Safe Speed Forums

I was watching a program the other day called Crash Scene Investigators and the police said something which interested me..

They were trying to prosecute a young man whom they believed to be the driver of a car in which a girl was sadly killed and other passengers were badly hurt. The car seemed to be going too fast while overtaking on a long sweeping bend and careered off the road into a tree.

To cut a long story short they were struggling to prove what they strongly suspected had happened, and the driver denied it was he who was at the wheel, so used some legal term I hadn’t heard of before called ‘Bad character evidence’. Now as I understood this and from what they said it essentially means they can make some kind of judgement call on this accident based on his previous bad driving record and they are at liberty to use it as some kind of evidence that he most likely caused this one. (My words, not theirs).

What I thought was funny is how they have powers to invoke something like that, (and I’m not saying it’s wrong as such), but there’s not a ‘Good character evidence’ equivalent when someone with a long accident-free driving record gets done for speeding. It's my usual beef about how if I got done for speeding tomorrow the fact that I have been accident-free and held a clean licence for some 27 years means absolutely nothing.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/
I hope that Fisherman can elucidate us on this.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Phew and thanks dcb. That's going to take some digesting or interpretation I think. I don't suppose there's a Dummies Guide Probably why it seemed a bit woolly on the program.

Oh well, the journey of a thousand miles... Back in about two weeks while I try and chew my way through it.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Bad character is basically evidence that a person has a propensity to commit offences that have features in common with the offence being tried. Other relevant factors such as a history of perjury or witness intimidation can also be admissible.

It normally applies to a defendant, but can apply to a witness for either side. Permission must be requested within specified time limits or, exceptionally, reasons given why the application is outside the time limits. Permission will only be given where there is real probative value to the bad character AND when it is in the interests of justice. When the application is made the defence can resist the application.

It is a VERY complicated piece of law and not in the least intuitive in the way it is applied.


If a defendant has no record at all his or her lawyer always manages to get that fact into evidence as it does not require permission.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I was once involved in a trial where the prosicution tried to imply that I was guilty because I was a young driver in a old modified car (small steering wheel so I could fit my 6'2" frame in a mini) and the other driver was the victim because she was a middle aged woman in a new escort. The reallity was I braked, she sidnt see me and didn't brake.It was a single track , high banked lane. we exchanged headlights and grills. Her husband was a haulage contractor and likley coached her on what to say to police.

The trial fell to bits when the coppers failed to turn up after a police complaint about how they probed the car making holes with a 24" screwdriver was supported bt two mot inspectors who happened to have "trained" the two officers. The valid mot on the car was 5 days old by another tester also quallified by the same two mot inspectors.

I felt My trial was on the bad character reference of my age and "modified" car.

The blade of the screwdriver should not have been used as a leaver, thumb pressure only to see if the handle could be pressed through thin metal.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I have a similar story...

I was 19 years old and on my motorbike going around a bend on, what was back then, a

I had been around that bend very many times before but this one day, while I was banked-over, my front wheel hit something and I came off. I was completely puzzled as to what happened! I wasn’t speeding or trying to get my footrest grinding on the road or anything stupid like that.

Unbeknown to me though, (as I found out later), there was a farm entrance which I had never noticed before because the entrance isn’t very visible, obscured by trees etc., and a tractor had dumped some crud right on the bend in my path. It’s how I imagine you sometimes see a big load bouncing on the back of an overloaded tractor, and a dollop of mud was deposited right in my path.

I ended up in court being prosecuted by the police, even though there were no witnesses, and convicted of driving without due care and attention based on their opinion. I wasn’t speeding but looking back they tried, and succeeded, to assassinate my character based on the fact that I was young and naïve!

At court, I wasn’t wearing a suit and had long hair but most importantly – it was me verses the police and I was trying to defend myself based on the facts as I saw them. (I was never going to win, but I didn't know that of course). I had one previous endorsement for speeding which added weight to their case.

I still own a motorbike and have been down that road many times since, but of course I am older and wiser now. I would be thinking about such a possibility these days but essentially I was punished just for being young and inexperienced. They couldn’t say I was actually speeding, because I wasn’t, and I wasn’t trying to race to prove anything to anyone, I was the only vehicle on that road at the time.

Now maybe it was only right and proper that I was punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and so young but to this day I do not see what that achieved other than another 'criminal' brought to 'justice'.

I don’t know if that constitutes the bad character criteria or indeed if that term existed back in 1978, but that’s what happened.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Bad character is an entirely different thing and specifically excludes anything which is being presented as evidence in the case on trial. If you were the injured party in a case where you had been hit by a very elderly driver who had to use a cushion to see over the dashboard you would want those facts put in evidence against that other driver. Drivers age and modified cars tend to come out in cases where the real evidence is rather thin.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Despite what you may read on various parts of the internet, those factors make no difference at all.


