And they wonder why people throw bricks at them? Black *******s. Would Getting them to present service logs from when the car was taken out. They should have recorded evidence that the car was roadworthy before leaving the station. The burden is with them to prove the car was roadworthy rather than you to prove it wasn't. Get all service records to.show.no work was.ne to it after the fact. All cars are fitted with cameras and you should request the footage too, if none is provided then theres no proof you done anything wrong in the first place and it can support the case they where out to get you. From my experienc in court the judge ripped into the police for **** like this, the case before mine one of the witnesses wasnt notified of a change in date which ment the case was delayed again sinc they didnt show. The judge tore the arresting officer and prosecution service a new one for failure of procedure and wasting time. All 3 cases before mine it was seemed really pissed off with everyone involved and was sharp with both sides mainly due to time wasting and idiots, but he was more than fair when it came down to it.
Maybe in NI they are but it's not a legal requirement for a Police vehicle to have recorded video. More so if it's an unmarked car as a big camera in the front window is a bit of a giveaway that it's a Police vehicle. Also they do not need a video to prosecute, the sworn statement of two officers is more than enough for a prosecution for careless driving and/or not stopping for the Police.
Police have never been subtle regardless. They use to raid the market stalls in Belfast and you knew it was coming due to the big white unmarked van sitting in one of several alleys along royal avenue. Before a raid the number of guys in baseball caps and jeans also increased. Police are never smart or subtle yet those markets never twigged on
"Nowhere near dangerous but possibly careless" is exactly the point that I made during the interview, but he was extremely specific and quite relentless in questioning me on dangerous driving. To be perfectly honest, it felt more like an interrogation at times, rather than an interview. It was extremely well set up, because as soon as the tape was on, his tone changed completely and he became "the guy who wants to see me convicted of dangerous driving", not "the guy who was going to interview me and get my side of the story regarding what happened that night". The issue of the lights not flashing obviously came up in the interview, because they are 100% convinced that I was trying to evade the police, and when I mentioned that the headlights were not alternately flashing, the response I got from the officer who asked least questions was "were they not blinking off and on in turn?" to which I replied "no, they weren't, they were on full beam the whole time" and the other officer who asked most of the questions and pretty much conducted the whole interview said "they were, all the pursuit indication systems were in working order on the vehicle and they were on". So again, that's my word against theirs. I'm telling you for certain... the lights were on FULL BEAM and cutting the eyes out of me, which is why I tilted my interior anti-dazzle mirror in the first place. I had absolutely no reason not to stop for the police. My solicitor asked me the same thing when I spoke to him, and he got the same answer the police did in the interview. The car was taxed, insured to be driven by myself, was not stolen and had no illegal substances or items on board. Just my tools, a couple of broken PCs, some groceries and me. My eyesight isn't the best, I'm a bit nearsighted but I wear glasses and was wearing them that night, as I do all the time when I'm driving. I don't put the car in gear unless I'm wearing a pair of glasses - I even keep a spare pair in the glove compartment in case I forget to bring my regular pair out of the house with me. I've been told this is correct, AFAIK unmarked police cars do not necessarily have to be equipped with cameras, but this one might have had one on board that I didn't see. I haven't yet been informed whether there's video evidence or not at this point. I might assume that since it wasn't used during my "interrogation/interview" there isn't, and they are relying on their own statements as evidence. I think Javaman is on to something regarding the maintenance of the vehicle if this does make it to court. I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but when I was brought around to the front of the Police car to look at the flashing turquoise lights, he had only sidelights on and one of them was out. All in all, it was a pretty shabby looking car. I've no doubt that if he had wanted to open it up and catch up to me quicker, he could have because it's probably well tuned under the bonnet, but in true "We're sneaky *******s" PSNI style, it looked like a regular almost-10-year-old, average, run of the mill Vauxhall. You and me both - at the moment, I've heard nothing. I've been driving like a saint since it happened but haven't had any word of it since my interview. I assume that the PPS deals with a fairly big volume of cases per week, so mine might be only in the middle of a large pile somewhere at this point. I wasn't told how long it would take for them to come to a decision on whether to take it farther. I assume if that happens it just arrives in the post, in the form of a summons to court on a particular date?
Sounds like they were trying to intimidate you into submission to be honest dude. Every time I have crossed the police, they've all done the same thing. For now, consult your solicitor, and then make their life hell - ask them to provide you with all supporting evidence to their accusations which they are supposed to. I wouldn't be surprised if the hassle of that was enough to make them back off....
