Daughter injured by car and left. What do we do now?

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I'm pleased you're working through this, it's progressed a lot today hasn't it?

 

My own view would be not to sign anything tomorrow before you understand exactly what you're signing. Sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs.

 

HB

 

PS It could be me, but I don't quite understand how somewhere can look like both road and parking spaces. Have you got photos in daylight, because I think they might be worth having?

[cerberusalert]

yes I think your right we are going to get professional advise, I can't see any distinction between private/public land as its a criminal act either way. The outcome for police officer I'm unsure of yet other than the fact she wants to speak to us again, I presume tomorrow.

 

The one that gave your daughter the £60 from the driver? If so she should have no further involvement as she was part of your complaint.

 

I wonder whether she was a 'real' PC or a chocolate PCSO?

[Yukiko]

Private land or not, it is an offence.

 

I've had an old boy in a mobility scooter permanently disable a young child in a Sainsbury's store before who was prosecuted. If it's got wheels and it's in public, the Road Traffic Act Applies.

 

I personally think the driver is also at fault for offering money to the police officer, surely this is bribing?? The police aren't allowed to do this sort of thing, handling money is NOT in their remit unless it is their own, or part of an investigation!

[Aretnap]

PI personally think the driver is also at fault for offering money to the police officer, surely this is bribing??

Only if it was a payment to the police officer with the intention of inducing her to perform her job improperly. If she felt bad about the victim and just wanted the officer to pass some money onto her then it's not really the right way to go about it, but it's not even close to bribery.

[sailor sam]

Only if it was a payment to the police officer with the intention of inducing her to perform her job improperly. If she felt bad about the victim and just wanted the officer to pass some money onto her then it's not really the right way to go about it, but it's not even close to bribery.

 

Which ever way you look at it, the police officer broke all the rules here (assuming the info is correct) and may of even committed an offence him/herself. As the other driver has apparently committed an offence, the police officer could be seen as assisting an offender for a start.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[Aretnap]

As the other driver has apparently committed an offence, the police officer could be seen as assisting an offender for a start.

Assisting an offender means an act done without lawful authority which is intended to impede the apprehension or prosecution of an offender. The offender had already been apprehended, and passing on £60 to the victim will not impede her prosecution. I agree that passing on the money seems highly irregular, but I'm not following the logic that it must amount to a serious offence.

 

In general the police have wide discretion in how they deal with reported crimes and are not under an obligation to prosecute every aspect of lawbreaking they come across - as everyone who's ever been stopped for speeding and let off with a rollicking or been a bit drunk and rowdy and been told to go home and sober up can testify. Failing to stop after a minor bump in a car park would not normally result in prosecution provided details are exchanged promptly once the police do become involved... but if the accident caused significant injury the only circumstances I can think of in which it might not be in the public interest to prosecute would be if the elderly driver is obviously going senile and she can be persuaded to give up her licence voluntarily.

 

There are offences which can only be committed on a public road (eg speeding) but the most relevant ones here, careless driving and failure to stop/report, apply equally on a road or other public place so I fail to see why the fact that it happened in a car park is relevant. Whether a place is public is decided by useage not ownership. A supermarket car park is a public place as it's used by the general public, even though it's privately owned. An air force base, on the other hand, is publicly owned, but it's not a public place.

Edited November 29, 2012 by honeybee13
Removing profanity.

[sailor sam]

Assisting an offender means an act done without lawful authority which is intended to impede the apprehension or prosecution of an offender. The offender had already been apprehended, and passing on £60 to the victim will not impede her prosecution. I agree that passing on the money seems highly irregular, but I'm not following the logic that it must amount to a serious offence.

 

Hopefully not. But to me there seems to be an attempt to 'compensate' the injured party designed to dissuade them into pursing the matter thus avoiding a prosecution. A reasonable thinking person would expect a police officer to detect this motive and consequently at the very least 'advise' the driver accordingly that due to the incident resulting in an injury, a prosecution is likely and strictly speaking, the driver should of been arrested at that point for failing to stop. So becoming involved in this 'compensation' attempt would, by default, render the police officer as assisting (or attempting to assist) a potential offender (while she should of been under arrest) in avoiding prosecution. Obviously it would be for the CPS to decide if there was a case to answer. I am of course, basing my logic on the information the OP has provided.

