Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Police say horrific Nottingham hit-and-run resulted in £150 fine

CTC’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund currently looking into the case

Police have said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the driver of a hire car who was captured on video accelerating into the back of a cyclist in Nottingham. The victim said he sustained a severe back injury and internal haemorrhaging in the shocking hit-and-run incident, but Nottinghamshire Police said they could not prove who was driving.

The car was a hire vehicle that had been sub-leased through a number of different companies. The BBC reports that a 54-year-old man who was eligible to drive it received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details.

Failing to provide driver details is an offence contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The penalty is a fine of up to £1000 and the endorsement of 6 penalty points (with the possibility of disqualification).

Sam Jones, CTC Campaign Coordinator, said the case was being looked at by the organisation’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund, which works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling and offers help with legal cases.

“We’re now aware of the Police’s reporting of their investigation, and will follow up accordingly. CTC’s Cyclist Defence Fund has been in touch with Reginald Scot and we are now looking into how we can help him find justice for this awful incident.

“Considering the seriousness of the injury and how blatant the offence, this is very weak from the court not to have imposed the maximum penalty on the unnamed Nottingham man who failed to provide the driver’s details.”

Interestingly, despite only one person being charged, police said that two people had been traced who were eligible to drive the car. Both were issued with a formal request to provide the driver's details, but did not respond.

The two possible drivers were subsequently interviewed and summonsed to court for failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to report an accident and failing to respond to a legal request for driver details.

After reviewing the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove who was driving when the collision took place. The prosecutions for failing to stop and failing to report were consequently dropped.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

78 comments

Avatar
Morat replied to bsknight | 8 years ago
0 likes
bsknight wrote:
Richard1982 wrote:

 I had a similar incident where I was struck from behind by (in my case by a HGV). Although I had no camera, another driver made a note of the vehicle details. I was told by the police that it was impossible to trace the driver as the vehicle belonged to a haulage company and so many different drivers used it. 

 

I simply do not believe that the haulage company doesn't keep track of who is driving which of their vehicles at any given time. If that is true, they must trust their staff imensely.

 

I don't know how tachographs work, but wouldn't they reveal who was driving which wagon?

Avatar
Mark By | 8 years ago
9 likes

So that's it the perfect murder - just hire a car via a string of leasing companies, run someone over, then the CPS say they can't prosecute as they can't identify you.

There is so much wrong with this blatant case of "misconduct in public office", I don't where to start but I'll give it a try:

1) From the article I assume that the vehicle was returned in a damaged state which the returning driver had to sign for, and that had to be the same driver who signed for the car in the first place.

2) CCTV cameras covering the road will show the route of the vehicle

3) Other CCTV cameras will probably show the driver getting in or out of the vehicle, e.g. at a petrol station or a shop. if the route of the vehicle was known then footage from the cameras operated by the local council can be used - these should be identifiable from the local authority's web-site.

How much of 2) and 3) did the police check?

Also what evidence came form whoever at the leasing company took the car back from these scumbags?

Finally,  what about any legal responsibility that the hiring companies have to ensure that their vehicles aren't used for criminal purposes?

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Mark By | 8 years ago
1 like
Mark By wrote:

So that's it the perfect murder - just hire a car via a string of leasing companies, run someone over, then the CPS say they can't prosecute as they can't identify you.

There is so much wrong with this blatant case of "misconduct in public office", I don't where to start but I'll give it a try:

1) From the article I assume that the vehicle was returned in a damaged state which the returning driver had to sign for, and that had to be the same driver who signed for the car in the first place.

2) CCTV cameras covering the road will show the route of the vehicle

3) Other CCTV cameras will probably show the driver getting in or out of the vehicle, e.g. at a petrol station or a shop. if the route of the vehicle was known then footage from the cameras operated by the local council can be used - these should be identifiable from the local authority's web-site.

How much of 2) and 3) did the police check?

Also what evidence came form whoever at the leasing company took the car back from these scumbags?

Finally,  what about any legal responsibility that the hiring companies have to ensure that their vehicles aren't used for criminal purposes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

how much of 2 and 3 exists?

Avatar
mikem22 | 8 years ago
0 likes

 

So neither of these drivers had mobile phones that could have been tracked for the date / time of the accident? 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to mikem22 | 8 years ago
0 likes
mikem22 wrote:

 

So neither of these drivers had mobile phones that could have been tracked for the date / time of the accident? 

What if they were in the car together?

Avatar
kenyond | 8 years ago
1 like

If you all want to lodge a complaint with the force you can use this email,

psd [at] nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk

Even if its just an email to tell them that you feel due diligance hasnt been done to find the driver of the vehicle.

Its cant be hard to work out which of the 3 people it was, ask each of them where they were and can any one confirm it.

If you want to do it old school via snail mail heres the address,

Professional Standards Directorate, Police Headquarters, Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8PP 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to kenyond | 8 years ago
1 like
kenyond wrote:

If you all want to lodge a complaint with the force you can use this email,

psd [at] nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk

Even if its just an email to tell them that you feel due diligance hasnt been done to find the driver of the vehicle.

Its cant be hard to work out which of the 3 people it was, ask each of them where they were and can any one confirm it.

If you want to do it old school via snail mail heres the address,

Professional Standards Directorate, Police Headquarters, Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, Nottingham, NG5 8PP 

I've emailed a polite request asking for more information about the investigation. Would encourage others to do likewise.

Avatar
gazzaputt | 8 years ago
0 likes

Not surprised at all at this.

 

Avatar
Must be Mad | 8 years ago
2 likes
Quote:

The car was a hire vehicle that had been sub-leased through a number of different companies.

is that not in itself, a bit dodgy?

Avatar
lolol | 8 years ago
7 likes

It seems that as long as you don't stop, then say you don't know who was driving the Police just throw up their hands and say they've done all they can. Ridiculous!

Avatar
Must be Mad | 8 years ago
15 likes

Well, call me reactionary if you will, but I just think that is time that car drives should be licensed and insured and cars should be required by law to show an identification number so that when drivers behave like this, the perpetrator can be tracked down and brought to book.....

 

oh right..

Avatar
seven | 8 years ago
6 likes

What? The driver left a man for dead and the police didn't even bother to check the two suspects' mobile phone records? Track the car on CCTV and see who got in/out of it at the other end of the journey?

With all that we're hearing about government surveillance and the security services overreaching, this pathetic response beggars belief.

Avatar
fenix | 8 years ago
4 likes

Outrageous that a hit and run could have a penalty of £150 ! 

Avatar
peted76 | 8 years ago
3 likes

That's horrid, I hope the Cycling Defence Fund fix this!

Avatar
mrmo | 8 years ago
2 likes

On the bright side, at least you know the CPS's attitude to cyclists..... 

 

Avatar
kitsunegari | 8 years ago
6 likes

In cases like this, it should be assumed that the person eligible to drive the car is liable, and prosecuted accordingly.

It is a horrible indication of the times that this level of crime gets away with a £150 fine.

Avatar
armb replied to kitsunegari | 8 years ago
1 like
kitsunegari wrote:

In cases like this, it should be assumed that the person eligible to drive the car is liable, and prosecuted accordingly.

From the other reports, two people were eligible, and there's not enough evidence to show which one was driving. There's an argument that they both should be liable for failing to say who was driving, but I don't think you can reasonably say they both should be proseuted for the driving offence when only one person was driving.

Avatar
dassie replied to kitsunegari | 8 years ago
0 likes
kitsunegari wrote:

In cases like this, it should be assumed that the person eligible to drive the car is liable, and prosecuted accordingly.

It is a horrible indication of the times that this level of crime gets away with a £150 fine.

 

Apparently there were two people eligible.

Pages

Latest Comments