Hope this works out for you mate - keep pressing them for more information and keep your solicitor in the loop - it's a good point about requesting the maintenance records for the police vehicle. Have you written every detail you can remember about the incident down? I'd be filling a notebook of as much information as I possibly could to make sure I had a good recall of what/when/where/how everything happened.
My older sister got a ban, but then she was speeding, her and a male friend would race their 911's at night, but the most awful thing was that the police officer in question made it his priority to sit outside her house watching and keeping tabs.
If anything in the procedure is slightly amiss then you could get off. They cut corners in one place whos to say it hasn't happened else where? If they don't provide the information, possibly research the colour the light should be and how bright then see if there is a way of testing. If they haven't tested it before court ie. you made the accusation and attempted to get the info but where stonewalled then the Judge will have to dismiss as the evidence was incomplete and creates reasonable doubt as to the arrest being lawful. Ultimately they will have to prove a) It was your car b) You where driving c) They had reason to pull you over (overtaking them isn't enough they need to prove your speed was over x. No cameras, no proof. A speedo doesn't record and can be subjective so again no proof d) They pulled you over in a legally (their car works) and that their actions didn't endanger you when you attempted to overtake You could then present a no evidence motion that theres no actual proof of your speeding. There might be a case of endangerment on their part.
Again, this is incorrect information. Video evidence is not needed for a prosecution, the statement of a trained police officer is admissable as evidence in court. When bluelights and sirens are activated infoformation from the car, including speed, time, throttle/brake positions, which specific lights are turned on (and depending on the car even gforces, gps and other readings) is recorded to the cars data recorder (IDR) which can prove what speed the officer was doing and which lights were activated at the time. It does depend on the police car exactly what info will be recorded, but there is a fair chance they do have evidence of which lights were flashing at the time of the pursuit.
If 2 police officers arrested you for say possession of drug they need to prove a) you had actually had drugs b) the drugs are yours C) you knew they where drugs Same should apply here. "You where pulled over for speeding" .........innocent till proven guilty etc. 2 officers words will not stand in court without evidence. Even if it does record you can argue they dropped back, accelerated then activated the lights. Either way they are accusing him and therefore he had the right to see the evidence to prepare his defence. Either way the only speeding that happened was during the overtake, again a grey area since it isnt unreasonable to try and complete a passing manouver in a timely fashion.
That's all well and good if the offence involves a physical possession. I'd like to see a police officer put 'speeding' into an evidence bag. For a motoring offence a video of the offence is not required, the road traffic act has been around longer than video cameras have been common place in cars! Yes they will. Any magistrate will take the word of a Police Officer over the word of a member of the public if a speeding or dangerous/careless driving case went to court. From what's been said, I don't think they are proposing charging the OP for speeding. But the logged information from the police car (if it has such a system fitted) could be used to prove that the full beams were or were not flashing and that the blue lights were flashing. That depends if the case is going to court or not. At the moment they are only making enquiries so do not have to show any evidence.
If 2 officers word was enough then why have speed guns heck why have forensics? An officers word will be taken at higher value than most people but when it comes to court a judge has to rule based on "innocent until proven guilty". it wouldnt be the first time, especially in NI's history, the police have been "economical" with the truth.
I have to ask after reading this why Javaman hates the police so much? Also how is this progress for the OP? Though I also have to ask if what you say is true about them having full beam on dazzling you, why didn't you ez off if you just thought it was another car or something just speeding up behind to allow them to pass, rather than speed up? I don't understand how you couldn't see the blue lights either, since whenever I've seen an unmarked car they're clear as day even when they're not on. I know the above seems abit harsh but I do have a slight hatred towards people speeding and dangerous driving(not implying you were) due to my father been killed by someone been careless and speeding while he was on his bike.
The relationship between police and civilians in Northern Ireland has not been an easy one for a long time. How old are you Smellyhead? There's a chance you're not old enough to remember the darker days of the IRA and such. The level of violence procipitated by some individuals requires a stern response from the police. When someone who is relatively tame (in this case, Unicorn) is stopped, the same stern response is applied, which is often disproportionate to someone who would otherwise fully cooperate. Thus breeds a poor relationship.
From what I've seen on the news NI Police seem to be less tolerant and a bit more heavy handed than their mainland counterparts... after being attacked, bombed and killed by various different militant groups over the years I'm not suprised. To put it into context, Police on the mainland drive around in standard road cars, the only Police vehicles I saw in belfast were armoured Land Rovers!
just for fun blah it was in the middle of the night and motorway. You don't do fun do you Nexxo some of us don't spend our nights sleeping
