Hghway code 268

[trashbat]

What we don't know from these tales is how likely a conviction would be if you declined the fixed penalty and opted to go to court instead (I believe that's a choice you always have available).

No, but you can surmise that the odds are stacked against you - in terms of it being your word against one or more police officers, in terms of a 'reasonable person' not expecting to be overtaken on the left, and in terms of the vagueness of HC 268.

Two threads:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

[jont]

What we don't know from these tales is how likely a conviction would be if you declined the fixed penalty and opted to go to court instead (I believe that's a choice you always have available).

No, but you can surmise that the odds are stacked against you - in terms of it being your word against one or more police officers, in terms of a 'reasonable person' not expecting to be overtaken on the left, and in terms of the vagueness of HC 268.

Two threads:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

It does seem a shame that those being undertaken aren't also required to respond to the same offence (ie allowing yourself to be undertaken suggests DWDCA). Sure, there will be corner cases of behaviour but having done ~800 miles of mostly motorway in the last few days the driving standards being displayed by a large number of motorists are pretty dismal. Perhaps instead of an FPN they should be offered a suitable motorway training course?

[zadocbrown]

What we don't know from these tales is how likely a conviction would be if you declined the fixed penalty and opted to go to court instead (I believe that's a choice you always have available).

No, but you can surmise that the odds are stacked against you - in terms of it being your word against one or more police officers, in terms of a 'reasonable person' not expecting to be overtaken on the left, and in terms of the vagueness of HC 268.

Two threads:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... mid=259361

Well having had a quick look, I suspect both these specific cases were rightly seen as ill-judged manouevres, and therefore were deserving of a pull. Its not just the fact of passing on the left, but the circumstances and manner of execution that may make it careless, inconsiderate or unsafe.

[GJD]

What we don't know from these tales is how likely a conviction would be if you declined the fixed penalty and opted to go to court instead (I believe that's a choice you always have available).

No, but you can surmise that the odds are stacked against you - in terms of it being your word against one or more police officers

I wasn't thinking about your word against the officer(s) in terms of the police say you passed on the left and you say you didn't. I was thinking of how close to conviction the simple fact of passing on the left gets you. That's what I don't know and what the tale of someone who doesn't contest the fixed penalty doesn't help with.

The standard is that of a competent and careful driver. In assessing whether your driving met that standard, is a police officer's opinion that it didn't (as opposed to the officer's reporting of facts such as you passed someone on the left) of any relevance? It seems to me that it would be difficult to apply the standard (whatever it is) consistently if the officer's opinion were relevant because different officers could have different opinions.

[trashbat]

I wasn't thinking about your word against the officer(s) in terms of the police say you passed on the left and you say you didn't. I was thinking of how close to conviction the simple fact of passing on the left gets you.

Me too, but I don't hold out much hope for your prospects. The police officer presents the facts, claims it lacked due care, and you don't dispute the facts. This would generally take place in a magistrates court and be dealt with very quickly.

[GJD]

I wasn't thinking about your word against the officer(s) in terms of the police say you passed on the left and you say you didn't. I was thinking of how close to conviction the simple fact of passing on the left gets you.

Me too, but I don't hold out much hope for your prospects. The police officer presents the facts, claims it lacked due care, and you don't dispute the facts. This would generally take place in a magistrates court and be dealt with very quickly.

How does it work? Does the police officer say "x, y and z are the facts and in my opinion the driving was below the required standard.", or does the court require the police officer to say, "x, y and z are the facts and in my opinion the driving was below the required standard because..."? Or, when the police office says, "x, y and z are the facts and in my opinion the driving was below the required standard..." does the magistrate interrupt at that point saying, "Thank you officer, but your opinion on the matter isn't relevant."?

[michael769]

Police are accepted as expert witnesses in these matters so their opinions are admissible in court, and carry considerable weight, especially if there are 2 officers to provide corroboration.

That is not to say that such prosecutions are a slam dunk. The defense can seek to rebut their officers opinion, and evidence. For example by pressing the officer under cross examination to justify their opinion.

It is hard to defend (less so if it is the uncorroborated opinion of a single officer), especially if the defendant is unable to offer any rebuttal evidence, and it comes down to the copper says it was I say it wasn't, but acquittals do happen. IME the acquittals tend to arise where there are issues with the quality of the evidence (for example inconsistencies in officers accounts) rather than due to an evaluation of the facts.

It is perhaps worth considering the demographic of a typical magistrate, and what you would expect him to do if 2 coppers described undertaking of careless driving with reference to the highway code rule "prohibiting" it? At the end of the day in court you can expect to be judged against the rules set out in the highway code, combined with the magistrates understanding of what the DSA would expect on a driving test.