Driver steals cyclist’s phone after knocking her from bike – police attending say they shouldn’t have been called

Is Nigel pretending to be sensible because of what happened to Farty?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Bit of a rude way to describe Rendel

Sorry Nige but I'm a bit short at the minute, I can't afford to pay rent on the space I'm occupying inside your head.

No, just desperate for attention as usual.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

To clarify, is Allison back in possession of her phone?

"Stealing" only applies if someone takes something with the intention of never returning it. I remember that well from the story of the guy who snatched car keys.

So it may hinge on whether the driver intended not to return the phone but was forced to by the presence of witnesses. It would be more difficult to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt if the phone had been handed back. But the witnesses might well allow a charge of attempted theft, or even robbery if force was used.

As there was an injury (let's believe the victim) the police should indeed have been called.

The BC insurance  may have decided that the injuries were not sufficient enough to be included in the claim as the motorists insurers would probably bounced that part. Non the less an injury has been received at the scene of the crash which is sufficient enough to involve the police. Otherwise swap details and move on. I've been always been taught to involve the police if someone is hurt or the other party refuses to swap details or if those details later prove to be false. As for your case I suggest DA were at it. I don't think I've ever heard of a driver being injured in a collision with a cyclist. Oh and on a pedantry note. It's RTC. not RTA. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

damage to the bike, which is an entirely civil matter.

Criminal damage, an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, is in fact a crime, not an entirely civil matter.
There might be reasonable doubt about whether the damage was caused recklessly, but you shouldn't assume that.

I very much doubt it met the definition of theft. It may well have been assault, but, despite my dislike of police incompetence and laziness*, it is actually a bit complicated legally, and it's somewhat understandable that ordinary police aren't that clear on more obscure points of law. (*Of course, it's reprehensible they also aren't clear on everyday bits of law they should know well.)

WRT the collision, I find it hard to believe they objected to being called out when the driver refused to exchange details. I would hope they said something like 'we shouldn't have had to come out for this', meaning that the driver shouldn't have caused the need, rather than that there was no need.

But then, it's police we're talking about, so they may well just have been being thick&lazy again.

A charge of 'theft' shouldn't be too hard to justify. After all, just because I recover something (in this case with the aid of witnesses) doesn't mean the person who stole it didn't 'intend to deprive me of it...'.

What surprises me is that, as the stealing of the phone appears to have been an attempt to hide evidence/prevent evidence being collected, a charge of perveting the course of justice could have been laid. Something the Police and Courts are usually pretty keen to jump on hard.

Sounds like a nasty incident, in my area, and (whatever our latterday Germaine 'Garrage' Greer might say), the fact that it was perpetrated upon a lone female who was possibly badly injured makes it even worse. 

Captain Badger wrote:

Hope she makes a full recovery.

Am now awaiting with bated breath our resident trolls to arrive and hold forth on how this is utterly reasonable, she shouldn't have wasted precious police time, and was to blame for the whole thing having touched the scrote's true victim's ™ car.

Aaaand here they come.....

First one's making a good start. In spite of the situation, ( a lone woman, knocked off her bike so likely in trauma), the instigator (a male stranger) demanding and seizing her mobile ( I would imagine a traumatic experience even out of this context), our first contender is going straight in with "well it's only really theft if...", a fine example of invalidating someone's experience on legal tech.

Then follows up solidly with "let's doubt the woman's story...." I wonder if there are any other violent crimes against women that this logic pertains to in his mind....

Next, a very deft move, excusing the police's behaviour "well it's all a civil matter, as there's only damage to the bike...."

Finally, a superbly cynical "let's hope she gets better."

This is one of his finest. Any following will have a lot of work to do to top that, but the standard of competitors is high. I think we're in for a treat tonight.

What is it this does for you?

Does it give you some sort of thrill to feel like you've won some sort of intellectual battle?

Do your attempts to be nasty while hiding behind a presentation that allows you to pretend to yourself that you have plausible deniability pleaase you in some way?

Who hurt you?

alymac71 wrote:

What is it this does for you?

Does it give you some sort of thrill to feel like you've won some sort of intellectual battle?

.....

I really can't imagine that.....

Oh ok, so I guess we shouldn’t be having separate men’s and women’s categories in sports if we are all physically equal?

Quote:

..Oh, let's save the ladieees! What a thoroughly sexist thing to write. Women are just as able to fend for themselves as men, thank you very much.

Oooh straight back in, playing with the crowd.

A veiled insinuation that men attacking women is not so bad , smartly hidden with some pseudo-feminist virtue signalling. The contortions have been taken to an art form.

He's on FIRE.

Much as you'd like . No. Looks like the police may have mishandled the situation. I'm sure the barrack room roadcc lawyers will take care of everything though.

I will add though that IMO Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners are a thoroughly bad idea and an introduction of the sort of populist crap policing they have in the USA.