Leon Glenford
New member
Im a police officer, PC Leon Glenford and I work for dorset police at Iford Police Station in dorset, England.
There is a case to be arranged trial at the start of November, at Bournemoth Crown Court a a guy who drove away when I asked him to stop back in april this year, thats all he did, fail to stop when requested to do so by a police officer,
Although he was signalled to stop by my colleague he did carry on driving though, but perfectly sensibly at 30 mph and my colleague very stupidly threw a pushbike (which he was using at the time of the incident) at the driver and his passenger. Which bounced off the vehcile and out of which my colleague did have to jump out the way (but from his own bike that is, NOT the defendants vehcile)
As a cover up, we have to try and make out by way of false statements weve produced, and we have to lie on oath over in court that he deliberately drove straight at my colleague so as to warrant a charge of dangerous driving
he problem that we face is that the prosecution are calling the passenger as a prosecution witness, they think were telling the truth and believe the passenger will back us up and if we tell them not to call him, all sorts of questions will be asked. My colleague got a statement from him ,but left out all the bits that back up the defendant, but we know in court he will just tell the whole story in favour of the defendant, ie he only failed to stop and swerved to avoid hitting my colleague, etc ,etc and call us liars with the full credibility of a prosecution witness as opposed to a defence witness.
The other problem is that we never got a photo of the damage, well the bike did have quite a lot of damage as it did bounce of the vehicle and hit the ground and we made out the vehicle drove straight over the bike, the reason we didnt take a photo, was because photo if examined closely would reveal that the damage was simply not conssitent with a car driving over it, but only consistemt with damaged that might have been caused by the cycle bouncing off.
Then its has to be beared in mind, if the car really had driven straight over the bike, the pedals would have caught underneath or something, we have to try and convince the jury that this somehow, miraculously never happened and it just carried on driving.
Then I got my colleague who was driving the car at the time of the defendants arrest, to make out in a statement to be tendered in court, that he confesed to the matter, saying I may have driven at him, but I didnt want to hit him, (even though, all the evidence suggests that if he did confess, it couldnt have been true, because of all whats mentioned above)
Then to top it all off, the defendants gone and reported us to the IPCC and police complaints and discipline for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which will be investigated after the case against the defendant has concluded
So my question to you all is, how can we strenthen our case to make it look a bit more convincing and just tell us honestly and truthfully, do you think we ll get away with it and if not, can you think of anything we can say to make it all look a bit more realistic and tell us truthfully, is the defendant likely to be convicted because were the police and we are more likley to believed than the defendant, or do you honestly think he ll get aquited and we ll be in the brown smelly stuff so to speak for having tendered false staatements, etc.
Any help and advice appreciated
There is a case to be arranged trial at the start of November, at Bournemoth Crown Court a a guy who drove away when I asked him to stop back in april this year, thats all he did, fail to stop when requested to do so by a police officer,
Although he was signalled to stop by my colleague he did carry on driving though, but perfectly sensibly at 30 mph and my colleague very stupidly threw a pushbike (which he was using at the time of the incident) at the driver and his passenger. Which bounced off the vehcile and out of which my colleague did have to jump out the way (but from his own bike that is, NOT the defendants vehcile)
As a cover up, we have to try and make out by way of false statements weve produced, and we have to lie on oath over in court that he deliberately drove straight at my colleague so as to warrant a charge of dangerous driving
he problem that we face is that the prosecution are calling the passenger as a prosecution witness, they think were telling the truth and believe the passenger will back us up and if we tell them not to call him, all sorts of questions will be asked. My colleague got a statement from him ,but left out all the bits that back up the defendant, but we know in court he will just tell the whole story in favour of the defendant, ie he only failed to stop and swerved to avoid hitting my colleague, etc ,etc and call us liars with the full credibility of a prosecution witness as opposed to a defence witness.
The other problem is that we never got a photo of the damage, well the bike did have quite a lot of damage as it did bounce of the vehicle and hit the ground and we made out the vehicle drove straight over the bike, the reason we didnt take a photo, was because photo if examined closely would reveal that the damage was simply not conssitent with a car driving over it, but only consistemt with damaged that might have been caused by the cycle bouncing off.
Then its has to be beared in mind, if the car really had driven straight over the bike, the pedals would have caught underneath or something, we have to try and convince the jury that this somehow, miraculously never happened and it just carried on driving.
Then I got my colleague who was driving the car at the time of the defendants arrest, to make out in a statement to be tendered in court, that he confesed to the matter, saying I may have driven at him, but I didnt want to hit him, (even though, all the evidence suggests that if he did confess, it couldnt have been true, because of all whats mentioned above)
Then to top it all off, the defendants gone and reported us to the IPCC and police complaints and discipline for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which will be investigated after the case against the defendant has concluded
So my question to you all is, how can we strenthen our case to make it look a bit more convincing and just tell us honestly and truthfully, do you think we ll get away with it and if not, can you think of anything we can say to make it all look a bit more realistic and tell us truthfully, is the defendant likely to be convicted because were the police and we are more likley to believed than the defendant, or do you honestly think he ll get aquited and we ll be in the brown smelly stuff so to speak for having tendered false staatements, etc.
Any help and advice appreciated