I was involved in a rta on a roundabout, the driver failed to stop , but Humberside Police Authority took a statement saying that he had stopped at the roundabout as he should have, but didn't contact me, l want to take Humberside Police Authority to court as he the driver clearly lied,l have proof that he lied, photos taken a year later , he said the sun was in his eyes and he stopped before pulling out, having move two feet hitting me, according to his statement. I complained to police authority but they said that Humberside Police Authority had followed procedure, l wasn't interviewed despite being taken to the hospital by a police patrol car,no ambulances where available, and spent three months recovering from it.
Rta on a roundabout
- Thread starter Danglers
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I'm not sure what you are wanting here in reply. It sounds poor, but presumably it happened many years ago because Humberside Police Authority was abolished in 2012. Actually, I think they regulated the police and didn't take victim or witness statements, so I think you may be a bit confused. If you're a member of Cycling UK or British Cycling, they might be able to talk to you, figure out what happened and advise you whether anything can be done about it, possibly referring you to their partner personal injury lawyers.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Why do you want to take the police to court? Have the police lied? Did they knock you off your bike?
If you have come into possession of new evidence a year later that demonstrates the driver lied that doesn't really help. The boat has sadly long since sailed for a prosecution. Simply lying isn't a crime, even to the police, so there's nothing can be done about that. Every criminal lies to the police - dishonesty is what makes them villains. If there was no 3rd party corroboration at the time then it likely came down to your word against his and that is not sufficient for a prosecution no matter how righteous you may be in this situation.
However, if his lies have crossed the threshold and gone into downright fabrication (falsifying documents, inventing names of imaginary drivers are the two regular ones) then that would be perverting the course of justice, but that's a high bar and simply telling fibs won't fit the bill.
It's not good you weren't interviewed, but really it doesn't matter in a sense - one persons word against another is not sufficient. He could have run you over, bitten a virgin on the neck and eaten a dead dog and it wouldn't have mattered if youre saying he did it and he denies it. There has to be corroboration from credible source.
Perhaps speak to a solicitor? If you have new evidence a year on that supports your version of events then there may be grounds for at least stiffing him financially.
If you have come into possession of new evidence a year later that demonstrates the driver lied that doesn't really help. The boat has sadly long since sailed for a prosecution. Simply lying isn't a crime, even to the police, so there's nothing can be done about that. Every criminal lies to the police - dishonesty is what makes them villains. If there was no 3rd party corroboration at the time then it likely came down to your word against his and that is not sufficient for a prosecution no matter how righteous you may be in this situation.
However, if his lies have crossed the threshold and gone into downright fabrication (falsifying documents, inventing names of imaginary drivers are the two regular ones) then that would be perverting the course of justice, but that's a high bar and simply telling fibs won't fit the bill.
It's not good you weren't interviewed, but really it doesn't matter in a sense - one persons word against another is not sufficient. He could have run you over, bitten a virgin on the neck and eaten a dead dog and it wouldn't have mattered if youre saying he did it and he denies it. There has to be corroboration from credible source.
Perhaps speak to a solicitor? If you have new evidence a year on that supports your version of events then there may be grounds for at least stiffing him financially.
