Tuesday 12th March 2002

Cloning

The crackdown on motorists is resulting in more and more cars being given false identities

---

[Steve Harrison]

I've told the story a couple of times but my car was cloned a few years ago and I was pestered by Thames Valley police for a few weeks for stealing petrol.

The perp. was black and I'm not so as they had him on forecourt video they apologised and went away.

Fortunately he didn't get gatsoed and he had an accident and dumped the car after a couple of weeks. He was never caught

[Steve Harrison]

Yeah, but the onus was on her to prove she wasn't guilty. If you just wrote back and said "sorry, couldn't have been me, you've got the wrong guy" I'll bet it wouldn't have been forgotten so quickly

[steve harrison]

quote:
what happens if your only witness is your wife?

Think this doesn't count....

No, it's just that your wife can't be forced to give evidence which might incriminate you.

It's not the same as any other offence. For criminal cases offences have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". Sure, if you pull out a witness that would constitute reasonable doubt and you'd be found "not guilty".

The question is, in the absence of any other evidence, would a photograph of a car that looks like yours being driven in such a way as to commit an offence constitute proving that YOU had committed an offence "beyond reasonable doubt"? Given the ease of obtaining a set of fake plates and the number of ringers clearly out there I don't believe it does. There is by default "reasonable doubt" that it was truly your car and that you were driving it. If you don't say or deny anything you cannot be guilty of perjury.

The fact that people are convicted solely on the evidence of a single photograph indicates that the courts have decided that this evidence alone places your guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". The onus is then on you to prove yourself innocent by producing additional evidence. I don't believe evidence this sparse and unreliable would be accepted in the case of any other offence and I believe it contravenes the fundamental principles of Criminal Justice in the UK

Of course, if you decriminalise it and go through a civil court then there's no presumption of innocence and the standard of evidence becomes "balance of probability". You really will need some serious evidence to prove yourself innocent, otherwise you're f****d.