There has been no response from the public after it was reopened6 weeks after the incident, for 2 weeks, to allow an advertisement to run in the South Wales Echo, and it was originally closed after 4 hours because neither of the original witnesses provided a licence plate number and the 6-7 CCTV cameras revealed no significant distinguishing feature of the car, nor the index numbers/licence plate numbers.
For Jo C
I think you have to understand that our school education system is designed to ensure that the average citizen has little knowledge of the law.
Naturally citizens assume that the police have a duty to investigate and solve crime, but my recent research indicates this is not so. The police, except in the case of very minor crimes have no authority to charge until authorised to do so by CPS, and there are a lot more surprising results I have uncovered.Of course the Crown has to prove an allegation, although your assertion has no real relevance to legal due process in England and Wales, because by the Crown I assume you mean CPS, however CPS is not even involved at this point, because the police did not accept to investigate this crime, as I understand the situation, and this would be according to their discretion to not investigate.What they did was a preliminary investigation and did not go beyond that point.I asked specifically about discrimination against a class of victims of crime, and about negligence in the conduct of the preliminary investigation caused by a failure of CCTV, by choosing not to investigate a discrepancy in statements given to them and in not listing the incident as a crime. In other words it does not have the status of a hit and run offence, because this is a crime.
I think we should conclude our arrangement. Your responses are very brief, do not address the extent of my enquiry, provide no context or detail, and do not reference case law or any Act of law, so I am going to assess your response as unsatisfactory, and ask you to cancel the £33 charge.
I'm sorry, this just seems disingenuous. When someone who, it seems, is in the US cannot answer, then they attempt to find someone in UK who can, but I was supposed to have originally been in touch with a UK barrister Jo C.
I have lost faith in this process, sorry, I am disengaging.