# Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help!



## russ.will (13 Sep 2016)

I was on the Tour de Broads doing the 40m route with a first time road biker and we had a wonderful time, save for one incident.

A grey/silver van tried to push me (and I later found out, several other riders) into the verge on the A149, somewhere between Stalham & Bridgeham if I recall correctly. I am fuzzy on this as I don't know the area, but reviewing my Strava data, it appears to be the only area we were briefly stationary.

He was so close I slapped the side of his van to warn him off - I was leaning against the still moving van with my forearm as it was continuing to pull toward the curb, I was out of options and out of balance through surprize. Put the flat of your arm against a wall and slap it with you palm and you'll get the picture of what I did.

He stopped and I drew along side, frankly coursing with adrenaline through fright and expecting a sorry mate, only for him to declare; "That's criminal damage you've done, I've got it all on my dashcam, I want you name" I gave it to him and frankly, mixed it with expletives and offered to spell it for him if he found the letters tricky. I was fuming, completely dumbfounded, but cycled off. I can't be arsed with this sort of nonsense.

However, he then overtook and physically forced us/me (my companion was behind at this point) into a junction a little further up the road and having basically been run off the road and with nowhere to go due to a kerb/verge in front of me, I stopped. He got out of the van and was as keen as possible to get in my face saying he wanted my name, me address etc, repeating his accusation of criminal damage. By this time, I've looked at the side of the van twice and you can't even see a hand print. The van was in good condition by the way, so this didn't exactly require more than a glance

Now I'm 15st of rugby coach and every single fibre of my body wanted to push his teeth in, throw him in the van and then stamp all over his dashcam, but I didn't. Why? Because he was over 60, 7st wet through and frankly, I'd have been in trouble. Somewhere, a voice on my shoulder was saying 'you'll be in trouble if you do' and anyway, it's not my way. I haven't had a fight since school and want to keep it that way. Then another female cyclist drew alongside and said 'Just cycle away, just cycle waya' and she was right, so I/we did.

He was clearly out to provoke people and a bit further up the road a group we passed said he had performed the same maneuver on them a couple of hundred yards earlier. I should have asked names/taken competitor numbers and memorized them for later use, but as no one was injured and the worst exchange was bad language (all mine I'll add) I forgot about it.

Then, on Saturday, I got an email from Norfolk Constabulary asking if I'd contact them in connection with an incident of alleged criminal damage and a public order disturbance. Oddly, Gmail sorted into 'Promotions' and it was Sunday before I saw it. I immediately rang the number and was surprised when I instantly got the Constable who'd sent the email and he requested that I attend a station to offer up my side of events. An extremely pleasant fellow who said " we know there are two sides to every story and we have to hear yours" and then proceeded to ask me when and where was convenient and he'd sort everything else out.

I have absolutely no problem with that, as I realise they have to look at everything and anyway, my dad was a copper for 27 years and if you're not one, it's one heck of a job. Anyway, I will willingly report as and when required and do my bit, because if nothing else, my companion witnessed the latter example of willfully dangerous driving with intent and if his dashcam footage survives, then he'll be hoisted by his own petard and I'll find out exactly how incoherent my choice language was.

What I'm asking is; If anybody else witnessed it the incident, or was indeed one of the other riders on the day he bullied, would you please contact me via Facebook, where I've posted a shorter version of events and the organisers of the event are sharing my post using the hashtag #TourdeBroads

I don't want your version of events or to converse with you about it. I'd just like an email I can pass on to Norfolk Constabulary, should this go further (which I expect/hope it won't) so they can get an independent witness statement, in the event that it was needed.

Thanks in advance and apologies to the Admin if this isn't the right forum, but it's the one that gets the hits!

Russell Williams


----------



## Profpointy (13 Sep 2016)

'kinell that's pretty bad.


----------



## Drago (13 Sep 2016)

OK. If you're interviewed in a police station, even if you attend voluntarily, you are entitled to free and independent legal advice from the duty solicitor. Insist upon it. If it's outside of the station it's for you to sort out at your own expense.

Tell the nice officer that you are happy to attend, would like the duty solicitor informed in advance of your arrival time, and that you will also be bringing with you a witness. 

I doubt it will go very far, but the allegation has clearly been made and the bobby has little choice but to go through the motions. PM me if you'd like to know any more without airing too much publicly.


----------



## Accy cyclist (13 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> Now I'm 15st of rugby coach and every single fibre of my body wanted to push his teeth in, throw him in the van and then stamp all over his dashcam, but I didn't. Why? Because he was over 60, 7st wet through



Nontheless, you should have stuck the head on the little prick!


----------



## steve50 (13 Sep 2016)

Accy cyclist said:


> Nontheless, you should have stuck the head on the little prick!



and that would have landed the chap with an assault charge at the very least, common sense prevailed in this case and the op held his anger in check, well done Russell. I can't see anything coming from this but as above, a report has been made and as you well know protocol has to be followed.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Tell the nice officer that you are happy to attend, would like the duty solicitor informed in advance of your arrival time, and that you will also be bringing with you a witness.


^^^^^This I think is very very good advice, if your father is available as an ex copper he would be a good witness


----------



## RoubaixCube (14 Sep 2016)

These kind of people make me laugh.... They drive like a total pricks and endanger more vulnerable road users a host of times (multiple just doesnt quantify it) then cry foul when someone they are endangering slaps the side of the vehicle to let them know they are too close.

This guy thought so highly of his driving that he deemed it necessary to go to the police. Hell, if this case ever made it to court and i was the judge, I would fine him for driving without due care and throw the case out and order him to grow a pair of balls, Sadly not many judges will do that these days.


----------



## flake99please (14 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> "That's criminal damage you've done, I've got it all on my dashcam, *I want your name*"



I would have said nothing at that point, other than suggest he calls the police or offer to call for him. If he indeed has dashcam footage, not doubt that it will show his poor driving (and seemingly audio of numerous altercations with cyclists) from the time.

My only (minor) concern is that if you have no proof of no damage, as there is nothing to have stopped the driver from willingly inflicting some damage himself.

Good luck.


----------



## ozboz (14 Sep 2016)

I am not sure what the actual distance he should put between you and his van , but If the Cops see the footage, it may well be used against him , and rightly so ,
Good Luck , may common sense prevail !!!


----------



## Turdus philomelos (14 Sep 2016)

How did the police get your name/email address?

Sounds like the van driver got a loose crank.


----------



## *Dusty* (14 Sep 2016)

I would be telling them the truth, you slapped his van to make him aware of your presence on the road and he got out and was aggressive with you. I don't see how a front facing dash cam could tell any other story if you slapped the side of his van.

Be careful what you say to the police, they will take the path of least resistance.


----------



## russ.will (14 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> OK. If you're interviewed in a police station, even if you attend voluntarily, you are entitled to free and independent legal advice from the duty solicitor. Insist upon it. If it's outside of the station it's for you to sort out at your own expense.
> 
> Tell the nice officer that you are happy to attend, would like the duty solicitor informed in advance of your arrival time, and that you will also be bringing with you a witness.
> 
> I doubt it will go very far, but the allegation has clearly been made and the bobby has little choice but to go through the motions. PM me if you'd like to know any more without airing too much publicly.


Thank you for this and I may well PM you.

Russell


----------



## russ.will (14 Sep 2016)

Turdus philomelos said:


> How did the police get your name/email address?


 I gave him my name (even offered to spell it!) and given the known location date and Google, you wouldn't have to be a copper to work out how to find the event organizer and who to contact for the details of potential candidates.

Of course, you'd have to be a copper before they would hand over the details, I'd hope.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Sep 2016)

For a criminal damage charge to be brought against you, criminal damage has to be done. I doubt slapping his car will have done that. Your mistake wss giving him any details at all. You did not need to. Get in touch with the officer in the case and tell him about the taped footage and he can see for himself what happened.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Sep 2016)

at the risk of being paranoid it's conceivable the van man is an ex-copper or copper's mate. The fact the police have tracked you down via sketchy details is maybe odd otherwise. Dunno, but I'd be cautious in what you say and take the duty solicitor suggestion made above.


----------



## Goggs (14 Sep 2016)

I'd be having a word with the 'Event Organizer' too.


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2016)

Yes, never underestimate the complainant in a case like this; he might be a pal of the Chief Constable or go to the same Masonic lodge. There's lots of it about in local life.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2016)

That's always possible, but probably unlikely. Two reasons:

Firstly, would someone in those rarefied social circles be dirtying their fingernails driving a van?

And secondly, people that do have some tenuous link to someone in auþority are usually extremely keen to try and intimidate you with threats, like "I'm a personal friend of the chief freemasonable and I'm just on my way to play golf with him now, and I'm going to have your job blah blah blah", to which i'd invariably reply "that sounds like an attempt to pervert the course of justice, here, have some handcuffs."


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Sep 2016)

I'd be tempted to turn down the interview, if that is all they have invited you for.

They aren't there to be your friend, or do you a favour. They are there to gather evidence, not much you say can be better than nothing at all. Let them bring charges if they think there's a case. Then you speak to them, with a solicitor.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2016)

Follow @Drago 's sound advice and get the duty solicitor in the room. Otherwise play dumb. If at any point you are offered a caution DO NOT ACCEPT it.

_Anecdote warning_: I had a similar contretemps with a Jag driver on my commute a few years back. I kicked the passenger door and did damage it. I reported myself and the driver. I eventually got a letter from our roadsafe scheme telling me off which was delivered to me over the counter of the local station with a smile and a "you let them off lighter than I would have done sir" and the driver, iirc, got the "we have got our eye on you" version of the letter. The driver was incredibly rude to me a few months latter as I cycled past their house; they lived on my commute route. I just shook my head and moved on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> That's always possible, but probably unlikely. Two reasons:
> 
> Firstly, would someone in those rarefied social circles be dirtying their fingernails driving a van?
> 
> And secondly, people that do have some tenuous link to someone in auþority are usually extremely keen to try and intimidate you with threats, like "I'm a personal friend of the chief freemasonable and I'm just on my way to play golf with him now, and I'm going to have your job blah blah blah", to which i'd invariably reply "that sounds like an attempt to pervert the course of justice, here, have some handcuffs."


"My father is the Deputy Chief Constable" and I still swung my sand wedge at the cheating feckers head. I was a hot headed kid. His father was the Deputy Chief Constable but the case got dropped, eventually.


----------



## Goggs (14 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'd be tempted to turn down the interview, if that is all they have invited you for.
> 
> They aren't there to be your friend, or do you a favour. They are there to gather evidence, not much you say can be better than nothing at all. Let them bring charges if they think there's a case. Then you speak to them, with a solicitor.



^ this ^


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2016)

Decline to be interviewed voluntarily then they risk being arrested instead.

Don't be too impressed with the mighty aura of a solicitor. The duty solicitor from which ever firm is on the rota that day is unlikely to be varsity material. Many also have a nasty habit of blindly telling clients to go 'no comment', not because it is strategically the best thing to do nut because it makes it more likely matters will progress to a court and there'll be another pay day for the solicitors firm. A simple denial in the face of little or no evidence could kill it there and then, but a 'no comment' is not a denial and maintains doubt. Think carefully about any advice they give, don't follow it blindly like the junkie shoplifters do.

The best thing about using the duty solicitor is they'll probably have a good working relationship with the local officers, and prior to being interviewed they'll probably be given a full disclosure about what evidence they may or may not have. Poker is much easier to play once you know your opponents hand.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Decline to be interviewed voluntarily then they risk being arrested instead.
> 
> Don't be too impressed with the mighty aura of a solicitor. The duty solicitor from which ever firm is on the rota that day is unlikely to be varsity material. Many also have a nasty habit of blindly telling clients to go 'no comment', not because it is strategically the best thing to do nut because it makes it more likely matters will progress to a court and there'll be another pay day for the solicitors firm. A simple denial in the face of little or no evidence could kill it there and then, but a 'no comment' is not a denial and maintains doubt. Think carefully about any advice they give, don't follow it blindly like the junkie shoplifters do.
> 
> The best thing about using the duty solicitor is they'll probably have a good working relationship with the local officers, and prior to being interviewed they'll probably be given a full disclosure about what evidence they may or may not have. Poker is much easier to play once you know your opponents hand.



I hate to have this opinion. But what benefit is there to voluntarily going to interview? If there's no case then there's no need to go. If there is a case, they will make the arrest.

Alternatively, they hope that OP says something in the interview that they can use to charge him. I see no upside to attending voluntary interviews.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2016)

Because it's quicker and nicer to do it voluntarily than being arrested, having your shoes and belt taken from you, and dumped in a cell recently vacated by a heroin user with a personal hygiene problem, and fed food that would make a goat puke. You'll then sit there until there's an officer free, and because it won't have been arranged in advance you'll go to the back of the queue for the duty solicitor. That last bit along could keep you waiting an extra 6 or 8 hours. Your fingerprints, DNA, and photo will be taken and will remain on record unless you go through a lengthy, tiresome, and often unsuccessful effort of applying to have them removed. To cap it all, sodas law dictates that you'll get lifted at a time that is of maximum inconvenience to yourself.

Why turn a fairly civilised 30 minute experience into a deeply unpleasant one lasting many hours? Where's the upside in doing that?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Because it's quicker and nicer to do it voluntarily than being arrested, having your shoes and belt taken from you, and dumped in a cell recently vacated by a heroin user with a personal hygiene problem, and fed food that would make a goat puke. You'll then sit there until there's an officer free, and because it won't have been arranged in advance you'll go to the back of the queue for the duty solicitor. That last bit along could keep you waiting an extra 6 or 8 hours. Your fingerprints, DNA, and photo will be taken and will remain on record unless you go through a lengthy, tiresome, and often unsuccessful effort of applying to have them removed. To cap it all, sodas law dictates that you'll get lifted at a time that is of maximum inconvenience to yourself.
> 
> Why turn a fairly civilised 30 minute experience into a deeply unpleasant one lasting many hours? Where's the upside in doing that?



So you believe then that it isn't really "voluntary" at all? As I say, the police aren't interviewing OP the help him. They're after evidence to convict him.


----------



## Spinney (14 Sep 2016)

Is it possible they may just be after evidence to give the complainant a good talking to about wasting police time and possibly also the way he drives? Someone like that may well have tried something like it before...


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> He was clearly out to provoke people and a bit further up the road a group we passed said he had performed the same maneuver on them a couple of hundred yards earlier. I should have asked names/taken competitor numbers and memorized them for later use, but as no one was injured and the worst exchange was bad language (all mine I'll add) I forgot about it.



Post something on social media. If you can find anyone else who was abused then the van driver could be in serious doodah.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Sep 2016)

Spinney said:


> Is it possible they may just be after evidence to give the complainant a good talking to about wasting police time and possibly also the way he drives? Someone like that may well have tried something like it before...



Don't think they would invite to an interview though. I gave police that information over the phone recently when they was looking to charge a driver after I witnessed a poor pass and gave details.


----------



## Spinney (14 Sep 2016)

OK, take your point. Luckily for me, I've no experience of talking to the police about traffic offenses.


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2016)

Aren't we overlooking the possibility that the Police may be thinking of charging the driver and want to know what evidence they can gather?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Sep 2016)

Globalti said:


> Aren't we overlooking the possibility that the Police may be thinking of charging the driver and want to know what evidence they can gather?



In my experience that leads to police coming to see you, not inviting you to voluntarily attend a police station.

GC


----------



## fossyant (14 Sep 2016)

Bloody cops.


----------



## Markymark (14 Sep 2016)

fossyant said:


> Bloody cops.


No. Bloody motorist who endangers cyclist.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Sep 2016)

Let's hope this well & truly backfires on this dangerous motorist.

Would you perhaps be well-advised to bring your own complaint of careless driving against him ?


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Sep 2016)

I didnt realise you had been "invited" for an interview. I am an ex police officer and I would not go. I would politely decline and suggest the officer looks at the footage. He may well decide on no further action.
On the other hand he may come and arrest you. Dont panic. But say nothing at all without the duty solicitor. Confirm your name and address and then shut up. Policemen get more information driving to a police station then they ever do in interview. They arrest you and tell you that you do not have to say anything. But people cannot shut their mouths. Shut yhe F. Up.
This sounds like it will go nowhere. Stand your ground and dont be intimidated.


----------



## benb (14 Sep 2016)

I'd try really hard to persuade the dibble to prosecute the driver for his driving. They can seize the dashcam footage as evidence.



russ.will said:


> given the known location date and Google, you wouldn't have to be a copper to work out how to find the event organizer and who to contact for the details of potential candidates



That's more detective work than they are sometimes willing to do! I know someone who was knocked off, but the police declined to take it further as he only had a partial plate. I'm pretty sure the database lets you do a partial search and then narrow it down by colour and make, which he also had. But no.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Sep 2016)

What is shocking is that a driver has gone to the police complained about a cyclist hitting his van. Instead of them questioning his passing distance, instead they want to investigate the "damage" to the vehicle from a close pass.

Is there anybody below cyclists in this pecking order?


----------



## Lozz360 (14 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What is shocking is that a driver has gone to the police complained about a cyclist hitting his van. *Instead of them questioning his passing distance, instead they want to investigate the "damage" to the vehicle from a close pass*.
> 
> Is there anybody below cyclists in this pecking order?


The police are only acting on the complaint from the the van driver. As others have said, the OP could do well to put in a counter claim against the driver. Case against OP will be dropped then, I bet.


----------



## Rooster1 (14 Sep 2016)

Good luck with this, I myself have banged on the site of a car or two when I was endangered. I'm not proud of either incident but if I had to goto court I would happily do so.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What is shocking is that a driver has gone to the police complained about a cyclist hitting his van. Instead of them questioning his passing distance, instead they want to investigate the "damage" to the vehicle from a close pass.
> 
> Is there anybody below cyclists in this pecking order?


The dead.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> Good luck with this, I myself have banged on the site of a car or two when I was endangered. I'm not proud of either incident but if I had to goto court I would happily do so.


"M'lud, my immediate impression, from the proximity of chummy's vehicle to me, was that chummy could not be aware I was there. Inexplicable though this was to me, given chummy had just passed me, I therefore shouted and slapped on chummy's vehicle to draw his attention to my presence. I did so in genuine fear for my life and wellbeing and I unreservedly apologise for the foul nature of my ejaculations."


----------



## Goggs (14 Sep 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> Good luck with this, I myself have banged on the site of a car or two when I was endangered. I'm not proud of either incident but if I had to goto court I would happily do so.



I've also had to do it many times. I have no reservations about doing so either.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> I've also had to do it many times. I have no reservations about doing so either.


Meet someone who decides to "Teach you a lesson" by driving into you and you might. You are too vulnerable on a bike to go mixing it with the driver of a ton of metal.


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Sep 2016)

Not sure how his dashcam will prove you touched his van - surely pointing through the windscreen (or even a side window) wouldn't show you at the side...?

What it would show is the standard of his driving. Make sure that you insist the the copper seizes the unedited footage and views all his driving on that road (not just what the driver wants to present) before your interview and has it available for you and the solicitor to view, as it seems it would support your version.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Sep 2016)

The police officer can ask to see but has no right to sieze anything from a complainant.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Sep 2016)

This is assuming the guy actually had a dashcam and wasn't just bullcrapping to try and scare the OP.


----------



## Goggs (14 Sep 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> This is assuming the guy actually had a dashcam and wasn't just bullcrapping to try and scare the OP.



Indeed. If he was the type of man to have a dashcam it's highly unlikely he'd also be the type of man to go around intimidating someone. I wish I'd been there.


----------



## fossyant (14 Sep 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What is shocking is that a driver has gone to the police complained about a cyclist hitting his van. Instead of them questioning his passing distance, instead they want to investigate the "damage" to the vehicle from a close pass.
> 
> Is there anybody below cyclists in this pecking order?



Nope there isn't.


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2016)

Keith Vaz has dropped below us in the rankings and looks set to stay there for the forseeable. Aside from that Hitler, Lucifer, and Gary Glitter all seem much more popular than we do.


----------



## Goggs (14 Sep 2016)

Gary Glitter had some redeeming features. Musically, obviously.


----------



## fossyant (14 Sep 2016)

I hope this backfires, really do.


----------



## russ.will (14 Sep 2016)

We shall see. I will await the invitation from NC and fully intend to push the dangerous driving issue. From my personal point of view, I just want it to go away; but if this one turns into a fight, I'm not turning the other cheek this time, metaphorically speaking.

Thanks for all of the input and any shares of the post my accomplice put on the Tour de Broads FB page, would be appreciated. 

Russell


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> Meet someone who decides to "Teach you a lesson" by driving into you and you might. You are too vulnerable on a bike to go mixing it with the driver of a ton of metal.


How many people have been KSI'd by someone deliberately driving into them in the last 10 years I wonder?


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Sep 2016)

*Dusty* said:


> I would be telling them the truth, you slapped his van to make him aware of your presence on the road and he got out and was aggressive with you. I don't see how a front facing dash cam could tell any other story if you slapped the side of his van.
> 
> Be careful what you say to the police, they will take the path of least resistance.



I read this as the van coming in close and you ended yourself off of the side of the van....... a perfectly valid reaction.

If that sounded like a "slap" then that is the driver's problem


----------



## steveindenmark (18 Sep 2016)

Anything new on this?


