Plead Guilty by Post/At Court... What to put?

[TheJimi]

"My attention was drawn to a motor vehicle being driven very slowly in a quiet section of the car park" and he proceeds to admiit that he saw the drivers swapping over a very short time later.

What a jobsworth c*nt - I really hope someone comes along and ruins his year at some point, ditto those at court who decided to fling the book at you.

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 30th November 17:53

[RBOnline]

agtlaw said:

The drive otherwise in accordance with a licence offence is NOT GUILTY - as you were not on a road.

A car park with ready access to the public is classed as a public highway.

EDIT - Hang on a second...you're a Barrister?!

Edited by RBOnline on Sunday 30th November 19:16

[Vaud]

RBOnline said:

agtlaw said:

The drive otherwise in accordance with a licence offence is NOT GUILTY - as you were not on a road.

A car park with ready access to the public is classed as a public highway.

Do you know what agtlaw does for a living? Check his previous post:

agtlaw said:

A car park is not generally a road. Thread on here about the law. Another about NG using phone in Tesco car park where trial issue was road or not.

No insurance offence is on a road or other public place
Drive o/w licence is on a road - therefore not guilty

[RBOnline]

Vaud said:

Do you know what agtlaw does for a living?

Yes. Are you saying he is correct?

[Vaud]

RBOnline said:

Yes. Are you saying he is correct?

I'm saying I would trust the post and advice of a barrister specialising in motor offences giving advice on this forum, yes. See above, I quoted his exact advice.

[RBOnline]

I was of the opinion that road/public highway were interchangeable. If case law/legislation has defined the two as separate I apologise.

[Vaud]

RBOnline said:

I was of the opinion that road/public highway were interchangeable. If case law/legislation has defined the two as separate I apologise.

On of those strange nuances I guess. IANAL, but it looks like he is right:

Insurance: Under section 143(1)(a) RTA 1988 'a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that persona policy of insurance '. Under section 145 the policy must be issued by an authorised insurer and must insure for death or bodily injury to any person, or damage to property, caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road in Great Britain, i.e. third party insurance.

Driving: RTA 1988 / sec 87 - Drivers of motor vehicles to have driving licences.
(1)It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [F263otherwise than in accordance with] a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.
(2)It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [F264otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class.

[Eclassy]

Very very very harsh!

[Vaud]

Eclassy said:

Very very very harsh!

I'm torn on this one.

Given it is an absolute offence, I guess the judge took the view that someone who knowingly allowed someone else to drive without insurance deserved higher points than someone who perhaps did it accidentally (though was still culpable)

Admittedly the risk was low, but once the police took an interest and driver/passenger switched over there was clearly something to investigate and their ability to show discretion reduced - if it ever existed for an absolute offence?

[Fastpedeller]

I didn't know about this 'public place' concept when the following happened:
In Tesco petrol station, lady in front reversed her car into mine. Gave me her details,and I also jotted down car details. when I rang her next day 'number unobtainable' went to view her house at the address given (you guessed it) no house of that number. Told plod over 'phone (and also found out Tesco had cctv of it). Plod said come and see us, so I did. Plod behind counter said 'we can't follow it up as it's on private land' your insurance will deal with it. As it was minor I didn't go the insurance route - my main reason going to plod was to get her done for false details. His (plod behind counter) stance was 'she has given you details' my answer 'but they are false'. He still wasn't interested. So they can be interested when it suits them (or not)

Sorry to hear your story though - very harsh treatment and does little to build confidence in Police.
Wonder if Police accepting bribes from press in Sunday Paper case will ever be charged?

[agtlaw]

RBOnline said:

I was of the opinion that road/public highway were interchangeable. If case law/legislation has defined the two as separate I apologise.

It's a quirk of legislation. My previous post possibly wasn't clear - looks like it was posted in note form via my phone.

Some offences are committed "on a road", whilst other offences are committed "on a road or other public place". The terms are not interchangeable. Thanks to Vaud for quoting the relevant legislation above.

A car park is not generally a road, but if it is a public car park then it is likely to be an "other public place". There is quite a lot of case law about this, and each case will depend on its facts.

An insurance offence is "on a road or other public place". Therefore, the OP is guilty of permitting this offence.

The relevant licence offence must be "on a road". Therefore, the OP is not guilty of this offence.

[RBOnline]

agtlaw said:

It's a quirk of legislation. My previous post possibly wasn't clear - looks like it was posted in note form via my phone.

Some offences are committed "on a road", whilst other offences are committed "on a road or other public place". The terms are not interchangeable. Thanks to Vaud for quoting the relevant legislation above.

A car park is not generally a road, but if it is a public car park then it is likely to be an "other public place". There is quite a lot of case law about this, and each case will depend on its facts.

An insurance offence is "on a road or other public place". Therefore, the OP is guilty of permitting this offence.

The relevant licence offence must be "on a road". Therefore, the OP is not guilty of this offence.

Well, again, my apologies for doubting you! That's some quirk though hey?

[Engineer1]

TheJimi said:

"My attention was drawn to a motor vehicle being driven very slowly in a quiet section of the car park" and he proceeds to admiit that he saw the drivers swapping over a very short time later.

What a jobsworth c*nt - I really hope someone comes along and ruins his year at some point, ditto those at court who decided to fling the book at you.

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 30th November 17:53

[Engineer1]

TheJimi said:

"My attention was drawn to a motor vehicle being driven very slowly in a quiet section of the car park" and he proceeds to admiit that he saw the drivers swapping over a very short time later.

What a jobsworth c*nt - I really hope someone comes along and ruins his year at some point, ditto those at court who decided to fling the book at you.

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 30th November 17:53

I suspect a good chunk of illegal drivers drive slow to avoid attracting attention, so stopping and swapping drivers would look odd. Maybe an attempt to make it look like a fault finding drive may have saved the OP

[Fastpedeller]

Engineer1 said:

I suspect a good chunk of illegal drivers drive slow to avoid attracting attention, so stopping and swapping drivers would look odd. Maybe an attempt to make it look like a fault finding drive may have saved the OP

An acquaintance many years ago was stopped at night in Dec whilst driving within the speed limit (unusual for him I add). Plod asked him if he'd been drinking (he hadn't) but he did admit to having had 2 cups of tea a short while before I'm surprised they didn't book him for being flippant (even though he was telling the truth).
Good to know the BIB are looking for such clues and apprehending DIC drivers IMHO.

[Petrus1983]

That's a ridiculously harsh punishment. Just easy pickings for the police sadly

[StottyEvo]

Corpulent Tosser said:

What did your GF get ?

No longer the GF annoyingly She got 8 points and a £250 fine as she's a student without income.

Although she gladly told me that she has no intentions of getting a car so she isn't really bothered

[The Mad Monk]

StottyEvo said:

Copied from another thread:

I wonder what the take is on my current situation.

Months ago the GF at the time wanted to drive my car, one night I conceded

Why did you allow her to drive?

Why weren't you both insured?

[Red Devil]

Fastpedeller said:

An acquaintance many years ago was stopped at night in Dec whilst driving within the speed limit (unusual for him I add). Plod asked him if he'd been drinking (he hadn't) but he did admit to having had 2 cups of tea a short while before I'm surprised they didn't book him for being flippant (even though he was telling the truth).

Unless you were obstructive with it I very much doubt it.

I had a very similar experience about around 8 years ago. The fresh faced officer looked young enough to be my grandson. After his opening gambit (something about a routine check due to the lateness of the hour and it being a high crime area: I doubted it and reckoned it was just a ploy, but wasn't going to argue the point), we start off with the usual "Is this your vehicle?" etc. etc. then the conversation moved on thus.

Him: "Have you had anything to drink?"
Me: "Yes"
Him: "How much?"
Me: "Er, I'm not 100% sure. Four or five glasses I think: might have been six."

At which point he immediately assumed that I was referring to wine so he went straight for the jugular without giving me any opportunity for further comment. There was no way I was going to interject and the breath test came back with a big fat O (i.e. zero). I wish I had been able to take a picture because the look of bafflement on his face was pure gold.

I had been at a function earlier that evening and had drunk nothing but orange juice (and water at the dinner table). After several seconds of stunned silence it was his partner who worked out what I might have been drinking. I simply answered the question that was asked of me. Start off by putting the wrong one and you're very likely to get a wrong answer (from the one you want or expect) and end up down a blind alley.

After they let me go, they followed me for 5 miles. I think plod #1 was hoping I would commit some other moving traffic offence, but I am ashamed to say I let him down. I did allow myself a little smile though when they eventually off and left me alone.

Fastpedeller said:

Good to know the BIB are looking for such clues and apprehending DIC drivers IMHO.

+1

I didn't much mind the initial stop at all because that's one offence they're never going to ping me for.