prosecution legality / guidelines

following on fron another Thread

officers / legal eagles

what is the necessary level of evidence to procede with a prosecution for eg careless driving (or whatever the legal term is)
My (albeit uninformed) understanding was that the incident had to be witnessed by TWO police officers or video evidence.
Was this not the reason that forces weere able to move from 2 man patrols once cars had video cameras.
I dont know if this is another divergance between scottish and english law.
I know in the past I have witnessed and followed a very drunk driver and called the police on the bluetooth. they did not attend and i was informed that they could not do anything about it even though the 3 people in my car were prepared to give evidence.


Mods, not sure this is the right section but didn't feel like "idle" banter feel free to move as required.

[Red Herring]

That's a bit of a can of worms, with actually quite a few questions there.

Yes there are differences between English (and that includes the Welsh...sorry Ralph) and Scottish law.

In English law it certainly doesn't require more than one officers evidence to secure a conviction. The standard of evidence is that it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt and clearly the more witnesses you have, and especially the presence of video, makes that stronger so more likely to be prosecuted. The CPS have various guidelines but generally they will only prosecute if they have a 99.9% chance of success (I'm probably being a little cynical there but it feels that way) and that's because they have targets to meet, ie: they must win such and such a percentage of prosecutions. Public opinion or the gravity of the offence don't seem to count for much which is why you are much more likely to get prosecuted for a stone bonker minor traffic offence than for a complicated serious drug dealing offence (now I/m being cynical again, sorry).

Re you drink driver, if you were following them and they were "driving all over the road" then they should have broadcast details or tried to get a patrol to intervene. In some forces they might have considered a prosecution for careless/driving based on the three witnesses but not in many. I followed a suspected drink driver once (on my own) and rang it in on my mobile phone, I then continued to report their erratic progress for some 20 minutes before a patrol eventually stopped it, they opened the door and the driver literally fell out, to ****ed to even stand up. It all depends on how determined and patient you are, if you stay on the line or keep ringing them they will eventually do something.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

I followed a suspected drink driver once (on my own) and rang it in on my mobile phone,

Hands-free kit/Bluetooth headset I hope

PS, bike still handling much better than it was before Brands (couldn't have gotten much worse tho), thanks for that.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Hands-free kit/Bluetooth headset I hope

Actually no it wasn't...but it was before the law changed and even now you can use a hand held in an emergency.........

Scots Law requires corroboration in terms of 2 police officers. English law does not.

[Red Herring]

Wonder how there bike patrols manage....? Or don't they have police motorcyclists?

With regard to the Scottish law,one police officer can stop you,who is normally joined by a colleague who can then corroborate in the absence of any other evidence.The must have two rule has a ways and means act

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Wonder how there bike patrols manage....? Or don't they have police motorcyclists?

They normally travel in pairs

Originally Posted by Kilted Ginger

following on fron another Thread

officers / legal eagles

what is the necessary level of evidence to procede with a prosecution for eg careless driving (or whatever the legal term is)

What do you mean by proceed for prosecution?
You can be sent an NIP with no evidence against you and if you are muppet enough to sign and return it thats all they need for conviction.

To go to court it must be approved by the CPS who should only send it forward if there is a better than 50% chance of conviction. But as they are so incompetant errr... busy, they tend to send all motoring offences forward and only read the case notes on the day of the trial.

Originally Posted by AndyW

What do you mean by proceed for prosecution?
You can be sent an NIP with no evidence against you and if you are muppet enough to sign and return it thats all they need for conviction.

To go to court it must be approved by the CPS who should only send it forward if there is a better than 50% chance of conviction. But as they are so incompetant errr... busy, they tend to send all motoring offences forward and only read the case notes on the day of the trial.

Strangely enough i mean for them to proceed with the procedure to take you to court and prosecute. As for cps, there isn't one in scotland or wales i think.

there must be some evidence against against you or why would you as opposed to the other however many million drivers recieve the nip. I was asking for clarification as to what was deemed a sufficent level of evidence, ie one or two policemen, a member of the public, what. leving aside gatsos and video evidence as that is self explanatory.