----------



## Bonus (18 Sep 2016)

It's a sad world we live in when some nutjob has nothing better to do with his days than try to harm cyclists (or anyone else for that matter). 

If the same happened to me I would want to lay whatever the most serious charge is applicable under the circumstances? Assault? Attempted bodily harm?


----------



## Goggs (19 Sep 2016)

User said:


> You sure about that? Lots of videos out there on YouTube etc. from dashcams in vehicles being operated by prize daffodils.



"Highly unlikely" is not definitive but yes, as sure as I can be.


----------



## russ.will (20 Sep 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Anything new on this?


Nothing so far.

Russell


----------



## russ.will (20 Sep 2016)

And then today, invited in on the 3rd Oct. I asked for the duty solicitor to be present.

Russell


----------



## russ.will (20 Sep 2016)

Not yet. I was assuming I'd discuss that with the solicitor.

Russell


----------



## Goggs (20 Sep 2016)

I don't understand why you're going along good with this. Nothing short of a warrant would get me in the cop shop under these circumstances.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> I don't understand why you're going along good with this. Nothing short of a warrant would get me in the cop shop under these circumstances.


This. They have no interest in helping you. 

They are fishing for some evidence to do you for the damage. The moment you say you did touch it they will magically ignore the circumstances and use your admission. 

There's nothing for you to gain


----------



## Banjo (21 Sep 2016)

If they want to interview you they will .Better to go voluntarilly at a convenient time than arrested when its most inconvenient.

Just be ultra carefull what you say .


----------



## Profpointy (21 Sep 2016)

whilst I have no experience of these things, I'd be inclined to type up a statement beforehand and hand it over, keeping a copy to refer to in any questioning. Does reduce the risk of being flustered or having your words put in a bad light.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (21 Sep 2016)

Banjo said:


> If they want to interview you they will .Better to go voluntarilly at a convenient time than arrested when its most inconvenient.
> 
> Just be ultra carefull what you say .



They are not interviewing him to be polite. The reason for no arrest will be that there probably isn't enough evidence to go from. If they had enough evidence to make a charge, they would have made the arrest already.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Sep 2016)

This is American but contains valuable lessons in relation to how you conduct yourself when questioned by police. Well worth watching and keeping in mind before you go into the police's territory, even with a solicitor.



GC

Edit to add: You should really watch Part 2 as well to see what the cop says!


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Sep 2016)

I agree the polis is not there to help you, but as @Drago said, there's no mileage in getting arrested to be interviewed.

Asking for the duty solicitor is no more than a common sense precaution.

The interviewing officer will be on a fishing expedition, so your tactic should be to give as short and concise answers as possible, without appearing to be surly or uncooperative.

In general, you want to downplay the incident, and you must remain calm throughout the interview.

You swore at the driver, so you will have to concede you were annoyed at the time by the close pass.

Evidence for the close pass is your forearm was against the side of the van, unless your arms are longer than an orangutan's, the van must have been too close.

Hopefully you were still astride your bike when you swore at the driver, assuming he was inside the van at all times, any allegation of threatening behaviour hasn't got much mileage in it.

Also, if you had hold of the bike, you may be able to say you didn't raise a hand to him.

Your posts on this forum indicate you are a respectable, reasonably intelligent, working man, which will go in your favour.

To use a doctor's phrase, you will 'present well'.

Making further allegations about the second incident is probably not a good idea, you weren't directly involved in that one.

You could mention it, but only as limited support for your claim the pass against you was too close.

Finally, I would take drago's disparaging remarks about duty solicitors with a pinch of salt.

Some of these guys - and gals - are more than competent at what they do.

They can be quite good at frustrating an investigation, which is why coppers don't like them.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Sep 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Your posts on this forum indicate you are a respectable, reasonably intelligent, working man, which will go in your favour.


His very membership of this forum suggests precisely the opposite.


----------



## Nortones2 (21 Sep 2016)

> You swore at the driver, so you will have to concede you were annoyed at the time by the close pass.





Might be more accurate and tactically better to say "frightened", rather than "annoyed"?


----------



## Cubist (21 Sep 2016)

Those saying that the fact he has not been arrested yet shows there is insufficient evidence to arrest please note: Arresting someone must be justified, necessary and proportionate. Custody suites are busy, working often at full capacity, and the custody booking in procedure, risk assessment and biometric recording procedures will take as much if not more time than a voluntary attendance interview. The OP appears cooperative, and has agreed to attend. The arrest is therefore at this stage unnecessary and not proportionate. The OP has been named as the person responsibke for an alleged act of damage. There are therefore sufficient grounds to suspect an offence has taken place, and sufficient grounds to suspect the OP may be guilty of committing it. Should he fail to cooperate, the proportionality and justification for detention increase. 

The officer in this case at present only has one side of the story. He or she has no information about the manner of driving or the behaviour of the complainant. The only way that is going to come to light is for the OP to go and tell them. He should also take the names of any witnesses he has managed to garner. If there are none, then a calm, rational and logical explanation of what took place will, under most circumstances lead to the case being dropped. With witnesses it could and should be reversed. 

All this talk of bent coppers and chief constable's golfing buddies grinds my gears. It's antiquated if not utterly fictional tinfoil clad bedwettery. The decisions in a case like this as to whether or not to proceed with a disposal are taken by people like me, not angry coppers or the Supper Steward from the !local masonic lodge. With a word on word case like this the cop has a legal duty to disclose ALL material information, and a calm and objective explanation of slapping g the van because he was about to crush you to death would not make it past the threshold test even for a caution or out of court disposal. 

To get this to court, even the most vengeful cop would then have to get it past the CPS gatekeeping. Word on word doesn't pass the first hurdle, let alone their harsh criteria for prosecution. 

My advice is go and be interviewed. Tell it like it was calmly and carefully. Do not, under any circumstances accept a caution or community resolution. Take legal advice.


----------



## Twizit (21 Sep 2016)

Cubist said:


> utterly fictional tinfoil clad bedwettery



I'm sorry I have nothing material to add to the thread, but sincerely hope the outcome is positive for the OP. However, thank you Cubist for the wonderful quote above. Saved and noted for an appropriate future opportunity. Given the day I'm having and the people I'm dealing with, I don't expect to have to wait long...


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Sep 2016)

Twizit said:


> I'm sorry I have nothing material to add to the thread, but sincerely hope the outcome is positive for the OP. However, thank you Cubist for the wonderful quote above. Saved and noted for an appropriate future opportunity. Given the day I'm having and the people I'm dealing with, I don't expect to have to wait long...



The wonderful quote is also accurate.

For the conspiracy theory to work, too many individuals have to put their job (and pension) at risk.

One copper might be overly interested in mounting a prosecution, but even that is vanishingly unlikely for a scratty criminal damage.

Even if a vexatious prosecution gets off the ground, the defendant has the benefit of legal representation.

As we all know, the system - rightly or wrongly - is weighted in favour of the accused, so any doubt and the court system will boot it into the long grass.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Yes but let's not lose sight of the fact that, on the face of it the accused and accuser ought to be swapping places.



Fair comment, but the priority task is to get the OP out from under this investigation.

Coppers always respond badly to a member of the public telling them what to do.

In this case, any suggestion by the OP that the coppers should be prosecuting the driver will not go down well and could prove to be a big tactical mistake.

If the OP wants to make that point, he could say something like "I thought about reporting the driver, and had I been knocked off I would have done," - that accords with keeping things as low key as possible, but shouldn't irk the copper.

Although I wouldn't say any more than I found the pass too close.

The main focus of the interview will be is there any merit in the allegation of criminal damage?

The OP should concentrate on that by saying stuff like "it was only a light slap on the van and I was wearing gel padded gloves" - assuming that's true.


----------



## Cubist (21 Sep 2016)

As the above couple of posts suggest, the ideal outcome would have been that the OP had reported the incident himself, thereby equalising before the other team scored. All is not lost however. Should the OP manage to find some witnesses from the social media trawl he's undertaking, there is no reason why the roles shouldn't be reversed. Under ethical recording guidelines the incident should be recorded and if proportionate, investigated. If the driver has been stupid enough to offer his dash cam footage of the incident, and the OPs account is accurate, it should indeed suffice to hoist him by his own petard, unless of course it's been edited. Similarly, if that footage shows mitigation/provocation/defence to the slap, it must be secured and offered as evidence under disclosure principles and legislation.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Sep 2016)

Cubist said:


> As the above couple of posts suggest, the ideal outcome would have been that the OP had reported the incident himself, thereby equalising before the other team scored.



That's a point I had not considered and will bear in mind if I'm ever in a similar situation.


----------



## russ.will (21 Sep 2016)

Cubist said:


> Those saying that the fact he has not been arrested yet shows there is insufficient evidence to arrest please note: Arresting someone must be justified, necessary and proportionate. Custody suites are busy, working often at full capacity, and the custody booking in procedure, risk assessment and biometric recording procedures will take as much if not more time than a voluntary attendance interview. The OP appears cooperative, and has agreed to attend. The arrest is therefore at this stage unnecessary and not proportionate. The OP has been named as the person responsibke for an alleged act of damage. There are therefore sufficient grounds to suspect an offence has taken place, and sufficient grounds to suspect the OP may be guilty of committing it. Should he fail to cooperate, the proportionality and justification for detention increase.
> 
> The officer in this case at present only has one side of the story. He or she has no information about the manner of driving or the behaviour of the complainant. The only way that is going to come to light is for the OP to go and tell them. He should also take the names of any witnesses he has managed to garner. If there are none, then a calm, rational and logical explanation of what took place will, under most circumstances lead to the case being dropped. With witnesses it could and should be reversed.
> 
> ...


And that is just what I intend to do and is excellent advice.

I lived most of my life with a copper, rode motorbikes with coppers and got drunk with more than a few too. They are nothing to be afraid of and have an exceedingly difficult job to do. Make it more difficult for them and don't be surprised if they will one-up you until you're the one out of options. I do not hold truck with the notion of bent coppers, as I've never met one out of the dozens I've known and if you go into dealing with them with that attitude, you have no one but yourself to blame for where it leads. Every one I have met holds true to the notion of protecting life first and foremost and would, in my humble experience far rather be doing that, than dealing with nonsense like this.

The view I am taking is that I am attending something I can't avoid and have managed it all to be at my convenience, demonstrating an attitude of cheery cooperation along the way. I have a witness and like I say, I'd rather this just went away. If it won't, I'll make a formal complaint of dangerous driving as a minimum. I have no intention of wanting it to go down that route, although I'm also aware that will leave future cyclists open to his potentially lethal behaviour. For all I know, the police may pursue that one anyway and I'll happily help them to do so.