Previous convictions of a defendant can't be mentioned in the course of a trial unless permission has been granted for bad character evidence to be allowed or the defence have exposed previous convictions of a prosecution witness in an attempt to discredit him or her. In which case the defendant loses his "shield" ie his right to have previous convictions kept from the court. Previous for speeding is not normally relevant to a charge of DWDC and is unlikely to be allowed as bad character unless excess speed is part of the case for DWDC.

In most circumstances previous convictions are only mentioned if found guilty and they are relevant factors to be considered when deciding on sentence. Bad character didn't exist in 1978 it only came in in 2004


I wasn't there but I suspect you were convicted of assuming that, because the road had been clear before, it would always be clear.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Guilty as accused but there can’t be many new riders who don’t fall off at least once in their formative years as they discover the adhesion properties of roads under various conditions or circumstances, but that shouldn’t mean each and every one of them are prosecuted IMHO otherwise what sort of law or justice is that? (Rhetorical).

It could equally have been rain, gravel, oil, fuel or a metal drain cover in - rain, gravel, oil, fuel… If drivers or riders are always prosecuted for an accident of their own doing but not because they were deliberately DWDC I think that’s a bit harsh myself but I accept what you say.

Remember too that back then there was no training, (least of all compulsory), so I could understand it more these days where they explain the basics, and much more. I had to learn the basics for myself the hard way through no fault of my own, and got punished for it

Ta Fisherman.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Courts deal with whatever is put in front of them. The theory is that the police and CPS use their common sense and discretion to decide who to warn, who to caution, who to deal with by way of FP and who to prosecute. We have no way of finding out how many similar cases didn't end up in court.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Just a note if you are a bike rider Tone. Drive steady on new surfaced roads,they may have SMA material and which is 40% less effective to braking when new and takes many months before becoming effective and up to standard. It is cheaper so many use this material. Can be like ice for bikes when new. TRL report was never made public.OLLIE

That's very interesting, I didn't know that.

I'd like to think I wouldn't get caught out with that one because I have an inveterate distrust in any change in the road I see and treat patches which are different from the norm as I would a wet patch, but thanks Ollie

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some have found out the hard way however. I may post that on the motorcycle forum I go on sometimes thanks

It's how I imagine patches of tar becomes 'wet' on a very hot day. (Discovered that nearly to my cost a long time ago).

Tony

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The TRL report that "was never made public" can be bought direct from TRl or borrowed from your local library. There were a number of reports on the subject.

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... acings.htm

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... rfaces.htm

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... terial.htm

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

That is the same surfacing material that comes-up in large blocks after a relatively short period of use.
I've seen that tarmac crack only a few weeks after being laid.
It also lets water through to the base, which then "leaks" out when the surface is dry....what happens when it freezes is another story !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Freeze thaw. Powerful thing that...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Maybe this is selective dimentia - ( you know the act of not remembering bad things in past ) but I don't seem to remember ,in the days of old ,before global warming (so the winters MUST have been much fiercer and colder ,and this memory is from northern climes) where roads suffered from this effect or we had a sudden outbreak of potholes .
Or perhaps ,it's not my memory ,failing ,but that as in days of old ,peole took pride in their work ,took longer (perhaps ) to fill in a pothole ,but once filled ,it stayed filled .
Things like targets didn't exist -though they perhaps did ,to a different degree -the emphasis was on quality ,not quantity .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

There was a case a couple of years back when a middle aged guy got prison for dangerous driving.

It appears from the judge's comments that the fact that he was driving a stickered-up Impreza was taken as evidence of bad character:



So would he have been less guilty if he'd been driving a Volvo? I don't get it.

That's how it came across on the program I saw. Guilty by association, (the association being why have something sporty if not because you intend to use the roads like a race track?).

It's like the police going on a hunch, a hunch which may well be right most of the time or 99% of the time even, but that's not how the law is meant to work.

It's a borderline 'ism I think, no different to racism or sexism. I didn't know there was a car'ism as well, although come to think of it I have a motorbike which I know only too well people often associate with being a manic. (Unless it has a blue light of course )

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That comment was made by the judge as part of his sentencing remarks AFTER the defendant had been found guilty by a jury. A description of the car may well have come out in evidence by witnesses to the driving before the crash. We have no way of knowing if that influenced the jury because juries do not give reasons for their decisions. It wouldn't have influenced the judge as he sentenced in accordance with the guidelines and had to give reasons for his sentence.

I have already said in this thread that evidence to be given in a trial can't be put forward as bad character. I also said that bad character must relate to a persons propensity to commit a specific type of crime. Driving an impreza covered with stickers may be a crime against good taste but its not a criminal offence.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The impression is that his choice of car may have influenced his sentence, if not the verdict.