Can someone help

[Anne129]

My son was stopped by police, after being told he was driving without due car and attention.

 

 

He was asked to vacant the vehicle and handed the officers his car keys.

They claimed the car smelt strongly of cannabis (by the way, you are not allowed to smoke in his car, let alone drugs).

 

 

Whilst an officer was talking to him on the pavement, another officer drove his vehicle into my son's driver's side door.

This officer has admitted liability in his statement.

 

 

Back to the car.

After the officers could not find anything in his car, they sent for more police with a search light (I kid you not).

Two hours later my son asks if he could sit in the back of their police vehicle, as it was freezing, to which they agreed.

 

 

Whilst in the vehicle, the officer used his radio to inform about the collision.

The sergeant ask him for his driver's permit.

He said he did not have it on him, so couldn't give the number.

The sergeant said he was not allowed to drive any vehicle back to the station because of this.

 

 

Right, now the insurance claim.

The police are arguing what’s known as ex turpi causa. Which states if you commit an illegal act

and your property is damaged then the police won’t be held responsible for this.

Is an alleged driving offence an illegal act?

 

 

I thought ex turpi cause was when some would profit financially.

My son is pleading 'not guilty' by the way.

[DragonFly1967]

Pleading not guilty? To what?

[dacouc]

Is this in the UK?

[Tony P]

Sounds a nightmare. Good on your Son for having a concerned Mum!

 

My guess (and that's what it is) -

 

The car was not damaged in or resulting from any alleged illegal act, but some significant time after and following transfer of control.

 

In surrendering the keys to the police (on their orders) your Son can no longer be deemed to have any control or responsibility over it.

 

Therefore the damage occurred while the vehicle was completely in Police care and control.

 

Others will help with the way forward on the car damage matter, but you may have to apply some formal pressure.

[Tony P]

Pleading not guilty? To what?

Due care and attention - as in the first line?

[DragonFly1967]

I saw that, but the OP didn't say that their son had been charged with anything.

 

However, I'd say that even if he was found guilty of DWDC, the ex turpi defence (of the police) to the damage caused by the police vehicle to your sons vehicle wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in small claims court (besides which, the police will usually just pay out as it's cheaper than fighting the claim (sad but true)).

 

The usual 'use' of the ex turpi "defence" to counter claims is used where police have, for arguments sake, put a door in to gain entry to a property on a search warrant. Let's say for drugs. If any illegal drugs are found within the property, ex turpi kicks in and the owner of the property can't claim for a new door.

 

 

Unless the police have irrefutable evidence (say video) of your Son DWDC, then it's unlikely that he'd be found guilty, and therefore no illegal act could have taken place, only the suspicion of it. Ergo, an ex turpi defence to a claim would go nowhere.

[Anne129]

Thank you very much for your replies. They claimed he 'seemed' to through a red light that 'appeared' at speed.(this was on the MG11) My son says not. He say's it was green. He honestly thought their sirens were for someone else and changed lanes for them to pass. He was only issued the driving without due care and attention ticket after the officer hit his care. His summons arrived this week and he has decided to plead not guilty. This 'ex turpi' seems very ambiguous. I shall let you know the outcome. And yes, this happened in the UK.

[SabreSheep]

I think he should be seeking legal representation personally

[Aretnap]

There's no requirement for the police to have video evidence or other "irrefutable" (whatever that means) evidence for your son to be convicted of careless driving. Eyewitness testimony can be sufficient. If two police officers give evidence that he went through a red light at speed, and their evidence is consistent and credible, then it's quite likely (though not certain) that he'll be convicted.

 

If he didn't stop for the police at first that might explain why they put so much effort into searching his car. People who fail to stop usually have something to hide - either they're drunk/unlicensed/uninsured, or they have drugs in the car, or the car is stolen, or there's something else which means they're afraid of more than just the effect that 3 points might have on their insurance. Obviously that wasn't the case with your son, but it does give the police reasonable grounds to suspect him of something more serious than careless driving.

 

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which says that you cannot bring a claim which derives largely from your own illegal conduct. As an example, if a burglar used explosive to open a safe, and the explosive turned out to be faulty and exploded prematurely, the burglar would not be able to sue the manufacturer of the explosive for his injuries. It's difficult to see how the principle of ex turpi could apply to your son claim for the damage to his car for a couple of reasons.

 

First of all, for it to apply, the claim must be inextricably linked to the criminal conduct, not just loosely related to it. See Cross v Kirkby for example - "the principle applies when the claim is so bound up with the claimant's conduct that the court could not permit him to recover without appearing to condone the conduct". That's not the case here - your son was stopped for a motoring offence, parked his car, then some time later a numptie drove into his parked car and damaged it. The cause of the damage was not your son's (alleged) careless driving - it was the numptie's failure to look where he was going, and it could just as easily have happened had your son parked there to go to a shop, post a letter or whatever.

 

Secondly, while a motoring offence is indeed an illegal act, the principle only applies to relatively serious crimes, not to trivial ones. In Vellino v CC Greater Manchester it was suggested that at a minimum the crime should be one punishable by imprisonment - which careless driving isn't.