As someone charged with enforcing criminal law, I feel qualified to comment.
We are allowed to retain items pertinent to our investigations if we believe an offence has been committed. I suspect that this is the case here.
Just a thought................could it be that the policement who retained Sincs' visor has done so with a view to demonstrating to the Court that it
wasn't a factor in in the accident - something that could work in Sincs' favour? After all, we do not know what the car drivers solicitors are claiming.
All the police are doing is investigating the circumstances of the incident. They are not judge and jury too.
Why do people always assume that the Police have some ulterior adverse motive?
And as for andrewcharnley claiming to be a law-abiding citizen
This is the same bloke who has openly admitted that he did a "hit and run" on a pedestrian (albeit a probably intoxicated fisherman). Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.