Received NIP, but photo is of different car?
Discussion
bluepolarbear said:
Appropraite extract below
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
You'll notice that 'point a' does not apply - they didn't know what vehicle it was, thus they could not know whom the person who was keeping the unknown vehicle was; thus any person whom they happen to get in contact with cannot be compelled to give information.(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
Also in the first line - 'Where the driver of a vehicle...' - what driver? of which vehicle? none of it stacks up, nor is the photograph to be used in evidence as their is no recognisable index number, and as the photograph is the basis of the speeding offence... there is no speeding offence.
Just a guy who got scared of a BiB trying it on (and why not try it on) and b*llsh*tted his way out when he didn't have to. Ironically he has now commited an offence which can be prosecuted, when he couldn't have been in the first and original instance - you've gotta lova the Karma!
Edited by DonnyMac on Thursday 21st June 18:36
ehasler said:
MickC said:
So what would haved happened if the innocent black tuscan owner saw the photo, laughed, and ignored it? Summons eventually I guess.
If this went to court the photo would show it wasnt him, without a reg no. he can't be made to name a driver (and anyway it's obviously not his car), and so no case to answer. Would the police/court then go to the bother of trying to trace the real driver again? I doubt it.
Sounds like a cunning plan by the event organiser to me :-)
Well, I don't really fancy taking a day off work (which I wouldn't get paid for) to explain why it isn't me in the photo to the court.If this went to court the photo would show it wasnt him, without a reg no. he can't be made to name a driver (and anyway it's obviously not his car), and so no case to answer. Would the police/court then go to the bother of trying to trace the real driver again? I doubt it.
Sounds like a cunning plan by the event organiser to me :-)
Secondly, I don't appreciate being stitched up like this.
I obviously don't know exactly what the police said to him, but from what they told me earlier today, he gave them information specifically to point the finger at me, which is totally out of order I think.
And it's not really that cunning considering that you can clearly see him in the driver's seat, and it's also obvious that the car is not mine as it doesn't have the front splitter!
It's pretty stupid actually, as if he hadn't pointed the finger at me, I wouldn't have received the NIP, and I wouldn't be in a position to identify the driver for Wiltshire Police!!
I presume you will have to go to court to prove your innocence
DonnyMac said:
You'll notice that 'point a' does not apply - they didn't know what vehicle it was, thus they could not know whom the person who was keeping the unknown vehicle was; thus any person whom they happen to get in contact with cannot be compelled to give information.
Correct it it section b that applies here and compells anyone to provide info if asked, failure to provide is an offenceDonnyMac said:
Also in the first line - 'Where the driver of a vehicle...' - what driver? of which vehicle? none of it stacks up, nor is the photograph to be used in evidence as their is no recognisable index number, and as the photograph is the basis of the speeding offence... there is no speeding offence.
All good questions but irrelevant. The BiB believe a offence has been committed (as evidenced by the speed camera), if they believe someone may have information as to the identity of the driver (in the case the owner of website based on stickers seen on the car used to commit the crime) the law compells that person to provide what ever information they have. Failure to provide is an offence itself. The point of the number plate is misleading. Not being able to read it merely means the reg number can not be used to identify the vehicle including where certain post processing techniques reveal an identifable reg. The picture is still admissable for example to visually identify the driver and certainly doesn't prove that "no offence" took place.
Delibrately lying / misleading the police is also an offence but there isn't sufficient evidence in this thread to determine if that occured as you don't know what questions or evidence the website owner was asked / shown. It is perfectly feasible that the line of question gave the response of the OP as a legitmate answer.
Why not?
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Chrispy Porker said:
Why not?
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Hold on, I may have missed something but I thought the police did have a reg of a black Tuscan from a photograph of an event.Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
So it really depends on what the Police did/asked the guy. It does look a very suspicious but......
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why not?
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Hold on, I may have missed something but I thought the police did have a reg of a black Tuscan from a photograph of an event.Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
So it really depends on what the Police did/asked the guy. It does look a very suspicious but......