I've been a witness in court (for the prosecution) before and managed to stay quite calm in the face to the defending solicitor who was trying to goad me into shouting back at his shouting at me. I was only about 22 but it didn't work, because if you breath before you respond in any situation in life, you buy yourself seconds to think and you'll be less likely to cock up your response.

Russell


----------



## jefmcg (21 Sep 2016)

Another thing worth noting is that you can barred entry to the US for an arrest, even if there was no subsequent conviction. Avoiding arrest seems like a good plan.

(no idea if this is a crime of moral turpitude)


----------



## russ.will (22 Sep 2016)

I've been to the US. I got called an 'Australian' repeatedly for 2 weeks. Never going back.

Russell


----------



## Tim Hall (22 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> I've been to the US. I got called an 'Australian' repeatedly for 2 weeks. Never going back.
> 
> Russell


You're lucky. I got called an Australian while I was in Cleveland. That's Cleveland up near Middlesbrough, not Ohio.


----------



## User33236 (22 Sep 2016)

Im Scottish and keep called called Dutch whilst abroad! 

Back on topic.... write out and rehearse what you wish to put forward... take a deep breath before answering any questions to give you a moment to think.... and keep calm. The driver is an ass and it is he rhat should be undergoing an interview himself.


----------



## russ.will (3 Oct 2016)

Update; I attended my voluntary, but under caution interview today. Top copper and a very nice solicitor. Now this will irk some on here, but having viewed the dash cam footage, which also did some serious memory jogging. I look like a complete c**t. It also goes to show how fickle your memory is of hectic and heated events. To illustrate, I'll now edit my original post of the 'event' with the benefit of the footage. Things that are additions are in bold and the stuff that is wrong, is made small and original text is in italics:

*Shortly after I threw a 'V' Sign at a small white hatchback that caused me to swerve with a close pass as I cycled alongside my companion, a grey/silver van passed me so closely as to brush my arm with his mirror and proceeded to pull in on me further, stopping us both. As I leaned through his wife's window, I threw a string of verbal abuse so eloquent at him, that even I was surprised to find that I could replace every adjective, name and punctuation with the 'F' word.

He responded by pointing out he had my actions prior to his pass and my current comments on dashcam - Factually correct. I bid him F-off and cycled off, occupying very much the center of the road, until I got bored after about 15 seconds and waved him past. At that point, I felt I'd made my point and couldn't be arsed with him.

He then passed me again. *_He was so close I slapped the side of his van to warn him off _*and this is clearly audible on the dashcam *_- I was leaning against the still moving van with my forearm as it was continuing to pull toward the curb, I was out of options and out of balance through surprize. Put the flat of your arm against a wall and slap it with you palm and you'll get the picture of what I did.

He stopped and I drew along side, frankly coursing with adrenaline through fright and expecting a sorry mate, only for him to declare; I was fuming, completely dumbfounded, but cycled off. I can't be arsed with this sort of nonsense.

However, he then pulled in on me physically forced me (my companion was behind at this point) into a junction a little further up the road and having basically been run off the road and with nowhere to go due to a kerb/verge in front of me, _*I stopped. Corralled and now turning from flight/fright to fight, I Ieaned through the still open window to be told *_"That's criminal damage you've done, I've got it all on my dashcam, I want you name" I gave it to him and frankly, mixed it with expletives and offered to spell it for him if he found the letters tricky._* I also told him "I would break every bone in his effing body if he got out of the effing van". *_He _*called my bluff,*_ got out of the van and was as keen as possible to get in my face saying he wanted my name, me address etc, repeating his accusation of criminal damage. By this time, I've looked at the side of the van twice and you can't even see a hand print. The van was in good condition by the way, so this didn't exactly require more than a glance

Now I'm 15st of rugby coach and every single fibre of my body wanted to push his teeth in, throw him in the van and then stamp all over his dashcam, but I didn't. Why? Because he was over 60, 7st wet through and frankly, I'd have been in trouble. Somewhere, a voice on my shoulder was saying 'you'll be in trouble if you do' and anyway, it's not my way. I haven't had a fight since school and want to keep it that way. Then another female cyclist drew alongside and said 'Just cycle away, just cycle away' and she was right, so I/we did.
_
Still basically the same story/string of events, with a bit of a Tarantino on the timeline and some added 'colour'. It also lasted less than a minute beginning to end, which seriously surprised me, but there are issues to be dealt with.

I definitely was foul mouthed and threatening. No doubt there, even if it was under serious provocation and a 'shock and awe' tactic that got called.

Where the alleged damage is supposed to be is the main bone of contention. He claims I kicked his van, which I did not, because I was clipped in and frankly needed my feet to stay upright. The 'damage' is alleged to be low on the side panel and he "knows it wasn't there in the morning, because he cleans it every week". It was certainly very clean, so I'll not contest that, but I know I slapped the van and I know that point was 4-5ft off the ground and I know I left no damage high up, nevermind down at still-clipped-in shoe height. This is important.

So, under legal advice (and frankly, off the record advice from the copper who IS a road cyclist) this is what will likely happen - It's not his decision after all. I can be done for a public order offence, but was advised the best result would be a caution and I accepted that. It's on camera and there's no denying it. It's embarrassing frankly.

The complainant, wants no more than recompense for repairs to his van "which he estimates to be £2-300". As he did not see me slap the van and I had volunteered that this is exactly what I done to my solicitor in the meeting prior, I have asked for evidence of the damage and have the right to ask for independent quotes for the repair. I can insist this would include a Dent Doctor, or some such minimal cost service.

Now, the smart thing to do and this is where people will get irked, is pay for the damage and accept a caution just to get it to go away, even if it's not damage I did. I will await pictures which the copper has said he will forward to me. I may even offer £250 cash, because depending on what I see, that may be far and away the cheapest option, for me. There are prosecutable offences here and it will very likely cost me a lot more, with more serious consequences if I dig my heels in and go to court. I will get found guilty on one account, will get a worse record, will get a fine and will probably get made to pay costs too. A caution is a smart move, is just less expensive and prevents needlessly dragging a friend into court as a witness, for something that will be seen as indefensible anyway.

It doesn't end there though.

Once I've accepted all of that and it's done and dusted, never to be re-examined; I can and probably will, make a complaint of dangerous driving and whatever else the officer (for it will be him again) thinks worthy of investigation, based on the evidence of the dashcam that is already in the hands of said officer, plus I do have a witness. Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey....


----------



## 2Loose (3 Oct 2016)

Oh FFS, Russ, sorry to read about this. Hope you are well in general and most of all, hope the KTM is still shiny, 

Ian.


----------



## Goggs (3 Oct 2016)

I can't understand what you were thinking when you gave the twat your name. I'd have ripped his camera out of his van and cycled off into the sunset. That's me though. I certainly wouldn't be paying him any compensation, particularly for damage that wasn't caused by myself.


----------



## russ.will (4 Oct 2016)

2Loose said:


> Oh FFS, Russ, sorry to read about this. Hope you are well in general and most of all, hope the KTM is still shiny,
> 
> Ian.


Hello Ian. Long time no speak! 

All good otherwise and this isn't exactly praying on my mind. I did the 70 mile Tour de Norfolk weekend before last and managed not get upset with anybody! I did it with the same girl from work as the TdB, so fortunately she wasn't put off by it all either.

Russ


----------



## russ.will (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> What do you do for a living? A caution may have to be disclosed.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't accept one without independent legal advice from someone other than the duty solicitor.


No problem there. I work in construction which isn't exactly full of angels, albeit I'm head office rather than on site. Everybody there knows what happened and as the friend I was with was from there too and told them what she saw, they're all bemused why I didn't....



Goggs said:


> I can't understand what you were thinking when you gave the twat your name. I'd have ripped his camera out of his van and cycled off into the sunset. That's me though. I certainly wouldn't be paying him any compensation, particularly for damage that wasn't caused by myself.


... do exactly that. I did say I wasn't thinking, or it should be clear that I wasn't! Thing is; what's done is done and now it's a case of managing the least costly outcome for me, with a dose of making him think twice in future.

Russell


----------



## RoubaixCube (4 Oct 2016)

One could say you pretty much turned into the 'Ronnie Pickering' of road cyclists.


----------



## Goggs (4 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> No problem there. I work in construction which isn't exactly full of angels, albeit I'm head office rather than on site. Everybody there knows what happened and as the friend I was with was from there too and told them what she saw, they're all bemused why I didn't....
> 
> ... do exactly that. I did say I wasn't thinking, or it should be clear that I wasn't! Thing is; what's done is done and now it's a case of managing the least costly outcome for me, with a dose of making him think twice in future.
> 
> Russell



Good luck with it mate & you're right of course. Just take the least painful way out & chalk it up to experience.


----------



## Willam (4 Oct 2016)

you have seen the vid but to me, swearing/slapping a car that is driving dangerously is understandable.

Think I would get better advice, as being aggressive in such a situation, to me is totally acceptable, add in the fact you say the damage is not down to you, not sure I would be accepting a caution. Seems strange you are willing to accept one, yet feel there is a case against the driver.

It will be the police that brings a case against the driver, if they have the proof, why are they waiting? Will they go ahead with it? or forget about it once you take the caution? I really can't see it, chances are he too will be offered a caution.

Get legal advice, a caution is for life! (I think)


----------



## Profpointy (4 Oct 2016)

I believe "accepting a caution" is quite a big deal with consequences not too far from a criminal record. I'd not do this lightly particularly for so say "damage" you didn't and couldn't possible have done.


----------



## Phaeton (4 Oct 2016)

You say you are a rugby coach, does that include minor's if so would this caution show up on a CRB check?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Oct 2016)

Congratulations. You just accepted guilt for the accusations. That will be recorded and maybe disclosable.

As I said a few posts back. They have no intention of helping you out with these "voluntary" interviews.

I suppose the next bit will be to expect an invoice or claim for the damages. Especially since accepting the caution isn't dissimilar from accepting guilt.


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Oct 2016)

The OP has accepted a caution for threatening behaviour, which he says is clearly caught on the footage.

The alternative would be a prosecution and a trial at magistrates' court.

Sensible legal advice would be a conviction is overwhelmingly likely, so the OP had a choice: caution or conviction.


----------



## Drago (4 Oct 2016)

Indeed. If there's evidence to offer a caution, then there's evidence to charge. Remember, you can only receive a caution if you've made an admission anyway. A caution is a pain, but is not a conviction and is has a shelf life of 3 year for disposal decisions, and 5 for a DBS check.

A conviction is for life.

You could take the chance of going to Court and being found not guilty, but if you're in video doing the deed then you're sunk. It's imperfect, but in terms of damage limitation the OP probably d the right thing, and appears not to work jn an industry where he works with vulnerable people, so the DBS checks won't matter. In essence it's done and dusted, and no one is never likely to know.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The OP has accepted a caution for threatening behaviour, which he says is clearly caught on the footage.
> 
> The alternative would be a prosecution and a trial at magistrates' court.
> 
> Sensible legal advice would be a conviction is overwhelmingly likely, so the OP had a choice: caution or conviction.



