A tale from the Court by raistlin


User avatar
raistlin
A woman was before the Bench this morning charged with common assault.

The Police had taken photographs of the injuries the woman was alleged to have inflicted on a bloke she said she didn't know. The injury consisted of a slight reddening of the skin on the bloke's hip.

The woman, unrepresented, pleaded guilty on the basis that the injuries were caused recklessly and not out of malice.

We heard the prosecution advocate outlining the circumstances and immediately called a halt to the proceedings. Explaining to the defendant that we were prepared to vacate the plea of guilty and strongly recommending that she consult with the duty solicitor.

30 minutes later she returned to Court, along with the duty solicitor, who is well known for being one of the sharpest and most effective advocates in the West Midlands.

He said "I'll happily take this case Your Worships, and my client will plead not guilty".

The CPS advocate immediately got to his feet and said "The crown applies to vacate this case Sir."

So what happened?

The defendant had been returning to her Mercedes, which apparently had powerfold type door mirrors which are extended with hydraulic assistance, a bit like some sort of mini boot struts, I suspect, when she operated the key fob and the injured party happened to be standing very close to her car with the near-side mirror hitting him on the hip / upper thigh area.

So those of you with powerfold mirrors - BEWARE :lol:

The CPS prosecutor responsible for the case was summoned to attend the Bench to explain ;)
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 13:10 #1 


Bolin
How bizarre - and although I am not familiar with courts/prosecutions it sounds to me like a total waste of time!

I take it that the bloke that was injured by this electric mirror then decided to go to the police over the matter?? Common sense says to me that it would be highly unlikely that someone would try to assault a stranger with a folding mirror! So why didn't he accept is was an unfortunately accident and leave it at that? Was he wanting compensation for a slight reddening of the skin caused by a genuine bizarre accident? And why on earth did the CPS take this so far??

I accept that some accidents need to be investigated and if there is genuine negligence etc then prosecutions are needed but this sounds stupid and child-like! And not a good use of taxpayers money!

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 19:03 #2 

User avatar
Borg Warner
You couldn't make it up.

Paul you really must right these down in a diary and flog 'em to either the Beeb or ITV. Make a fortune.

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 19:04 #3 

User avatar
Bermudan 75
The defendant had been returning to her Mercedes, which apparently had powerfold type door mirrors which are extended with hydraulic assistance, a bit like some sort of mini boot struts, I suspect, when she operated the key fob and the injured party happened to be standing very close to her car with the near-side mirror hitting him on the hip / upper thigh area.

So those of you with powerfold mirrors - BEWARE


Sounds like a good mod ! :thumbsup:

Would work better with a sensor so that anyone who got to close too your mirrors would be whacked with 'em ! Self defence obviously.
Image

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 19:32 #4 

Last edited by Bermudan 75 on 23 Aug 2012, 19:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
raistlin
Bolin wrote:How bizarre - and although I am not familiar with courts/prosecutions it sounds to me like a total waste of time!

Common sense says to me that it would be highly unlikely that someone would try to assault a stranger with a folding mirror!


The prosecution argued that the assault (actually a battery, as contact was made) wasn't intentional but was as the result of a reckless action "which the defendant should have known or could have foreseen, might result in injury". That's why the defendant pleaded guilty "on a basis".

Yes - it was a waste of time. Yes - the CPS agent who had conduct of the case has been dealt with.

I imagine the injured party might well have had a civil case in mind - supported by a criminal conviction for the defendant.

Not a snowball's chance in hell but some people do like to push. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, one might say :(

The impact must have been minimal as there was only the slightest suggestion of reddening of the skin and the photo was purported to have been taken immediately after the impact.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 19:34 #5 

User avatar
Duncan
Have to say this caused some amusment to a number of Automotive Engineers today, one of whom is responsible for the electrical side of powerfold mirrors.
Image

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 20:08 #6 

User avatar
Dave
raistlin wrote:The prosecution argued that the assault (actually a battery, as contact was made) wasn't intentional but was as the result of a reckless action "which the defendant should have known or could have foreseen, might result in injury


What about it being the bloke's fault for standing so close to the car?

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 21:24 #7 

User avatar
Jürgen
Dave wrote:What about it being the bloke's fault for standing so close to the car?

Yep, this guy should have been prosecuted for intended criminal damage instead. :mrgreen:
Jürgen

75ZT Community & Midlands Nano Meets & 75 & ZT Enthusiasts

Posted 23 Aug 2012, 21:52 #8 


Top