A Road Rage Incident on Dundee's Kingsway A Road Rage Incident on Dundee's Kingsway

  Improbability Driving      the narrative

  Looking for White   Van Man

  How Did They   Do That?

  A Kangaroo in the   Court Room

  Open Letters

  How to Procure   Injustice


  The Cost of Injustice


  The Actors


    Sponsored Link

Lawn Seed Mixtures Lies in Court: grasses for tennis   courts


This site is adapted from a Blog that was first written in April 2005 and tells the true story of a Road Rage incident on Dundee's Kingsway.

The event itself was an all-too-common example of bad behaviour on our roads. But what followed was quite out of the ordinary.

From the moment the police became involved, followed by solicitors and the courtly administrators of the procedures that are supposed to bring about Justice, I felt at times as if I was an extra aboard Douglas Adams's wholly remarkable space ship - the one powered by an Improbability Drive that gets the crew out of many a tight spot.

A driver, angry at being held up on his very own local road, took revenge by tailgating me. But this didn't satisfy him so he decided to report me to the police. His story was embellished with a number of improbable events and included a witness who supported him. This witness was a solo motorcyclist who produced his own witness, a phantom pillion passenger.

Scottish law requires two independent witnesses. The Crown failed to notice that the case had some odd, even improbable, aspects and so did not bother to check that its witnesses were independent.

Despite having had months to rehearse their stories, all three witnesses made mistakes during their testimonies - like the Adams space ship with its Improbability Drive, they twisted the laws of space and time. The Sheriff picked up on one of these Impossible Events but allowed the witness concerned to claim that he was confused.

After the trial, I found definitive proof that a crucial part of their story, relating to the time and location of the alleged incident, was false.

Unfortunately, the authorities have steadfastly refused to believe that giving error-strewn evidence makes them any less credible as witnesses.

I thought at first that my failure to obtain justice was down to the fact that so long as all its boxes were ticked, the bureaucracy was satisfied that it had done its job.
But I have come to believe that the Procurator Fiscal deliberately prosecuted a case that was patently flimsy simply because she knew she could get away with it.
In so doing she submitted corrupt evidence, withheld evidence and, in a blatant abuse of authority, put up the outrageous charge of Dangerous Driving.
Only an irresponsible organisation that knows it is immune from public scrutiny would dare to charge someone with such a serious offence, one that can carry a jail term, without carrying out a few basic checks.
The Crown's witnesses had only to say they didn't know one another to absolve the Fiscal from the bother of scrutinizing their statements: the knowledge that Scottish summary courts are unable to examine evidence with any rigour let her get away with such lazy abuse of the system.
The Procurator Fiscal should have a duty of care towards defendants, which is to actively ensure that no part of the case against them is tainted.
The organisation should not be bringing a case just (if that is the appropriate adverb) because there happens to be a convenient victim and superficially plausible evidence.

An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere