I have learnt today that a man is to be summonsed for an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act arising out of the incident recorded on my helmet camera near Hounslow last 4th November.
I have removed references to this incident from this site and from youtube pending his trial.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Hounslow Roadrage Helmet Camera Incident Update
The ping-pong continues with the ball being batted many times between the CPS and the police with each in turn knocking the ball out of play then, following a complaint from me, batting it back. The lastest is that a senior metropolitan police officer has now reversed the decision taken earlier that no prosecution should take place and has instead referred it back to the CPS to decide. It is now for the CPS to consider whether the account given by my protagonist is remotely credible in the light of the video evidence.
A decision one way or the other will have to be made before 4th May, the six month anniversary of the incident.
A decision one way or the other will have to be made before 4th May, the six month anniversary of the incident.
Greater Manchester Helmet Camera Incident
Michael Stewart, aged 47, of Daven Road, Congleton, has been charged with common assault and dangerous driving. He is due to appear at Manchester City Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2011. (More here though the link to the press release does not currently work for me).
Friday, 1 April 2011
Out-of-Court Disposals
I have received from my own MP a copy of a letter from Crispin Blunt MP, an Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice. Mr Blunt explains that he is the Minister responsible for policy on 'Out-of-Court Disposals' which includes simple cautions. Mr Blunt is anxious to point out that the Home Office Guidance 016/2008 does not stipulate cautions in any particular case, rather the use of cautions is 'an operational decision to be taken by the police'.
Judging by rather better action taken by Greater Manchester Police recently, Mr Blunt may be right that the Home Office Guidance did not quite force the Thames Valley Police to issue a simple caution, in the way they have contended, to the man who pushed me from my bike last December.
Mr Blunt goes on to say that although the Government is satisfied that the circular does not stipulate the use of cautions in any particular case, the Government is considering its approach to out-of -court disposals such as simple cautions as part of a full assessment of sentencing policy. A Ministry of Justice consultation has been taking place (it closed on 4th March, Mr Blunt's letter is dated 9th March). There is a section on
'A simpler framework for out-of-court disposals' which appears to me to be proposing a greater discretion to police. Had I been in time to respond, I would have urged that there should be a strong presumption against the use of a caution in crimes of violence against vulnerable road users.
On a more positive note, I have received the name and address of my assailant from Thames Valley Police and will probbaly take the trouble to sue him. If he is not to be hauled before a criminal court, I can at least haul him before a civil one. I appreciate that the recovery of damages may be an uncertain and uphill struggle but I would like him to face some consequences for his actions.
Judging by rather better action taken by Greater Manchester Police recently, Mr Blunt may be right that the Home Office Guidance did not quite force the Thames Valley Police to issue a simple caution, in the way they have contended, to the man who pushed me from my bike last December.
Mr Blunt goes on to say that although the Government is satisfied that the circular does not stipulate the use of cautions in any particular case, the Government is considering its approach to out-of -court disposals such as simple cautions as part of a full assessment of sentencing policy. A Ministry of Justice consultation has been taking place (it closed on 4th March, Mr Blunt's letter is dated 9th March). There is a section on
'A simpler framework for out-of-court disposals' which appears to me to be proposing a greater discretion to police. Had I been in time to respond, I would have urged that there should be a strong presumption against the use of a caution in crimes of violence against vulnerable road users.
On a more positive note, I have received the name and address of my assailant from Thames Valley Police and will probbaly take the trouble to sue him. If he is not to be hauled before a criminal court, I can at least haul him before a civil one. I appreciate that the recovery of damages may be an uncertain and uphill struggle but I would like him to face some consequences for his actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
