Cyclone Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Presumably "not knowing" could be achieved by multiple drivers (other than the owner) having access, and the owner simply not asking them who was driving at the time. It's indisputable then, the owner literally does not and without asking cannot know who was driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I like to think that the interview between him and the police went a bit like THAT interview he did with Jeremy Paxman.... *did you threaten to deny you were the driver?* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak4 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 Presumably "not knowing" could be achieved by multiple drivers (other than the owner) having access, and the owner simply not asking them who was driving at the time. It's indisputable then, the owner literally does not and without asking cannot know who was driving. Then the keeper did not show "reasonable diligence" to ascertain who the driver of the vehicle was. Ergo 6 points for failure to furnish plus a large fine and an MS90 conviction on their licence; guilty as charged m'lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 (4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. Damn, going to have to try harder than just not asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now