 

In general the police have wide discretion in how they deal with reported crimes and are not under an obligation to prosecute every aspect of lawbreaking they come across - as everyone who's ever been stopped for speeding and let off with a rollicking or been a bit drunk and rowdy and been told to go home and sober up can testify. Failing to stop after a minor bump in a car park would not normally result in prosecution provided details are exchanged promptly once the police do become involved... but if the accident caused significant injury the only circumstances I can think of in which it might not be in the public interest to prosecute would be if the elderly driver is obviously going senile and she can be persuaded to give up her licence voluntarily.

 

While I understand where you are coming from, i'm not sure that decision rests with a PC when the incident has resulted in an injury, especially as the driver left the scene under the circumstances to what the OP describes. Assuming the OP has made a statement against the driver, I think it would be for the CPS (or perhaps a senior police officer) to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

 

There are offences which can only be committed on a public road (eg speeding) but the most relevant ones here, careless driving and failure to stop/report, apply equally on a road or other public place so I fail to see why the fact that it happened in a car park is relevant. Whether a place is public is decided by useage not ownership. A supermarket car park is a public place as it's used by the general public, even though it's privately owned. An air force base, on the other hand, is publicly owned, but it's not a public place.

 

It isn't and i'm in full agreement on that. As you correctly say, certain offences can be committed on any land (private or otherwise) where there is unrestricted public access. Failing to stop (especially with an injury involved) after an accident (or RTC as they are now known), is certainly one of them. Further more, if there was sufficient evidence available (such as CCTV), there could be additional charges bought for careless (or even reckless/dangerous) driving.The process (and penalties) is exactly the same as it is on a public road.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[hopeful50]

Hi all, the saga just seems to keep rolling on, now I am being told at least 5 outside lights should of been on but were not, it was dark still when I got to the accident. I don't think that is a defence for the driver no doubt her insurance will look at that, it's stupid what about country lanes with no lighting. Any way we need to make a claim, I have no idea who is good or not, I have never made a claim before and presume I ring one of those company's or a solicitor, does anyone know who is good or is a solicitor preferable. I meeting the police officer today, and have another doctors appointment for my daughter, they think she has damaged a part of her spine and has cracked ribs in so much pain on diazepam and her blood glucose levels are all over the place 23 this morning with trace ketones. She will be ok I just need to stay calm for her sake, though last night and this morning feeling angry with the driver, just can't comprehend how she left her there and went shopping.

[sailor sam]

Who is telling you this? It's irrelevant anyway but if it's the driver's insurers, remind them that you were offered £60 in 'compensation' by their policy holder which surely is admitting liability.

 

In any event, the driver still committed an offence of failing to stop and consequently the police are involved.

 

There are plenty of injury solicitors around these days but you need one which pays you 100% of your claim.

I would try and talk to somebody before speaking to the police again. As someone has already pointed out, I don't think you should be dealing with the same police officer that handed you the money as there may be a separate potential matter to deal with. Also, it sounds like that you will need some kind of medical report (unless you already have one) detailing your daughter's injuries.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Edited November 29, 2012 by 42man

[Aretnap]

Hopefully not. But to me there seems to be an attempt to 'compensate' the injured party designed to dissuade them into pursing the matter thus avoiding a prosecution.

A driver who causes damage or injury (or their insurer) is expected to compensate the victim. That's separate from the criminal process and the driver's free to offer compensation now (subject to her contract with her insurers) if she wants to. If the victim decides they'd rather it wasn't pursued then that's up to them - but it's not the victim who makes the decision on whether to prosecute.

 

We also don't know what terms it was offered on... if it was a payment made to a victim/witness made on condition that they didn't testify in a criminal case that would be very dodgy indeed - but if it was a case of "I'm so sorry, please (reaches into purse) give this to her" then passing it on is inappropriate, but I don't see any way it can be criminal.

 

strictly speaking, the driver should of been arrested at that point for failing to stop.

There's no need for an arrest if the driver is willing to answer questions and is unlikely to abscond (again).

 

While I understand where you are coming from, i'm not sure that decision rests with a PC when the incident has resulted in an injury, especially as the driver left the scene under the circumstances to what the OP describes. Assuming the OP has made a statement against the driver, I think it would be for the CPS (or perhaps a senior police officer) to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

For summary only traffic offences (which includes failure to stop, and careless driving) the charging decision tends to be made by the police, not the CPS. For a serious accident it might well be above the pay grade of a junior PC... but from what the OP's said at no point did she say that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted, just that it might take a while to decide.

 

Let's not read more into this than it there. I'm getting the impression of an inexperienced PC out of her depth, not a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It sounds like the police have a grown-up involved now, and it's being given the attention it deserves.

