Other church or 'religious' police forces

[GordonH 787]

I'm hoping someone on here can offer me some explaination as to how the following can actually happen, and perhaps suggest who I need to start raising it with.

In May 2010 I was involved in an RTC in Westminster (London). I was riding a motorcycle down a road when the taxi that was in front of me pulled into the left lane and stopped, as I got closer the taxi suddenly pulls a u-turn straight accross my path. I hit the brakes to try to avoid hitting him, the front wheel of the bike slides out from under me and I hit the road hard.

Ambulance and police attend the scene, the driver admits that he caused the accident, there are multiple witnesses, and I have the incident recorded on a video that was fitted to the bike at the time (all the stories match up).

In the following weeks the MET police contact me for a formal witness statement and for a full-res copy of the video which I supply happily. During these exchanges I'm also asked to suggest the outcome that I feel is appropriate for the injury to me, I state that as he has admitted the offence I would be happy with a 'driver education' course and am told that is the likely route they will go down.

So this week I get a letter from the MET, the case went to court mid-Oct in London and the charge was thrown out, reason 'Not Guilty (No evidence offered - dismissed)'.

How the hell did that happen?

Who is responsible for this?

Surely if this was going to court then I, as the victim, should have been informed of the date and invited to attend?

To add insult to injury, if I want a copy of the police report I will have to pay an minimum of £131.

I know this site isn't a legal advice centre but the person I just spoke to on the phone using the number at the top of the letter seemed to have difficulty understanding english and I'm not holding out much hope that he will call me back with the proceedure. So hopefully someone here can point me in the right direction.

Do I complain through the IPCC or is this a CPS issue that needs to go through another route?

[Truman Burbank 153]

What was the offence - driving without due care and attention? I ask because I am wondering what were the points to prove in the CPS case

Clearly the taxi driver has admitted fault for the RTC but that isn't necessarily the same as admitting a driving offence

thanks and I hope you get the result anyway

[Damsel + 2,111]

It'll be the CPS for sure.

As this isn't a scenario, moved to 'Help me, everything else.'

[GordonH 787]

Yes it was 'without due car and attention', and at the scene the driver admitted not looking properly whilst being interviewed in the back of the police car after I'd played back the video to the officer.

I just phoned the DPS Customer Service Team using the number listed on the MET website, they suggested that I call the IPCC instead, spoke to the IPCC and they gave me a different number to call which was (of course) the DPS Customer Service Team. AAAAHHHHHH!

I suppose I can now upload the footage to the web as there is no longer any court case to mess up, although it might be worth waiting for the injury claim to be finalised.

[GordonH 787]

As an update:

I put a complaint into the CPS in the end via their website.

Just got a letter from the CPS, "the evidence you refer to in your leter does not appear on the file ... supplied to the CPS by the Police" and the court refused an adjournment of the case. The letter ends with the usual "any further assistance please contact me" but of course fails to include an email or phone number.

So it looks like an IPCC matter then after all, call them and no, first I must do a complaint through the MET Professional Standards Department.

I will now dig out all the details again and send them a complaint over the next few days, but I doubt it'll even be looked at before the New Year.

I'm tempted to pass it on to my MP as well to see what they can shake up. What a pain in the neck this whole thing is.