evidence.
It is quite true that a plea should reflect what you believe you have (or have not) done. However you are entitled to see the evidence against you before entering a plea to see if sufficient evidence exists to support the charge. If you initially plead not guilty but subsequently change your plea you lose the opportunity of the maximum discount for a guilty plea.
Consult a solicitor if you have difficulty gaining sight of the evidence.
Well it is the law, woofgang. Whether it is “right” or not is debateable. Perhaps an example will help.
Police witness an incident of bad driving. They (or more properly the CPS) decide to charge the driver with Dangerous Driving. There is a very fine line between this and the lesser offence of Careless Driving. (In fact, there is only one word difference in the definition: Careless – the driving falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver; Dangerous - the driving falls FAR below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.)
Without sight of the evidence it would be impossible for the driver to get expert advice as to which category his bad driving fell and how he should plead. Similar issues surround violent offences where a choice of Common Assault, ABH, GBH or GBH with intent is available. Countless other examples spring to mind but essentially the miscreant may know he has done something wrong, but needs sight of the evidence to decide (or be advised) what charge the evidence might properly support.
Magistrates expect a plea at the first hearing and defendants need to be in a position to enter an appropriate and unequivocal plea. Very often the only way they will be in a position to do so is having seen the evidence.
However strong the evidence, those pleading guilty are entitled to a third off their sentence and this diminishes if they initially plead not guilty but change their mind later.
Police witness an incident of bad driving. They (or more properly the CPS) decide to charge the driver with Dangerous Driving. There is a very fine line between this and the lesser offence of Careless Driving. (In fact, there is only one word difference in the definition: Careless – the driving falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver; Dangerous - the driving falls FAR below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.)
Without sight of the evidence it would be impossible for the driver to get expert advice as to which category his bad driving fell and how he should plead. Similar issues surround violent offences where a choice of Common Assault, ABH, GBH or GBH with intent is available. Countless other examples spring to mind but essentially the miscreant may know he has done something wrong, but needs sight of the evidence to decide (or be advised) what charge the evidence might properly support.
Magistrates expect a plea at the first hearing and defendants need to be in a position to enter an appropriate and unequivocal plea. Very often the only way they will be in a position to do so is having seen the evidence.
However strong the evidence, those pleading guilty are entitled to a third off their sentence and this diminishes if they initially plead not guilty but change their mind later.
I think the third off should be inverted ie if you plead guilty you get the full sentence, if you plead not guilty and are subsequently found guilty then one third of the sentence should be added for the waste of public resource.
again I see what you are saying about sight of the evidence, but surely in the majority of cases, the driver or assaulter knows what they did and what the consequence was?
again I see what you are saying about sight of the evidence, but surely in the majority of cases, the driver or assaulter knows what they did and what the consequence was?
If you've been charged, the CPS will have looked at all the evidence, and decided that the case is strong enough to stand up in court. You need a Criminal Solicitor, who will be able to obtain disclosure of the evidence and advise you on how you should plead.
Don't try to defend it yourself, or start ranting about human rights - you could make a bad job worse.
Don't try to defend it yourself, or start ranting about human rights - you could make a bad job worse.
1 to 11 of 11