[Aretnap]

Hi all, the saga just seems to keep rolling on, now I am being told at least 5 outside lights should of been on but were not, it was dark still when I got to the accident. I don't think that is a defence for the driver no doubt her insurance will look at that, it's stupid what about country lanes with no lighting.

It might, at a stretch, be relevant to a careless driving charge. The test for that is whether the person's driving fell below the standard expected of a competent, careful driver, ie would a competent, careful driver have seen her? I believe there's some case law to the effect that hitting a pedestrian or cyclist who is dressed in black, without lights, on an unlit country lane is not necessarily careless driving - but in a car park pedestrians are to be expected and a so careful driver should be looking out for them, even if the lighting is poor.

 

It's no defence at all to the charge of failure to stop - she was obviously aware of the accident, and so she was under an obligation to stop, give details and (as it caused injury) report it to the police, regardless of whether it was her fault.

 

Whether compensation is payable by the driver (or rather, her insurers) depends on whether she was negligent... again I'd think that hitting a pedestrian in a car park is almost always negligent, even if it's badly lit.

[sailor sam]

A driver who causes damage or injury (or their insurer) is expected to compensate the victim. That's separate from the criminal process and the driver's free to offer compensation now (subject to her contract with her insurers) if she wants to. If the victim decides they'd rather it wasn't pursued then that's up to them - but it's not the victim who makes the decision on whether to prosecute.

 

Perhaps but the police officer certainly should not of got involved in that. Also I doubt that the 'offer' was made with the consent of her insurers as it could be construed as an admission of liability.

 

We also don't know what terms it was offered on... if it was a payment made to a victim/witness made on condition that they didn't testify in a criminal case that would be very dodgy indeed - but if it was a case of "I'm so sorry, please (reaches into purse) give this to her" then passing it on is inappropriate, but I don't see any way it can be criminal.

 

No, we don't BUT by getting the police officer to deliver it is at the very least unethical and totally beyond the remit of the officer as it opens up all sorts of arguments. And I do still think that potentially the officer has acted illegally.

 

There's no need for an arrest if the driver is willing to answer questions and is unlikely to abscond (again).

 

Sorry but I think you have got this one wrong. A person who is suspected of committing an offence can only be questioned formally under caution thus meaning they technically have to be arrested and given their rights.

 

For summary only traffic offences (which includes failure to stop, and careless driving) the charging decision tends to be made by the police, not the CPS. For a serious accident it might well be above the pay grade of a junior PC... but from what the OP's said at no point did she say that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted, just that it might take a while to decide.

 

I think because injuries to the OP's daughter were sustained, it is a 'serious accident'

 

Let's not read more into this than it there. I'm getting the impression of an inexperienced PC out of her depth, not a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It sounds like the police have a grown-up involved now, and it's being given the attention it deserves.

 

Your'e probably right. BUT what if it was the other way around and it was an 'inexperienced' member of the public? I think the police would say 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[LaughingGirl]

What was the outcome of the visit from the police? did they send an officer out to see you in the end?

[Raykay]

Sorry but I think you have got this one wrong. A person who is suspected of committing an offence can only be questioned formally under caution thus meaning they technically have to be arrested and given their rights.

 

They don't have to be arrested, as long as the questioning is after the person has been cautioned (You not have to say anything ....etc). A person reported for a motoring offence for example, may be cautioned and questioned at the time, and not arrested.

[hopeful50]

Hi all, just spoke to the police officer who first came out, she tried to persuade me to take the money I said no,she said she cautioned the other driver but thinks it will go no where as it's my daughters word against the drivers, and the money was in good faith because the police officer does not think my daughter has a claim. I am now so amazed at this, I am cutting all contact off with the police and making an appointment to see a solictor. I did get quite upset with the officer as my daughter is in so much pain she will have xrays tomorrow, and hopefully her glucose levels will drop. I'm done with this officer and upset will the response.

[sailor sam]

Hi all, just spoke to the police officer who first came out, she tried to persuade me to take the money I said no,she said she cautioned the other driver but thinks it will go no where as it's my daughters word against the drivers, and the money was in good faith because the police officer does not think my daughter has a claim. I am now so amazed at this, I am cutting all contact off with the police and making an appointment to see a solicitor. I did get quite upset with the officer as my daughter is in so much pain she will have xrays tomorrow, and hopefully her glucose levels will drop. I'm done with this officer and upset will the response.