I'd fancy my charges telling the story to a magistrate, than to the police.

The other outcome of this is now a guy that drives a van, that believes he an pass as close as he wants, and if somebody touches him, it's their fault.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> I can be done for a public order offence, but was advised the best result would be a caution and I accepted that.



What I don't understand is, if the caution is for the alleged public order offence, why on earth would you pay up for damage you know you didn't do and he can't prove (and nobody is charging you/cautioning you for)??

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'd fancy my charges telling the story to a magistrate, than to the police.
> 
> The other outcome of this is now a guy that drives a van, that believes he an pass as close as he wants, and if somebody touches him, it's their fault.



A trial is always an option, but the OP describes his conduct on the tape as "embarrassing, frankly."

Bear in mind the damage or not is irrelevant for this purpose, the magistrates would only be deciding if the OP was guilty of threatening behaviour.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> It doesn't end there though.
> 
> Once I've accepted all of that and it's done and dusted, never to be re-examined; I can and probably will, make a complaint of dangerous driving and whatever else the officer (for it will be him again) thinks worthy of investigation, based on the evidence of the dashcam that is already in the hands of said officer, plus I do have a witness. Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey....



I fear it does end there... unless the police have already served a Notice of Intended Prosecution on him.

GC


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (4 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Not necessarily. A half decent lawyer could make a good case for this being action out of character by someone in fear for his life, where the adrenaline had taken over. I would be surprised if the CPS would go ahead with something like this, given the potential for a robust defence.



I'd be surprised if they went ahead with something like this. If he hadn't gone to a "voluntary" interview, and gave them everything they needed.


----------



## Drago (4 Oct 2016)

That would be mitigation, not defence. He's already made the admission in order to be offered the caution.


----------



## Nibor (4 Oct 2016)

I would be tempted to compare the banging of a transit panel in the middle to the banging of a transit panel at the bottom on a dash cam recording I suspect the sounds would be considerably different.


----------



## jarlrmai (4 Oct 2016)

So if this happened and the Van driver say found your "likely" (times and dates and say profile pic of the bike) name on say Strava what then?


----------



## bobinski (4 Oct 2016)

My tuppence as a defence lawyer...

I would have advised you to decline a caution. Any offence committed in the circumstances you describe and given the manner of his driving-perhaps available from the dashcam?-has to be evidenced by an intention to cause harrassment, harm or alarm. So, a q mark there. And were you not caused these things by the manner of his driving? He brushes and then pulls in on you? Were you not reacting to this? Context is all. The van driver has to agree to you being cautioned so let the officer challenge him about his driving and actions towards you.

I would be relatively confident and say the cps in london would not see a public interest in prosecuting. As your lawyer i would have invited the officer to speak with the van driver requesting a copy of the dashcam evidence for the defence and also putting him on notice that he would be x examined on the threat his driving posed to you and his use of his van to intimidate you etc. 
Admitting you were a bit of a colourful nob does not mean admitting an offence in the cirumstances you describe and even if it did you don't have to accept the caution and, provided what you have relayed here is accurate, i think the prospects of being prosecuted are small.


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2016)

My advice was Stand your ground and don't be intimidated.

I would not have taken a caution and I would pay him nothing. This guy tried to run you off the road. You make your own decisions but I would take my chances with CPS. After all you had a witness on your side.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Top copper


Really? He watched a video of someone repeatedly driving a van into you and his reaction was to call you in to caution you for getting all shouty and touching said precious van? And not even consider charging the driver unless you request it, despite seeing the video evidence? You should have been called in as a witness to his careless or dangerous driving charge.

We have a very different idea of what makes someone a top copper.


----------



## russ.will (4 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> You say you are a rugby coach, does that include minor's if so would this caution show up on a CRB check?


Yes and yes, although they only DBS check you once. I will, as a matter of course speak to the club. Bear in mind members regularly don't get banned for punching each other and I've seen both on and off the pitch....



glasgowcyclist said:


> I fear it does end there... unless the police have already served a Notice of Intended Prosecution on him.
> 
> GC


I was advised by both the solicitor and policeman there is nothing to stop me lodging a complaint to be investigated.



jefmcg said:


> Really? He watched a video of someone repeatedly driving a van into you and his reaction was to call you in to caution you for getting all shouty and touching said precious van? And not even consider charging the driver unless you request it, despite seeing the video evidence? You should have been called in as a witness to his careless or dangerous driving charge.
> 
> We have a very different idea of what makes someone a top copper.


I believe if a complaint is made, then they have to investigate. That goes both ways and now effectively, I do have his dashcam footage.

What I am learning is that you will get as many differing opinions on what I should have done, as there are people asked. Given the options laid out before me at the time, I've simply taken the path of least resistance with the least impact on me in the long term both in terms of a record and financially with respect to the public order offence.

The criminal damage aspect is yet to be decided. This is a story in progress still.

Russell


----------



## bobinski (5 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Yes and yes, although they only DBS check you once. I will, as a matter of course speak to the club. Bear in mind members regularly don't get banned for punching each other and I've seen both on and off the pitch....
> 
> I was advised by both the solicitor and policeman there is nothing to stop me lodging a complaint to be investigated.
> 
> ...



You have the dashcam footage? -it is normally only disclosed on charge and even then often after some delay.

Normally a complaint in itself is not enough and a statement from you is required. In my experience police officers do not rely on what you said in interview as evidence of a complaint. But i deal with the Met and different fpolice forces have different protocols.

If you have already accepted a caution-and i can understand why you would because after all it is your decision-then it should be/have been on understanding the criminal damage allegation falls away.


----------



## suzeworld (5 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What is shocking is that a driver has gone to the police complained about a cyclist hitting his van. Instead of them questioning his passing distance, instead they want to investigate the "damage" to the vehicle from a close pass.
> 
> Is there anybody below cyclists in this pecking order?



Soooooo true - my missis was knocked off by a total cock-womble who was parked outside a school and started to move while my missis was passing the vehicle .. which might have been manageable, but she then turned immediately RIGHT and took my wife with her round the bend ... and of course this is all my wife's fault Driver just keeps saying she was indicating  -- and she has since lodged a huge personal injury claim and two false claims of harrassment against my wife (cos they share a commute route). Bloody awful ... 

So police advice is change your route and get a camera -- like we all have to be living in a a bloody reality TV show -- hopping mad, honestly.


----------



## Lozz360 (5 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Bear in mind members regularly don't get banned for punching each other and I've seen both on and off the pitch....
> Russell


All due respect that's not really relevant. By taking part in a game of Rugby you are consenting to being assaulted (you wouldn't be allowed to rugby tackle someone on the high street for instance). As for "off the pitch..." if the victim doesn't report it, it doesn't figure as a crime.


----------



## russ.will (16 Oct 2016)

Update. As it currently stands I stand to get a caution for Section 4 public order offence (no argument there) and criminal damage. The estimate for the criminal damage (I asked for three quotes and pictorial evidence) has come in at £250.

Now, the 'damage' is just in front of the rear wheel arch of his vehicle. I did not and cannot have done that damage with my hand, which was what I hit his vehicle with. However, to contest this, is to go to court on both counts and as I am clearly guilty of the former, it will cost me more and I WILL end up with a criminal record. Even with my witness that would back me up on the criminal damage issue; it's not worth it.

I have just calculated that £250 in coppers will weigh 13st and I'm not prepared to carry that. Answers on a postcard as to how to make it as unpalatable as [legally] possible...

Russell


----------



## vickster (16 Oct 2016)

5p pieces even more useless and annoying...especially if accidentally dropped


----------



## classic33 (16 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Update. As it currently stands I stand to get a caution for Section 4 public order offence (no argument there) and criminal damage. The estimate for the criminal damage (I asked for three quotes and pictorial evidence) has come in at £250.
> 
> Now, the 'damage' is just in front of the rear wheel arch of his vehicle. I did not and cannot have done that damage with my hand, which was what I hit his vehicle with. However, to contest this, is to go to court on both counts and as I am clearly guilty of the former, it will cost me more and I WILL end up with a criminal record. Even with my witness that would back me up on the criminal damage issue; it's not worth it.
> 
> ...


How far do you have to take it, distance wise?


----------



## NorthernDave (16 Oct 2016)

Paying by coins, it seems you'd have to take 250 £1 coins...

http://www.royalmint.com/help/help/legal-tender-amounts

That would still be quite a pain for him to deal with though.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Oct 2016)

Not that I understand the law & how silly it is at times, but this does seem grossly stupid this time. I think you need to take @User's advice here & get proper legal counsel


----------



## Goggs (16 Oct 2016)

Is there something you're not telling us? I can only assume there is because I'd be damned if I would accept their Caution. Have your day in court man.


----------



## classic33 (16 Oct 2016)

How about this?













or 250 of these


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Oct 2016)

Follow the evidence.

The dash cam footage of the OP bellowing at the injured party makes out the section 4 public order offence for which he is being offered a caution.

The OP's statement makes out the same offence.

There is no realistic way of successfully undoing the statement, let alone the footage.

If the OP tries, the police will simply say 'sod it, have a charge, and argue it in front of the magistrates'.

Barmy decisions by magistrates are not unknown, but it would be reckless to the point of stupid to go to trial with what the OP has.


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2016)

The only thing not matching up is the damage, done near the wheel arch.

Nearly every cyclist can appreciate that a wheel arch could have you off the bike.


----------



## Willam (17 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Follow the evidence.
> 
> The dash cam footage of the OP bellowing at the injured party makes out the section 4 public order offence for which he is being offered a caution.
> 
> ...



The "injured party" wasn't injured until he nearly hit the bike, and the police according to the OP agree they could take action on the driver, that''s following the evidence.

The OP making a statement that goes against the video evidence, imo would not be taken as evidence of a crime.


----------



## Lozz360 (17 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> How about this?
> View attachment 148185
> 
> View attachment 148185
> ...


Although Scottish notes are mostly accepted south of the border, they can be refused as they are not legal tender. Paying £250 in, say 5p pieces, would have to be accepted as it would be legal tender.


----------



## Lozz360 (17 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> Although Scottish notes are mostly accepted south of the border, they can be refused as they are not legal tender. Paying £250 in, say 5p pieces, would have to be accepted as it would be legal tender.


Correction: 5p pieces are legal tender only for value up to £5. The only way to pay £250 in LT coins would be in £1 (or £2 coins) as they are LT for any amount.


