Australia's leading provider of affordable DIY legal kits
Call our Customer Care Specialists on 1300 728 200
   

Legal Forum

Welcome to the FREE AussieLegal Forum

This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.

To be sure we provide you with the most relevant information to your state, please let us know which state you your legal matter resides in:

ACT  NSW  NT  QLD  SA  TAS  VIC  WA  

AussieLegal recommends this law firm:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPolice accident scenario

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Police accident scenario
    Posted: 20/December/2012 at 20:32
Scenario only. Some of this may not be technically correct but kindly go with the gist, thanks.

Answers in very general terms only, and based on the assumption that all the below is fact and true. Feel free to post what you think as I won't be trying to embarrass or further reference this to any actual case etc (Not an ambush).

Facts

1. Police officer and general person have collision.

2. It's the officer's fault due to reckless driving etc (For the sake of the scenario please let's just accept this as fact regardless of circumstances).

3. Significant damage to both cars (write offs)

4. It certainly appears (in this instance) that the police want to 'get off' if possible.

First question is.

What advantage does the Police officer (Or Police Force) have in attempting to press for criminal charges first (rather than civil) against the general person, and are there any disadvantages for the police with this approach?

Second question is.

If this criminal charge (claim) was so pathetic in the judges eye, (Let's accept this as a fact even though we can't be sure what a judge is thinking), could the officer be charged with attempting to use his trusted position to advantage, or trying to use the law to his advantage? Or is this possible through a further court claims and case? Answers both technically and in reality.

Third question is.

Does anyone know if any in house action would be taken against the officer (generally) if the case is lost (both criminal and civil - let's say that police were eventually found guilty and had to pay all costs etc)

I am not a legal person so bare with my lack of knowledge and incorrect lingo above.

Thanks kindly.



Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 21:01

Ponala View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 30/November/2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 338
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 21:28
It is a little to vague to answer in that why is the driving reckless? Were Police on their way to a job? Did they have lights and bells on? What was the circumstances of the accident eg: t-boned at an intersection, rear ender, head on?

First Q: Police have a slight advantage in that they have a knowledge of the law and can use it to their advantage. If there is an offence committed then the criminal/traffic charges go ahead. These days with the checks and balances in place it is a lot harder to 'lay' made up charges if their is no evidence to support same. (Not to say it isn't done at all.) Criminal and civil are 2 seperate cases.

Second Q: No. No. Police always use the law to their advantage, so do defence lawyers, judges on making decisions etc. it's when u miss use the law that the problems come. If the matters gets dismissed you can claim back the reasonable costs for defending the charges at the time.

Third Q: No, unless one can prove 'perverting the course of justice'. Police charges get dismissed at court on lack of evidence, incompetent informants, errors at law all the time and their are often costs (sometime quite significant involved) The informant might get a counselling or reprimand but no charges etc.

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 21:39
Originally posted by Ponala

It is a little to vague to answer in that why is the driving reckless? Were Police on their way to a job? Did they have lights and bells on? What was the circumstances of the accident eg: t-boned at an intersection, rear ender, head on?


For the sake of the scenario let's say, Officer done an sharp U turn attempting to chase driver going opposite way and turned straight into traffic going his way. He was T boned. Other cars had no chance to stop and he turned suddenly, no lights, sirens, blinkers etc.

Police argument will be that cars behind him were speeding and not paying attention to the police car in front of them. In court under pressure from opposing barrister he will admit to not having time to use blinkers etc, despite earlier (same case) claiming he did use blinkers and turned gradually with care etc etc.

This is only posted as a potential scenario, and not a criticism of police etc.





Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 21:58

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 21:47
Originally posted by Ponala

I
First Q: Police have a slight advantage in that they have a knowledge of the law and can use it to their advantage. If there is an offence committed then the criminal/traffic charges go ahead. These days with the checks and balances in place it is a lot harder to 'lay' made up charges if their is no evidence to support same. (Not to say it isn't done at all.) Criminal and civil are 2 seperate cases.


Thanks for your opinions.

Can I question why only a slight advantage?, considering that if police can find the general driver doing only one thing wrong, then the general driver can be blamed for all, and the police get off scot free? Seems like a get out of jail card?

What about if the police lose the criminal case, does that leave them at any disadvantage concerning the civil case, such as the judge figuring that this has probably already been put through a criminal case and failed (seeing the police are claiming the general person was to blame for accident) and therefore slightly favor the general person?

Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 21:49

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 21:56
Originally posted by Ponala



Second Q: No. No. Police always use the law to their advantage, so do defence lawyers, judges on making decisions etc. it's when u miss use the law that the problems come. If the matters gets dismissed you can claim back the reasonable costs for defending the charges at the time.


But technically his using his position of trust to abuse laws that otherwise he would not have access to (criminal charges). But this legally really means nothing? I really don't know the implications (if any) of what I am referring to so that's why I am asking. Thanks.

MartinO View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 02/March/2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 13999
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 21:59
Only problem with this hypothetical scenario, is that it isn't, is it? Give the facts as you know them and let others advise, you cannot know or assume what the police officer was doing or thinking or any of the other things you are attributing to him.
I am NOT a lawyer. Anything said is NOT legal advice.

Please post your legal questions in a forum rather than sending a PM. Thanks.

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 22:13
Originally posted by MartinO

Only problem with this hypothetical scenario, is that it isn't, is it? Give the facts as you know them and let others advise, you cannot know or assume what the police officer was doing or thinking or any of the other things you are attributing to him.


Well If you don't mind I don't want to upset anyone by saying it's fact.

There is no way I am going to take this further (possible police perjury), and nor am I out to embarrass anyone, so I don't need exact advice.

However, I am interested in generally how the system works.

Is such discussion ok here, or should posts relate to upcoming cases so no one is wasting their good time answering me. I apologize as I am not 100% familiar with how this forum works, or what is expected of posters.

Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 22:15

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 23:00
Originally posted by MartinO

you cannot know or assume what the police officer was doing or thinking or any of the other things you are attributing to him.


IN regard to doing. If the officer was seen to do it, he admitted to it, and the court verdict is that he done it (twice), I think I can say with reasonable confidence that 'he done it'.




Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 23:01

BD Eye View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 15/March/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 23:14
I still do not see any objective facts in this scenario
BD Eye

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 23:38
Originally posted by BD Eye

I still do not see any objective facts in this scenario


The officer was seen doing it by more than one witness, he admitted to doing it, and two court cases found he done it.

If that's not objective what is?

If you don't want to answer the question that's fine, but please kindly refrain from giving us heavy legged tap dancing.


Edited by googles - 20/December/2012 at 23:43

BD Eye View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 15/March/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2012 at 23:55
You have said he did a u-turn.

The objective evidence would be based on:

What were the traffic conditions at the time?
What was the road surface condition at the time?
What was the road gradient?
What was the road side geometry at the location?
What was the lighting at the time?
What were the atmospheric conditions?
What direction was the police vehicle facing at the time of undertaking the u-turn.
What road side signage was in place?
What was the intersection control (traffic lights, stop sign, give way sign)
What time of day was it?
What type of police vehicle was it?
What was the officers level of training in driving that vehicle?
What offence had the person the Police Officer was intercepting committed?
What information had the Police Officer been provided by POC regarding the vehicle or its occupants (i.e. warnings etc)?
What was the officers individual knowledge of the vehicle/occupants?
What was the previous job the officer had attended? (bet your guessing what is relevant about this, but it is)

The list goes on...

I'm not tap dancing around the issue in any means, my job is to identify these facts which are relevant to the cases of my clients, so I know they are relevant and why I had said in an earlier post of yours it is not possible to comment without all of the facts. One thing I always say to Police Officers when I am doing criminal defence investigations when they get narky at me is, "Not everything is as it seems".


BD Eye

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2012 at 00:14
The fact that you took over 20 lines in attempting to justify your argument (and still failed to do so) speaks volumes IMO.

You can continue to make excuses but two judges in two cases agreed with all the facts presented above. The facts are not in dispute.




Edited by googles - 21/December/2012 at 00:21

BD Eye View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 15/March/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2012 at 00:16
When does the appeal time lapse for the judgement?
BD Eye

googles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 25/October/2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2012 at 00:20
Originally posted by BD Eye

When does the appeal time lapse for the judgement?

Stop being silly....

Edited by googles - 21/December/2012 at 00:25

AsiaOilDude View Drop Down
Legal Guru
Legal Guru


Joined: 17/February/2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2495
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2012 at 00:32
You know goggles.... BD has become on the most respected posters on this forum. He is qualified and experienced. His arguments have the ring of truth. Yours on the other hand have the ring of a recess time bell for a kid to drink his milk and eat his sandwich. I personally have been offended by you and now BD has had the decency to respond you have offended him. I kindly request the moderator to ban you.
Not legal advice. Personal opinion only. Seek legal advice from qualified personnel only.

MartinO View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 02/March/2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 13999
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2012 at 01:24
OK folks I gave some leeway but I think this has run it's course.

I hope the OP has the answers he was seeking.

THREAD LOCKED
I am NOT a lawyer. Anything said is NOT legal advice.

Please post your legal questions in a forum rather than sending a PM. Thanks.

 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Want to save money?

Check out our list of do-it-yourself legal kits.

Need formal advice?

Let us help you find a lawyer who specializes in your particular area of law.

Need further information?

Visit our legal forum where you can ask questions and search for similar topics.