 

This is why I suggested to speak to a solicitor first.

 

However, I am amazed also as the driver either committed the offence of failing to stop or she didn't. I don't think it will do any harm if you now go to the police station to make a formal complaint against the officer. You need to speak to the duty inspector and highlight the money offer which was offered via the officer. If things do go pear shaped, you have the option to speak to your MP about the conduct of the police or even the new police commissioner for your area.

 

That aside, there is still a potential injury claim to consider which will be a civil action against the TP. For this you will still need a crime number (which I assume you now have) because anyone acting for your daughter will need one along with a medical report of her injuries.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[Raykay]

 

That aside, there is still a potential injury claim to consider which will be a civil action against the TP. For this you will still need a crime number (which I assume you now have) because anyone acting for your daughter will need one along with a medical report of her injuries.

 

Any claim for injuries will be a civil matter, not a criminal one, so there would not be a crime number.

[sailor sam]

Any claim for injuries will be a civil matter, not a criminal one, so there would not be a crime number.

 

Insurers normally ask if there is any police involvement if the answer is 'yes', they ask for the officers details and crime number. Also, I did say it would be a civil claim.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[Raykay]

Insurers normally ask if there is any police involvement if the answer is 'yes', they ask for the officers details and crime number. Also, I did say it would be a civil claim.

 

In traffic matters insurance companies usually ask for a copy of the accident report, not a crime number as they are not recorded as a crime.

[sailor sam]

In traffic matters insurance companies usually ask for a copy of the accident report, not a crime number as they are not recorded as a crime.

 

Every claim form I've ever seen asks for the details of any attending police officer and associated reference numbers. In this case, an offence was committed so there should be a crime number.

 

Have you actually got any advice for the OP?

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[Aretnap]

she said she cautioned the other driver but thinks it will go no where as it's my daughters word against the drivers,

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Clearly someone hit your daughter, so is she denying being the person who hit her, or is she denying leaving the scene? If she's not denying either then it's not a case of one person's word against another as she doesn't seem to be denying the offence.

she tried to persuade me to take the money... and the money was in good faith because the police officer does not think my daughter has a claim.

If you mean a civil claim, it's not the occifer's place to be giving your daughter legal advice on that sort of thing. Speak to a solicitor - and I'd also insist on speaking to a more senior officer than this one.

[Aretnap]

Perhaps but the police officer certainly should not of got involved in that. Also I doubt that the 'offer' was made with the consent of her insurers as it could be construed as an admission of liability.

Indeed, but that's between her and her insurers - it doesn't make it a crime to make the offer.

 

Sorry but I think you have got this one wrong. A person who is suspected of committing an offence can only be questioned formally under caution thus meaning they technically have to be arrested and given their rights.

As Raykay says there's nothing to stop a person who is not under arrest being interviewed under caution. It's absolutely routine for people in this situation to be asked to attend voluntary interviews. If they won't attend voluntarily, arrest may be necessary.

 

Your'e probably right. BUT what if it was the other way around and it was an 'inexperienced' member of the public? I think the police would say 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

It's not a case of ignorance of the law, rather lack of intent to pervert the course of justice (mens rea being required).

[LaughingGirl]

I definitely think that you need to speak to both a solicitor and someone more senior at the Police station. I know not everyone agrees, but I get a distinct feeling that the officer concerned is trying to dissuade your daughter from taking this further. I won't speculate on the reasons for this because I have no idea what they might be, but I do still think an officer handing an alleged victim money from an alleged offender is questionable. Just for your own peace of mind, I don't think it's going to harm anyone to find out precisely what the legal position on this is.

 

For the record, Caggers can't recommend solicitors, by the way. A quick Google search should find one in your area, though.

[Raykay]

Every claim form I've ever seen asks for the details of any attending police officer and associated reference numbers. In this case, an offence was committed so there should be a crime number.

 

As there has been a personal injury accident, there should be a report by the police (with a reference number), which is what the insurance company will ask for a copy of.

An offence may be evident, but it won't be recorded as a crime, so there won't be a crime number.

[hopeful50]

Hi all, it's a bit confusing why the officer is trying to deter any claim or even the acknowledgement of a crime. I just realised reading the posts I know the driver was cautioned but no idea what with, will find this out tomorrow . Yes we are going to speak to someone more senior tomorrow and thanks I had not realised caggers could not recommend and that makes sense of course. We are going through solicitors reviewing and figuring whose more into dealing with motor accidents.