Speeding fine over-turned

[sgtkate]

It's nice to see that even most of the non-Tories on here are saying there is nothing wrong with this case. His car was caught speeding by a camera. The camera does not clearly identify the driver therefore the driver must be identified before any action can be taken. It may well be that he was driving and is lying but the same defence is available to anyone regardless of wealth or status. If the police really do believe he is lying then they can open an investigation into it and look at things like his mobile phone location and so on, but it's hardly deemed worthy of spending such public money on so highly unlikely it's going to happen.

 

Making the car owner responsible unless they name a driver is also not an acceptable way forwards. Imagine if any other crime the person who 'owned' the land or weapon was responsible if they couldn't ID the actual culprit...

[Mossway]

The S172 Notice is difficult to fill in ir you weren’t the driver as it doesn’t lend itself to let you give an explanation if you aren’t sure who was the driver.

 

Sgt Kate- on offences such as Fly Tipping the onus falls on the Registered Keeper, it doesn’t matter who tipped, it’s whose vehicle was used.

[sgtkate]

The S172 Notice is difficult to fill in ir you weren’t the driver as it doesn’t lend itself to let you give an explanation if you aren’t sure who was the driver.

 

Sgt Kate- on offences such as Fly Tipping the onus falls on the Registered Keeper, it doesn’t matter who tipped, it’s whose vehicle was used.

 

Ok, interesting. I thought it was the owner of the material that was dumped illegally that was deemed legally responsible? Unless they completed the waste transfer notice that is.

[lottiecass]

The S172 Notice is difficult to fill in ir you weren’t the driver as it doesn’t lend itself to let you give an explanation if you aren’t sure who was the driver.

 

Sgt Kate- on offences such as Fly Tipping the onus falls on the Registered Keeper, it doesn’t matter who tipped, it’s whose vehicle was used.

 

Its not difficult to fill in if you are not the driver,if you don't know that's what you put, "unknown".But unless there is photo evidence its the owner who they go after.

[El Cid]

He gave evidence and a court accepted his account - He might have been telling the truth you know:)

 

I guess his wife does not remember too, she is 77; would he need evidence that his wife is insured/able to drive his car?

 

I notice the David Dearlove was jailed today, for a murder he committed in 1968.

The crime was witnessed by a 3 year old, and never forgotten.

 

Memory is a very strange thing.

Edited December 1, 2017 by El Cid

[redfox]

I guess his wife does not remember too, she is 77; would he need evidence that his wife is insured/able to drive his car?

 

I notice the David Dearlove was jailed today, for a murder he committed in 1968.

The crime was witnessed by a 3 year old, and never forgotten.

 

Memory is a very strange thing.

 

 

Your point being what exactly?

 

I don't know if Mrs Howard had insurance or not - I suspect she did given his case was he couldn't recall who was driving - daft thing to do if your mrs doesn't have insurance don't you think ?

 

I do love these armchair lawyers who pipe up without the slightest knowledge of the facts / evidence save whats in the papers.

[El Cid]

I don't know if Mrs Howard had insurance or not - I suspect she did given his case was he couldn't recall who was driving - daft thing to do if your mrs doesn't have insurance don't you think ?

 

I do love these armchair lawyers who pipe up without the slightest knowledge of the facts / evidence save whats in the papers.

 

We are all learning, I haven't had a speeding ticket in a very long time. If I am in the same circumstances, I may well say the same things.

Lord Howard makes it look so easy.

[Lockdoctor]

I guess his wife does not remember too, she is 77; would he need evidence that his wife is insured/able to drive his car?

 

I notice the David Dearlove was jailed today, for a murder he committed in 1968.

The crime was witnessed by a 3 year old, and never forgotten.

 

Memory is a very strange thing.

A bit of a difference from a alleged speeding offence and murder. Perhaps you should get a real life and stop acting like a loser.

[redfox]

We are all learning, I haven't had a speeding ticket in a very long time. If I am in the same circumstances, I may well say the same things.

Lord Howard makes it look so easy.

 

 

Isn't life great - we learn new stuff all the time:)

[peak4]

Its not difficult to fill in if you are not the driver,if you don't know that's what you put, "unknown".But unless there is photo evidence its the owner who they go after.

 

Not too sure about the wisdom of that action, it's all explained in the Relevant Legislation.

 

The actual original motoring offence is of little significance; if the keeper of the vehicle fails to unequivocally name the driver, then they are likely to be found guilty of a separate offence to the originally alleged one; this carries a mandatory 6 points plus the appropriate fine and a conviction that future insurers hate.

Just writing "unknown" is likely to see you with 6 points unless you can "show that you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was." I understand the bar is set quite high for that, or everyone would claim a bad memory.

 

Deliberately naming the wrong driver is likely to lead to jail time for PCOJ, whereas naming the most likely driver unequivocally, or making a genuine mistake, seems to be acceptable to the court.

Edited December 2, 2017 by peak4