They couldn't read the registration from the speed camera photo (illegal anti-speed camera plates fitted?), but they could read the website address printed on the bonnet of the car, so they had a look at the site.They saw one of the photos of my car on there, and decided that it matched the car in the speed camera photo. The car in the photo can be found in this link (probably not safe for work - nude models).
One of the pics of my car from the site is this one:
Pretty clearly they are two different cars...
They then contacted the owner of the site (and by co-incidence the owner of the Tuscan in question) Gary, and presumably asked if he knew anything about my car pictured on the site, and whether it would have had CandryRun.co.uk stickers on it. The person I spoke to at Wiltshire Police told me that Gary named me as the owner and that he had told them that I had obviously fitted his stickers, despite the fact that my car was pictured at the 2nd Candy run event 5 days after the offence without his stickers (see photo above), and has in fact never had them fitted.
He would also know that his car is also a black Tuscan, and DOES have the stickers fitted.
So, it looks to me more like an intentional stitch up rather than simply answering questions which have led the police to put 2 and 2 together to make 5.
Chrispy Porker said:
Why not?
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Just to be contentious Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
The scammers aren't allowed to go trawling for cars, they either have the reg no of the offender or they dont, surely? It's the law as far as I understand it.The Griffalo said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Why not?
Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
Just to be contentious Police interview REAL owner of vehicle under caution and he admits it .
Why do you think you need a numberplate in those circumstances?
Let us not forget, the real driver has tried to stitch up someone who is completely innocent.
If he gets away without being charged with perverting the course of justice he can count himself lucky
The scammers aren't allowed to go trawling for cars, they either have the reg no of the offender or they dont, surely? It's the law as far as I understand it.'scammers', whoever you mean by that, have evidence of an offence.
A quick phone call leads to a suspect.
That leads to a more serious matter.
Its not that hard to do really.
I think the problem is people are focussed on the fact that no numberplate is recorded.
That is not really an issue in this case.
A quick phone call leads to a suspect.
That leads to a more serious matter.
Its not that hard to do really.
I think the problem is people are focussed on the fact that no numberplate is recorded.
That is not really an issue in this case.
Chrispy Porker said:
No the issue here is someone trying to stitch up another motorist who is innocent.
The £60 will be the least of his worries.
According to the Wiltshire police website, you can expect to get fined approx £2k for doing 100 on the M4... Slightly more of an issue than a £60 fine!!The £60 will be the least of his worries.
ehasler said:
Chrispy Porker said:
No the issue here is someone trying to stitch up another motorist who is innocent.
The £60 will be the least of his worries.
According to the Wiltshire police website, you can expect to get fined approx £2k for doing 100 on the M4... Slightly more of an issue than a £60 fine!!The £60 will be the least of his worries.
Chrispy Porker said:
'scammers', whoever you mean by that, have evidence of an offence.
A quick phone call leads to a suspect.
That leads to a more serious matter.
Its not that hard to do really.
I think the problem is people are focussed on the fact that no numberplate is recorded.
That is not really an issue in this case.
If only the police were as diligent in cases such as thisA quick phone call leads to a suspect.
That leads to a more serious matter.
Its not that hard to do really.
I think the problem is people are focussed on the fact that no numberplate is recorded.
That is not really an issue in this case.
ETA smiley
Edited by The Griffalo on Friday 22 June 22:26
Chrispy Porker said:
No the issue here is someone trying to stitch up another motorist who is innocent.
The £60 will be the least of his worries.
Cant see it being easy. The Police showed him a photo of a car and asked about the owner. He gave the correct answer. The Police may have asked him about the stickers, if he said something like 'yes, its quite possible they were on that car' then what have the police got on him? Stickers can be removed.The £60 will be the least of his worries.
We need to know exactly what the Police asked, and what was the reply.
Chrispy Porker said:
odyssey2200 said:
It just goes to show the lenghts the BiB will go to in order to get their £60.
Any othere offence would have been ignored for lack of evidence.
such as a mugging, robbery, theft, car broken in to etc
Only in this case there is no lack of evidence.Any othere offence would have been ignored for lack of evidence.
such as a mugging, robbery, theft, car broken in to etc
OH dear no evidence
BUT WAIT! the car is speeding!!
Get on the case right away!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff