Discussion
Am I right in thinking that if someone gets an NIP for, lets say dangerous driving for example, if the registered owner ignores the request for the drivers details eventually they will get a summons for failing to ID the driver? But then does the orriginal offence of dangerous driving dissaper or can the police pursue the matter?
klm said:
Am I right in thinking that if someone gets an NIP for, lets say dangerous driving for example, if the registered owner ignores the request for the drivers details eventually they will get a summons for failing to ID the driver?
Dangerous driving is a more complex example. This is because jail is a possibility and therefore the restrictions in Stott v Brown may kick in.
klm said:
But then does the orriginal offence of dangerous driving dissaper or can the police pursue the matter?
Notwithstanding the above, whatever the substantive offence, 'failure to supply' is totally separate and there is nothing to prevent conviction for both.
kevinday said:
But how can they convict the registered keeper of DD if he has been convicted of failure to provide? Surely they have no evidence to confirm who the driver was. Or is this another case of guilty until proven innocent?
I said there was nothing to prevent conviction for both.
The Crown still have to prove the DD, e.g. eye witness testimony, camera evidence etc.
In the case of a RK accused, there is also Elliot v Loake (1971 (IIRC)) in which the RK accused's silence together with his keepership allowed a guilty verdict. Whether Elliot v Loake would stand up in the light of ECHR Art. 6 is another matter.
) I wish I knew as much as you do.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff