Reasonable doubt

[Bibs_LEF]

I was under the impression that if a prosecution was to have 'reasonable doubt' then the magistrates would find the defendant not guilty. I was also under the impression that 'reasonable doubt' was an element of doubt that your normal, average person would be convinced of.

A friend was given a PG1 (I think that's what it is, a prohibition order) as a tyre was shown to have a small extra groove worn into it due to it at some time in the past having fouled the bodywork. On examination of the car at the scene, it wasn't fouling and the groove was less than a millimetre deep.

This went to court for the tyre offence and in the meantime the car was taken to an MOT station for a fresh MOT to take to the police station to remove the prohibition. The tyres had not been changed however it was taken there on a trailer to avoid further potential offences en route. The MOT station passed the car, knowing that there was a PG1 on it for the tyre and issued a new MOT.

In court, the trafpol turned up, read out his long and distinguished CV and gave his evidence that the tyre was in his opinion illegal, hence the PG1. The owner then produced the MOT and said that a reasonable person would expect a car to only be issued with an MOT if it were, at the time of the MOT, fit for use on the roads.

Would this MOT be introducing 'reasonable doubt' and can you guess what the outcome was?

[Bibs_LEF]

Erm, they were asked at the time to use their judgement to rule on the prosecution.

[Bibs_LEF]

Lemme see. If you bought a car which had just that second left an MOT station with a fresh MOT, would you consider it to be fit for the road, as a reasonable person? In other words, is an MOT test the definitive test for roadworthness at the time it is taken or do you get a trafpol to inspect your car every day before you drive it?

[Bibs_LEF]

FishFace said:

So an MOT certificate now guarantees legality and every garage is infallible? Like all the garages who your mate's mate knows which issues passes even though your car is decatted?

Is that the opinion of a 'reasonable person' or a cynic?

I think that 99.9% of people will take an MOT as an indication of roadworthyness.

[Bibs_LEF]

FishFace said:

Bibs_LEF said:

That any offence is invalidated because the car has an MOT or recent MOT?

An offence regarding roadworthyness, yes. The tyres were checked as per the normal MOT test and found to be fit for purpose, not even an advisory. I'm suggesting that the officer is no more, perhaps less qualified than an MOT tester to determine roadworthyness and that the magistrates should look at the fact the car was deemed ok by an MOT station to be an element of 'reasonable doubt'.

[Bibs_LEF]

SLCZ3 said:

Take note an MOT:
A test certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
1.evidence of their condition at any other time
2.evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
3.evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use.
So whilst the officer maybe technicaly correct i view the attitude to be overly
enthusiastic.

It passed the MOT 'after' the alleged offence, the tyres didn't improve in that time. In fact it covered no miles at all between the PG1 and the MOT test.

[Bibs_LEF]

vonhosen said:

Reasonable doubt is to whether you were guilty of the offence or not. Not whether it was reasonable for you to know it was illegal.
Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.

But the point is, that no offence was committed apart from in the opinion of a police officer, and that opinion was challenged by a fresh MOT where they checked the tyres and passed them as suitable. I'm aware that ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it but...

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...

the govt said:

Wheels and tyres - condition, security, tyre size and type, and tread depth.

The condition of the tyres was deemed by a govt appointed 'car checker' as fine. The trafpol thought otherwise. The magistrates sided with the trafpol although in my reasonable opinion the MOT test deemed the tyres to be suitable.

What I think, and my point is, is that the car would be seem by a reasonable person as suitable for use on the roads the second it passed that MOT.

Who is more qualified to determine roadworthness in the eyes of the public, the MOT tester and station or a trafpol? Who checks your car once a year and gives you a certificate?

[Bibs_LEF]

FishFace said:

So the MOT tester sounds like he was wrong then.

Brilliant, are you a magistrate? He was shown the PG1 slip, he knew the car had a prohibition for tyres so may well have taken a little more care than usual when checking them!

The car has since passed 2 more MOT tests, at different stations on the same tyres. Are all the testers wrong?

[Bibs_LEF]

vonhosen said:

You are incorrectly applying the reasonable person test.
Whether a reasonable person considers an MOT proof of a vehicle's condition is neither here nor there.
The question for the magistrate is are they satisfied but the tyre actually contravened the con & use regs ? An MOT is not a test that a vehicle complies with the con & use regs. It can pass an MOT & still commit con & use offences.

In one post you've cleared that up entirely! I was misundertanding the 'reasonable person test' and thought it applied to the offence, not the judgement.

I thought that if a reasonable person would consider the car to be roadworthy, surely no offence had been committed. Ta

[Bibs_LEF]

Derek Smith said:

Did the defendant have legal advice?

The defendant was a single mother and couldn't afford legal advice nor the services of a tyre specialist I'm afraid.

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

Why was the car taken to the MOT station by trailer instead of just changing the wheel?

To see if the tyre was legal or not, according to the MOT test station. It was a borrowed trailer, not a hired low loader.

The penalty was 3 points and a fine, couple of hundred quid iirc.

[Bibs_LEF]

vonhosen said:

It was alleged that it didn't comply with the Regs/Act, with evidence supplied from the trafpol. That evidence obviously wasn't successfully countered in court to produce reasonable doubt. Hoping that just producing a MOT will be sufficient to cast doubt on whether it complied with the Regs/Act is folly.

It was hoped that the MOT would be enough, perhaps she should have taken the option of speaking to a tyre specialist although I doubt if that would have been within budget.

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

Did she take this new MOT to the police station and get this "prohibition" removed? Did she tell the police it still had the same tyre on it?

Yes and no, what's the relevance?

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

It looks to me that what has happened is that the MOT tester has not seen the damage to the tyre and has therefore passed the car. I don't think the specific damage has been highlighted to the tester. MOT testers are not infallible.

The MOT tester was aware of the prohibition as stated.

[Bibs_LEF]

Derek Smith said:

The problem is, of course, that the magistrates have been trained so knew what was correct in law.

I didn't think that a magistrate was trained, hence their use of the Clerk of the Court.

Edited by Bibs_LEF on Saturday 8th March 20:04

[Bibs_LEF]

odyssey2200 said:

grumbledoak said:

Get a lawyer!

As I think I mentioned, or at least implied, this was 3/4 years ago. It's just been bugging me since but VH has pretty much cleared it up

[Bibs_LEF]

wakeywakey said:

If you are advised by a BiB that your vehicle has a defect then there are several options however this thread seems to be concentrated on 2, in summary:

1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion

Now what is reasonable?

The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.

After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.

While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.

There is no 'get arsey' involved, my friend was reported for consideration for prosecution for the offence of 'tyre offence' and was summons to court. If you believed that the tyre was fine and this was, in your opinion, corroborated by a govt appointed 'car checker' would you take the fine and points and roll over or go to court to attempt to prove your innocence?

It's 'innocent until proven guilty', no 'guilty as they said so'.

[Bibs_LEF]

That's the irony of it.

We originally thought that an MOT would mean that it was legal, however thanks to VH I can see that this is not the case.

It does seem contrary that the MOT is trusted (imo) as an indication of the condition of the vehicle at the time it's tested but in fact the car may well be very illegal even when passed.

Lesson learned.