----------



## Phaeton (17 Oct 2016)

Can I ask a point of order please, If you have to pay damages as a result of a court case do you pay them direct to the person/company etc. or do you pay them to the court for them to pass on?


----------



## Phaeton (17 Oct 2016)

So being an arse & paying in anything other a cheque or card is not going to get you anywhere then, not even the satisfaction of pissing off the driver.


----------



## jarlrmai (17 Oct 2016)

Pay it, move on, maybe get a camera of your own.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Oct 2016)

Willam said:


> The "injured party" wasn't injured until he nearly hit the bike, and the police according to the OP agree they could take action on the driver, that''s following the evidence.
> 
> The OP making a statement that goes against the video evidence, imo would not be taken as evidence of a crime.



He has already made a statement, or at least given an interview, which admits the sect 4 public order offence.

That's why I mentioned the difficulty of 'undoing' it.

Yes, he could tell the police to get lost, get himself charged, go to court and tell an entirely different story, plus another story as to why his account has changed.

Trust me, it would be a car crash.


----------



## Goggs (17 Oct 2016)

I don't see how he has commited an offence in the first place. Surely the duress he was under at the time of his shouting must go to mitigation? He could argue he was in fear of his life or serious injury by the actions of the driver. If that went to a jury I don't think it would be as open & shut as some are suggesting.


----------



## flake99please (17 Oct 2016)

Chances are that if it went to court their would not be a jury consisting of cyclechat forum members. The OP is likely to be facing a jury of sympathetic drivers. 

Given the situation as it is, I would be seeking legal advice from at least 2 professionals in criminal law before accepting any charges/fines.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Update. As it currently stands I stand to get a caution for Section 4 public order offence (no argument there) and criminal damage. The estimate for the criminal damage (I asked for three quotes and pictorial evidence) has come in at £250.
> 
> Now, the 'damage' is just in front of the rear wheel arch of his vehicle. I did not and cannot have done that damage with my hand, which was what I hit his vehicle with. However, to contest this, is to go to court on both counts and as I am clearly guilty of the former, it will cost me more and I WILL end up with a criminal record. Even with my witness that would back me up on the criminal damage issue; it's not worth it.
> 
> ...



I really don't understand this arrangement. It raises too many questions:

What are the police saying they will do in relation to the (false) criminal damage? Are they suggesting they have the evidence to charge you with that and put a case for it to court? If so, based on what? Also, if they have enough evidence, why aren't they cautioning (or charging) you for both offences? Why just the public order offence?

If they don't have the evidence to charge you, why would they suddenly decide to do so just because you don't accept a caution for the first offence?

I disagree that you're "clearly guilty" of the threatening behaviour charge, as it doesn't take into account the understandable fear and apprehension you had for your own safety as a result of the twat's bad driving.

Accepting this caution means you _will_ have a criminal record.
By rejecting it you give yourself two opportunities of avoiding a criminal record, for the reasons explained by @bobinski previously.

If I were in your shoes, and I appreciate it's always easier for the onlooker to say this, I'd stand my ground and take my chance either that the CPS binned it or my defence agent could show at trial that my reaction was justified and that there was no evidence I caused, or even could have caused, the damage alleged.

By the way, are the police making this offer of a caution conditional on you paying compensation to the driver for the alleged damage?

Please take proper legal advice on this from someone other than the duty solicitor who went to the interview with you. What @bobinski said up thread makes more sense to me than anything else I've heard here.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Oct 2016)

I wish people would stop giving legal advice. None of us has seen the video nor read the statement, so even if there are lawyers amongst us, good ones wouldn't give advice on so little information.

@russ.will, please talk to a criminal lawyer.

Edit : one tmn to @glasgowcyclist


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Oct 2016)

Unfortunately, the OP attended the interview and gave them all the evidence they need for a public order offence charge. However, he certainly should fight the damage one.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Oct 2016)

'Fear and apprehension' - or whatever you want to call it - is no defence to the public order charge.

It's only relevance would be as mitigation at sentence following a conviction.

Evidence of the criminal damage appears very weak, so the OP could fight that.

But would he want to?

His current option appears to be accept a public order act caution, pay £250 and the criminal damage goes away.

If he fights the criminal damage, the OP would still have the public order caution and would be putting himself at risk of a criminal damage conviction.

The other possibility is if he fights the criminal damage, the police withdraw the offer of a caution and the OP ends up being tried for the public order offence and criminal damage.

Then there's the practicalities of attending a few court hearings, attending for the trial, and preparing for it.

The OP is very keen to avoid a conviction, so he may be attracted by paying £250 to rule out any prospect of being convicted of anything.


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> Although Scottish notes are mostly accepted south of the border, they can be refused as they are not legal tender. Paying £250 in, say 5p pieces, would have to be accepted as it would be legal tender.


Scottish banknotes aren't even legal tender in Scotland.

That from the Royal Bank of Scotland.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Oct 2016)

Is it possible OP is actually being offered a Conditional Caution? Where a condition is that he pays for the damage to be repaired.


----------



## benb (17 Oct 2016)

Goggs said:


> I don't see how he has commited an offence in the first place. Surely the duress he was under at the time of his shouting must go to mitigation? He could argue he was in fear of his life or serious injury by the actions of the driver. If that went to a jury I don't think it would be as open & shut as some are suggesting.





flake99please said:


> Chances are that if it went to court their would not be a jury consisting of cyclechat forum members. The OP is likely to be facing a jury of sympathetic drivers.



It won't go to a jury at all, as it would be tried in a Magistrate's Court.


----------



## bobinski (17 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Update. As it currently stands I stand to get a caution for Section 4 public order offence (no argument there) and criminal damage. The estimate for the criminal damage (I asked for three quotes and pictorial evidence) has come in at £250.
> 
> Now, the 'damage' is just in front of the rear wheel arch of his vehicle. I did not and cannot have done that damage with my hand, which was what I hit his vehicle with. However, to contest this, is to go to court on both counts and as I am clearly guilty of the former, it will cost me more and I WILL end up with a criminal record. Even with my witness that would back me up on the criminal damage issue; it's not worth it.
> 
> ...



You cannot be cautioned for something you do not admit. There has to be an offence evidenced by some compelling, witness or otherwise, evidence AND your admission. Have a look at the cps website which deal with this.
I am refraining from advising you on the s4 because you have a lawyer but do please ask him or her how you can be cautioned for something you do not admit.


----------



## Banjo (17 Oct 2016)

I think I have learned a few lessons from this thread.

First one try not to lose it no matter how big an idiot you are dealing with.(easier said than done I know.been there got the T shirt.)

Secondly never give out your name or details unless you have to eg if injury or genuine damage has occured.

Finally if it goes completely belly up get a good solicitor experienced in helping cyclists.

I really feel for the op having to pay for damage he didnt do but if that makes it all go away then its probably wise .If it goes to court the only real winners will be the solicitors.


----------



## *Dusty* (17 Oct 2016)

Sorry for the way is has turned out for the OP.

Sadly, i'm not exactly surprised, it's more about the path of least resistance and the death of common sense than upholding the law these days. Ordinary decent folk make for easy prosecutions.


----------



## TheJDog (17 Oct 2016)

This thread totally reinforces my opinion that you should never, ever talk to the police.

I think the copper has had a choice of a maybe on a prosecution for dangerous driving but instead has opted for an easy caution against the other party. Van driver gets away with dangerous driving, _and_ made OP pay for damage he didn't cause? It's bloody unbelievable.


----------



## russ.will (17 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The OP is very keen to avoid a conviction, so he may be attracted by paying £250 to rule out any prospect of being convicted of anything.


Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.

Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...

Russ


----------



## fossyant (17 Oct 2016)

Madness. So you've got to take a police bollocking then go in for a complaint against the driver. 

What a world eh.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.
> 
> Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...
> 
> Russ


I'm willing to bet that no action gets taken against the driver. 

After all you admitted to hitting out at the van. Not the other way


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2016)

fossyant said:


> Madness. So you've got to take a police bollocking then go in for a complaint against the driver.
> 
> What a world eh.


Understatement to say the least


----------



## david k (17 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Exactly that. £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels. It does not make sense.
> 
> Then, once my case is settled, I put in a complaint about the driver physically running me off the road, for which the policeman has his dashcam evidence showing how close the maneuver starts and I have a witness as to how it ends. I don't really know if it will go anywhere, but if it did, my suggestion to the police would be that the reparation be the sanctimonious septuagenarian ex-driving instructor attends a driver awareness course. That will make his blood boil...
> 
> Russ



But isn't doing somethIng to make his blood boil just spiteful? Surely it's better to aim for a good outcome for yourself and to fight the charges on you by reporting his dangerous driving? The two things are linked, not sure how you have to accept a caution before reporting him?


----------



## Goggs (17 Oct 2016)

If everything you've said here is the absolute truth of what happened I just can't see how your behaviour is not being considered in the context of the dangerous driving you were subjected to. More worryingly, I don't understand why the police officer involved doesn't see the connection. Cause & effect and all that. As far as the role of the police in all this..


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Oct 2016)

Goggs said:


> If everything you've said here is the absolute truth of what happened I just can't see how your behaviour is not being considered in the context of the dangerous driving you were subjected to. More worryingly, I don't understand why the police officer involved doesn't see the connection. Cause & effect and all that. As far as the role of the police in all this..



The dangerous driving is irrelevant to the public order offence as far as the commission of it goes.

You may not like or agree with that, but it is still so.

If this went to trial, the magistrates might have some sympathy with the OP, but they would still have to convict on the evidence - dashcam, injured party, his wife, and the OP's statement.

The sympathy might be shown by a lenient penalty, but that's no good to the OP because he still has the conviction.

The alternative of a caution - no conviction and no penalty - is preferable to him, as it would be to me.


----------



## Goggs (18 Oct 2016)

You may well be right & I'm not telling the OP what to do. I know what I'd like to think I would do though.


----------



## benb (18 Oct 2016)

I don't understand why the OP is being forced to accept the public order caution *and *cop for the criminal damage, or else take both to court. 
Surely the facts of both offences are independent of each other? Why can't he accept the caution for the public order offence but still fight the ludicrous criminal damage charge?


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> I don't understand why the OP is being forced to accept the public order caution *and *cop for the criminal damage, or else take both to court.
> Surely the facts of both offences are independent of each other? Why can't he accept the caution for the public order offence but still fight the ludicrous criminal damage charge?



My reading of his account is he could do that, although there's a risk the police will withdraw the offer of a caution and charge him with both offences.

The criminal damage evidence does look very weak, but on the other hand the OP's conduct will form part of the background to the criminal damage allegation.

A bench might think that a man clearly in a very bad temper with an elderly driver might be capable of damaging the driver's van.

The OP is keen to avoid a criminal conviction.

The safest way to do that is not to stand trial for anything.

There's always a risk of a conviction after a trial, even though that decision might look perverse.


----------



## Phaeton (18 Oct 2016)

Again showing my ignorance but surely a caution is getting a criminal record.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> Again showing my ignorance but surely a caution is getting a criminal record.



Covered earlier in the thread (I think), but the short answer is a caution is not a criminal record, not least because it is not a conviction, it's an admission to a police officer which is not the same as a guilty verdict at court.

It would be disclosed on some enhanced checks, but if asked the question for the likes of insurance and for most jobs, the OP can truthfully say he has no criminal record.

There could be an impact should the OP get involved in a similar situation in future.

The police officer dealing may be less inclined to offer a caution when he finds the OP already has one for a similar offence.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> Again showing my ignorance but surely a caution is getting a criminal record.




According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/416068/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf , a "caution is an admission of guilt to committing an offence and forms part of the offender's criminal record."


----------



## david k (18 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The dangerous driving is irrelevant to the public order offence as far as the commission of it goes.
> 
> You may not like or agree with that, but it is still so.
> 
> ...


Struggling to understand this

If you punch someone you can claim self defence if you felt threatened, but you cannot do the same if you respond with verbals? If so the op may have been better of punching him?
Unless the video footage shows the op to be the aggressor and over reacting? Could this be the case op?


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Oct 2016)

david k said:


> Struggling to understand this
> 
> If you punch someone you can claim self defence if you felt threatened, but you cannot do the same if you respond with verbals? If so the op may have been better of punching him?
> Unless the video footage shows the op to be the aggressor and over reacting? Could this be the case op?



There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.

That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.

It's also quite a difficult defence to run successfully because the response has to be proportionate - walloping someone who has merely threatened you doesn't cut it.

Equally, if someone 'only' whacks you, you can't stab them in return or beat the living daylights out of them.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Using a vehicle as an offensive weapon is usually viewed as a driving offence, not an assault offence so the assault offence response doesn't work



sadly that does seem to be true. Not so long ago the arse who seemingly deliberately ran over a toddler in her bike trailer got done for dangerous driving, rather than the more extreme end of the assault scale one might have thought was merited.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Oct 2016)

User13710 said:


> WTF? I'm struggling to understand why anyone would be prepared to shell out £250 for something they didn't do.



An economist would call it the alternative cost.

It's all very well telling the OP to tell the copper to get lost over the damage, but he could end up with a criminal conviction for criminal damage, a fine, costs, victim surcharge, and the (inflated) bill for the damage.

So it's the risk of a conviction and a bill for £500+, or the alternative of just a bill for £250.

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but he has posted to say that he is very keen to avoid a conviction.


----------



## Goggs (18 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.
> 
> That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.
> 
> ...



This, sadly, is very true.


----------



## david k (18 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> An economist would call it the alternative cost.
> 
> It's all very well telling the OP to tell the copper to get lost over the damage, but he could end up with a criminal conviction for criminal damage, a fine, costs, victim surcharge, and the (inflated) bill for the damage.
> 
> ...


Cannot help thinking op would only consider this if their recollection was so inaccurate that the tape shows clearly they were the instigator of the confrontation, or reacted disproportionately. If not surely it would be clear on the video that their reaction was understandable and in response to a threat?


----------



## russ.will (18 Oct 2016)

User13710 said:


> You might be well versed in the minutiae of the legal system, but I fear you might have lost sight of what is right and what is wrong.


Unfortunately, that hasn't got a lot to do with it, but for my part, I was wrong. I have to be pragmatic and go for damage limitation. This thread won't end there.

Russell


----------



## Banjo (19 Oct 2016)

@User13710 I fully understand your frustration but think you are being very unfair to Pale Rider.

His or anyone elses perception of right and wrong will have no bearing on the outcome of any potential trial.

He is merely informing the op of possible pitfalls should the op choose to take it further.


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> There's a statutory defence of 'self defence' to most of the assault charges.
> 
> That doesn't exist for the public order offence with which the OP is accused.
> 
> ...





Goggs said:


> This, _luckily_, is very true.



FTFY


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> Unfortunately, that hasn't got a lot to do with it, but for my part, I was wrong. I have to be pragmatic and go for damage limitation. This thread won't end there.
> 
> Russell



I struggle to see after your admissions that they will even pursue a case against the driver.


----------



## steve292 (19 Oct 2016)

I would take legal advice, even if I did end up paying the costs.Are you in the CTC or BC? The chances of you being able to push in a wheel arch with your hand are quite frankly nil.
The police are taking the path of least resistance. The driver is the root cause of the problem with the standard of his driving , not you.


----------



## Banjo (19 Oct 2016)

That's not how I read the same posts.

Its easy to get on your high horses and join in the popular view when its not your life and money at stake.

The whole thing stinks IMHO but sadly I know that my opinion counts for diddly squat .


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2016)

Banjo said:


> That's not how I read the same posts.
> 
> Its easy to get on your high horses and join in the popular view when its not your life and money at stake.
> 
> The whole thing stinks IMHO .



Quite so.

It's not a matter of losing sight of right or wrong, it's a matter of recognising right or wrong is irrelevant to the task at hand which is solely to get the best possible result for the OP.

The OP has taken legal advice, and speaks in his last post of 'damage limitation' and being 'pragmatic', so it seems he has formed a similar view to mine.

Of course, the OP could take alternative legal advice which may, or may not, lead him in a different direction.

But he still remains strongly adverse to getting a criminal record.

The only sure fire way of avoiding one of those is not to step foot into the dock of the court.

Far too many people have gone gung-ho into proceedings, impelled by a crushing sense of injustice, only to regret it later when they get an entirely predictable bad result.

That may not be morally right and it may be a bad fault of the system, but the OP has no alternative but to be dealt with by the system as it currently operates.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Oct 2016)

I find these two statements to be puzzling and conflicting:



russ.will said:


> £250 and a caution for the S4. It's over. If I choose to fight anything, then I have to fight everything and that will cost me more on multiple levels





russ.will said:


> The complainant, wants no more than recompense for repairs to his van



If the 2nd is true, why is the cop-who's-a-cyclist-too proceeding with administering a caution for the S4 _and_ threatening to add in prosecution for criminal damage (for which there appears to be no evidence) if that caution is declined?



russ.will said:


> I was advised by both the solicitor and policeman there is nothing to stop me lodging a complaint to be investigated.



Nothing stopping you lodging it, nothing stopping the police binning it. I'm betting £20 that's what they'll do.

(If they do prosecute him, I'll donate £20 to the Cyclists' Defence Fund.)


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But he still remains strongly adverse to getting a criminal record.



A caution _is_ a criminal record.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If the 2nd is true, why is the cop-who's-a-cyclist-too proceeding with administering a caution for the S4 _and_ threatening to add in prosecution for criminal damage (for which there appears to be no evidence) if that caution is declined?



I'm guessing that it is a Conditional Caution rather than just a caution, with a conditioning being compensating for the damage.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> A caution _is_ a criminal record.



It's not a criminal conviction, and the difference - for someone of previous good character - is worth having.

https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> It's not a criminal conviction, and the difference - for someone of previous good character - is worth having.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty



Nobody has said it is a criminal conviction, but it does form part of the criminal _record_.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm

Particularly "Cautions will always remain on a person's record. There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare."

If the OP applies for any job that is exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act, then he WILL need to declare the caution for the next 6 years.

Accepting the caution WILL give him a record.


----------



## *Dusty* (19 Oct 2016)

In reality, it's on your file. I wouldn't worry about it though, get on with life and become one of the increasing number of people who (imo rightly) don't trust the establishment.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

*Dusty* said:


> In reality, it's on your file. I wouldn't worry about it though, get on with life and become one of the increasing number of people who (imo rightly) don't trust the establishment.


But if he gets kicked out of his rugby club or isn't allowed to be on the field training the kids in the club because he can't pass a CRB check, it could have a big effect on his life.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> But if he gets kicked out of his rugby club or isn't allowed to be on the field training the kids in the club because he can't pass a CRB check, it could have a big effect on his life.



CRB isn't a Pass/Fail thing though, it's simply a check. I can't imagine a public order offence being an issue for rugby with kids. Sexual offence maybe would, or a caution for drugs.

It just provides the body with information, what they choose to do is their choice.


----------



## *Dusty* (19 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> But if he gets kicked out of his rugby club or isn't allowed to be on the field training the kids in the club because he can't pass a CRB check, it could have a big effect on his life.




It's unlikely to affect his ability to work with children unless it's a conviction for something more serious. I have 5 points for driving without due care and consideration. Someone tried to cause a crash by stopping dead in front of me on an empty road, I used my phone to video him, caught him doing it again and the police did me for using the phone while driving. Go figure. Had my day in court, took my points, other tw*t got off scot free and I'm still teaching children Taekwondo. My AccessNI (northern Ireland equivalent of CRB) came back clear.

Didn't even affect my application for a firearm certificate either.


----------



## *Dusty* (19 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> CRB isn't a Pass/Fail thing though, it's simply a check. I can't imagine a public order offence being an issue for rugby with kids. Sexual offence maybe would, or a caution for drugs.
> 
> It just provides the body with information, what they choose to do is their choice.



Exactly this, if it were drug or alcohol related or something like a serious assault/abh/gbh type thing then yes, it would probably be taken into consideration.


----------



## Inertia (19 Oct 2016)

Only just seen this thread, it makes me angry but I can understand the OP just wanting this to go away now. The thought of that ***** bragging to his mates about how he not only forced a cyclist off the road but also got the cops to make him pay for damage he didnt cause would stick in my craw though.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

User said:


> It depends on the person's occupation. A caution for a public order offence that included an aspect of violent behaviour might be frowned up in particular professions.


He said earlier he worked in the head office of a construction company, so I doubt that will be an issue, although depending on what contracts they have I suppose it could. I'm more concerned over his hobby at the rugby club, however he is a grown man, we have suggested he gets independant legal advice, if he doesn't wish to take that there is little we can do.


----------



## boydj (19 Oct 2016)

Personally I would accept neither the caution nor responsibility for any damage. The whole incident was the result of bad driving and the wholly understandable reaction of the cyclist to having his life endangered.

I'd be prepared to go to court. 

However, such is the state of our justice system that I think it highly unlikely that this would get anywhere near a court, even if the police did charge the OP with anything. The justice system and the police rely on people making guilty pleas and will pressure people to accept cautions or plead guilty to avoid having to put resources into going to court.


----------



## Lozz360 (19 Oct 2016)

*Dusty* said:


> It's unlikely to affect his ability to work with children unless it's a conviction for something more serious. I have 5 points for driving without due care and consideration. Someone tried to cause a crash by stopping dead in front of me on an empty road, I used my phone to video him, caught him doing it again and the police did me for using the phone while driving. Go figure. Had my day in court, took my points, other tw*t got off scot free and I'm still teaching children Taekwondo. My AccessNI (northern Ireland equivalent of CRB) came back clear.
> 
> Didn't even affect my application for a firearm certificate either.


Difference is that your offence was a traffic offence not a criminal one. If you had accepted a caution as the OP has, you wouldn't be teaching children Taekwondo or anything else now.


----------



## Banjo (19 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> Difference is that your offence was a traffic offence not a criminal one. If you had accepted a caution as the OP has, you wouldn't be teaching children Taekwondo or anything else now.


Are you sure about this Lozz?


----------



## Lozz360 (19 Oct 2016)

Banjo said:


> Are you sure about this Lozz?


I know that Cautions will show up on CRB checks (or whatever they are called now) and a Caution for an offence that is violence related will likely to prevent you from working with children.


----------



## Banjo (19 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> I know that Cautions will show up on CRB checks (or whatever they are called now) and a Caution for an offence that is violence related will likely to prevent you from working with children.


----------



## summerdays (20 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> I know that Cautions will show up on CRB checks (or whatever they are called now) and a Caution for an offence that is violence related will likely to prevent you from working with children.


I understood that just because it is disclosed on a DBS check that it is then upto the body requesting the check to decide whether it will effect your job/activity.


----------



## Hill Wimp (20 Oct 2016)

summerdays said:


> I understood that just because it is disclosed on a DBS check that it is then upto the body requesting the check to decide whether it will effect your job/activity.


It is as they will own the risk and therefore have to manage it.


----------



## david k (20 Oct 2016)

Hill Wimp said:


> It is as they will own the risk and therefore have to manage it.


If they accept an applicant who has a record for violent behaviour which was admitted they would be taking responsibility, I assume most would swerve this applicant for the fear of being held responsible


----------



## summerdays (20 Oct 2016)

david k said:


> If they accept an applicant who has a record for violent behaviour which was admitted they would be taking responsibility, I assume most would swerve this applicant for the fear of being held responsible


It would depend on the role surely, and if he already held that position and they knew his character too then they can make an assessment as to whether it is a risk or not.


----------



## Spinney (20 Oct 2016)

summerdays said:


> It would depend on the role surely, and if he already held that position and they knew his character too then they can make an assessment as to whether it is a risk or not.


And people who know him are more likely to be sympathetic to the provocation that resulted in the altercation.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Oct 2016)

Spinney said:


> And people who know him are more likely to be sympathetic to the provocation that resulted in the altercation.


But would the parents of 'little Johnny' who don't know him be as sympathetic if something happened in the future


----------



## *Dusty* (20 Oct 2016)

Lozz360 said:


> Difference is that your offence was a traffic offence not a criminal one. If you had accepted a caution as the OP has, you wouldn't be teaching children Taekwondo or anything else now.



Given the details of the OP's incident I would think it unlikely a governing body of whatever association will prevent him from being a member. I know the Taekwondo Association would be perfectly fine with it as it wasn't an incident which involved, affected or would be likely to affect children. In practice that's what governing bodies will be considering, also a good record goes a long way. It's a bump in the road of life, we'll all have them to some extent.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Oct 2016)

*Dusty* said:


> Given the details of the OP's incident I would think it unlikely a governing body of whatever association will prevent him from being a member. I know the Taekwondo Association would be perfectly fine with it as it wasn't an incident which involved, affected or would be likely to affect children. In practice that's what governing bodies will be considering, also a good record goes a long way. It's a bump in the road of life, we'll all have them to some extent.



He will probably have no issues with his current clubs, and employer. As they will know him.

However, when trying to go somewhere new. How does this sound? "Oh yeah, I got a caution for aggressive behaviour and criminal damage, but I didn't really do anything"

How many "real" guilty people will be saying that?


----------



## jarlrmai (20 Oct 2016)

Yeah the thing about records is it never states what happened, just what law you happened to be done under.

This is the reason why there was such a fuss when Merseyrail started doing people for "feet on the seats," it appeared on the record as "did molest and wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562141/Feet-on-seat-student-escapes-conviction.html


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> This is the reason why there was such a fuss when Merseyrail started doing people for "feet on the seats," it appeared on the record as did "molest and wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway"



A grandmother and their slipper should be employed to fix this issue. It is a tried and tested method of making people respect this stuff.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Yeah the thing about records is it never states what happened, just what law you happened to be done under.
> 
> This is the reason why there was such a fuss when Merseyrail started doing people for "feet on the seats," it appeared on the record as "did molest and wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway"
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562141/Feet-on-seat-student-escapes-conviction.html



Similarly, there are two ways of dealing with misuse of a disabled parking blue badge.

One is all but a fixed penalty and can be fairly likened to a parking ticket.

But the same offence is also contrary to the Fraud Act, and can be charged as such.

Manchester council did that a few years ago during a crackdown when they also put out details and photos of the offenders.

Those people got the same criminal record - when expressed in one line - as the multi-million pound bank and pension fraudsters.

The moral of both tales is steer clear of the courts - particularly if you have a good name and want to keep it.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The moral of both tales is steer clear of the courts - particularly if you have a good name and want to keep it.



But the caution the OP will get is the same as a person who was throwing missiles at the Police during a demonstration, or fighting in a pub, or threatening people in the street.

If he applies, and that shows on a check, will he even get the interview to have the opportunity to explain that he wasn't throwing bricks at the police?


----------



## david k (20 Oct 2016)

Still, they would be knowingly hiring someone who has a record, think they need something more robust and objective in their systems than "Arh but we know him"


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Oct 2016)

david k said:


> Still, they would be knowingly hiring someone who has a record, think they need something more robust and objective in their systems than "Arh but we know him"



I meant in his current position, where he is already of known good character. They're not going to dismiss him purely because of this. Any issues will occur going to somewhere new.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> But the caution the OP will get is the same as a person who was throwing missiles at the Police during a demonstration, or fighting in a pub, or threatening people in the street.
> 
> If he applies, and that shows on a check, will he even get the interview to have the opportunity to explain that he wasn't throwing bricks at the police?



That could happen, but a caution is not disclosable in the same way.

Anyone who does see the caution is likely to assume it was for a relatively minor offence of its type.

The OP can truthfully answer 'no' to the question about criminal convictions which crops up on insurance application forms, and probably in other circumstances which I can't bring to mind.

Whichever way you look at it, a caution is far preferable to a conviction for the same offence.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> That could happen, but a caution is not disclosable in the same way.
> 
> Anyone who does see the caution is likely to assume it was for a relatively minor offence of its type.
> 
> ...



A caution is treated as instantly spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, unless it is conditional, where it becomes spent once the conditions have been met.

However, if it is his ONLY offence, and the work is exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act, then he MUST declare it for the next 6 years.


----------



## mr_cellophane (20 Oct 2016)

A caution could be an issue for the OP if he applies for Security Clearance. That is something he might have to go through for another job, or even if his present employer wishes to tender for work on a restricted site (there are plenty around that most people might think would be OK)
He just needs to be honest though and admit to everything as that is the key thing that is checked, not past behaviour.


----------



## russ.will (21 Oct 2016)

FFS, Pale Rider understands exactly the issues at stake. Stop debating them whether it's a black/white right/wrong issue of principle. It's not, because the world doesn't work like that. If you think that's wrong when you're in my position and want to stick it to 'the man' then go knock yourself out. Enjoy the feeling of righteousness and then be prepared to pay for the privilege!

Just to knock a couple of points of debate on the head as of now:

1. My employer couldn't give a flying toss. My FD said he was surprised I didn't punch the bloke. That's two of us then.

2. The rugby club can't see a problem either and I've run it by the bloke who did my CRB check. Plenty of parents have heard the story - and I have recounted the statements I made in the course of the incident based on what the video reminded me of - during conversation over post match/training beer, multiple times. Comments ranged from 'you twat' to 'why didn't you punch him'. Because that would be wrong, is my oft repeated explanation. No matter, I've been up front about it and nobody is concerned, nor raised a complaint to the club.

These debates are over.

Russell


----------



## raleighnut (22 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> FFS, Pale Rider understands exactly the issues at stake. Stop debating them whether it's a black/white right/wrong issue of principle. It's not, because the world doesn't work like that. If you think that's wrong when you're in my position and want to stick it to 'the man' then go knock yourself out. Enjoy the feeling of righteousness and then be prepared to pay for the privilege!
> 
> Just to knock a couple of points of debate on the head as of now:
> 
> ...




I'd have shoved his 'dash-cam up his 'jacksie' as well..............................


----------



## swansonj (22 Oct 2016)

russ.will said:


> ..,,
> These debates are over.
> 
> Russell


I admire your optimism, given that this is CycleChat we're talking about....


----------



## jefmcg (22 Oct 2016)

I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Oct 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .



Thanks for the vote of (no) confidence.

Russ has taken legal advice - he watched the vid with the duty solicitor.

This case is not that complicated, it's a serious matter for Russ and like any job, needs to be done properly, but it doesn't need Rumpole of the Bailey.

He could add nothing to it - apart from a large bill.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Thanks for the vote of (no) confidence.


Take umbrage if you like, but I do not think that is what most us are saying, only the duty solicitor has seen the video along with Russ, (unless of course he has forwarded you a copy unbeknown to everybody else) was he fully qualified in this aspect of the law to give a definitive answer? Either way Russ has made his mind up so that is the end of the matter.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> Take umbrage if you like, but I do not think that is what most us are saying, only the duty solicitor has seen the video along with Russ, (unless of course he has forwarded you a copy unbeknown to everybody else) was he fully qualified in this aspect of the law to give a definitive answer? Either way Russ has made his mind up so that is the end of the matter.



No umbrage from me, it was an attempt at (sarcastic) humour.

There is no definitive answer, decisions by Russ on how to proceed are subjective, taken within the rigid framework of the law and police/court procedure.

As I've remarked before in this type of thread, a lot of it comes down to tactics, the best tactician will generally come out ahead, without exactly winning.

Most punters don't understand the game, not least because they've never played or even watched it.

The playing field is levelled by a competent, experienced solicitor.

There are very few out and out duffers, in that job any weaknesses are quickly and publicly exposed, so they don't last long.

On the other side, a competent, experienced copper is a worthy adversary, as is a competent, experienced prosecution lawyer.


----------



## russ.will (22 Oct 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .


I did. She was sitting next to me watching it and whilst the statement was taken. Twice, the copper stepped out of the room whilst I consulted her about answers to questions. 

I'm comfortable with this. In the grand scheme of things, this is merely a buggeration, nothing more. 

Russ


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (22 Oct 2016)

Since Russ has already said he considers the debate over, this looks like a good point to bring the thread to a close.


----------

