Simple question
Discussion
klm said:
What happens if the RK fails to send any NIP's back.
Can BiB prosecute someone if they suspect they know who was driving without the RK confirming who was driving.
>>> Edited by klm on Thursday 1st July 22:38
You get hit with a Section 172 violation, failure to supply. Much harsher offence than speeding.
Do a search on the forum, there's plenty on it.
TIMSTA said:
What happens if the RK fails to send any NIP's back.
Can BiB prosecute someone if they suspect they know who was driving without the RK confirming who was driving.
>>> Edited by klm on Thursday 1st July 22:38
You get hit with a Section 172 violation, failure to supply. Much harsher offence than speeding.
Do a search on the forum, there's plenty on it.
But not as harsh as dangerous driving?
Why do they 'suspect they know who was driving'?
Presumably there is therefore other evidence which could be used?
Thre's nothing to say that a form must be provided in order to convict of the substantive offence. It's just that compelling people to incriminate themselves is a cheap and easy way of doing it.
In the case of dangerous, if the accused elects for a jury trial, the form would appear to be inadmissable anyway.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section12.
12.-(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
Presumably there is therefore other evidence which could be used?
Thre's nothing to say that a form must be provided in order to convict of the substantive offence. It's just that compelling people to incriminate themselves is a cheap and easy way of doing it.
In the case of dangerous, if the accused elects for a jury trial, the form would appear to be inadmissable anyway.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section12.
12.-(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
jeffreyarcher said:
Why do they 'suspect they know who was driving'?
Presumably there is therefore other evidence which could be used?
Thre's nothing to say that a form must be provided in order to convict of the substantive offence. It's just that compelling people to incriminate themselves is a cheap and easy way of doing it.
In the case of dangerous, if the accused elects for a jury trial, the form would appear to be inadmissable anyway.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section12.
12.-(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
Because of the car it is very easy to spot, as the main driver of the car I think they suspect I was driving when the alleged offence took place just because they have seen me on other occasions in the car.
klm said:
Because of the car it is very easy to spot, as the main driver of the car I think they suspect I was driving when the alleged offence took place just because they have seen me on other occasions in the car.
I would have thought that that was not sufficient, in itself.
Are you the RK?
If so, that makes it a bit more copmplex. There is a quite a bit of case law on the subject; the consensus would seem to be that they need something else as well as registered keepership.
ISTR Elliot v Loake stuck it on the keeper without anything else, however that would seem to have been disposed of by a ECHR judgement. I can't remember the details, but it was a case against Austria.
jeffreyarcher said:
Because of the car it is very easy to spot, as the main driver of the car I think they suspect I was driving when the alleged offence took place just because they have seen me on other occasions in the car.
I would have thought that that was not sufficient, in itself.
Are you the RK?
If so, that makes it a bit more copmplex. There is a quite a bit of case law on the subject; the consensus would seem to be that they need something else as well as registered keepership.
ISTR Elliot v Loake stuck it on the keeper without anything else, however that would seem to have been disposed of by a ECHR judgement. I can't remember the details, but it was a case against Austria.
Jeffery, No I'm not the RK, my wife is, and so she hasn't sent the Nip back which is now over the 28 days.
What could happen now, or what is likely to happen now?
She will probably get a reminder, if she continues to fail to supply the information then she will probably recieve a summons for 'failing to supply'.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the car has been reported for dangerous driving, and is registered to your wife?
How many people were in the car at the time of the alleged incident? If you were both in the car then maybe the best bet is it may have been either one of you and you cannot remember, ask for any photographic evidence to help with the identification etc...
Correct me if I am wrong, but the car has been reported for dangerous driving, and is registered to your wife?
How many people were in the car at the time of the alleged incident? If you were both in the car then maybe the best bet is it may have been either one of you and you cannot remember, ask for any photographic evidence to help with the identification etc...
kevinday said:
She will probably get a reminder, if she continues to fail to supply the information then she will probably recieve a summons for 'failing to supply'.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the car has been reported for dangerous driving, and is registered to your wife?
How many people were in the car at the time of the alleged incident? If you were both in the car then maybe the best bet is it may have been either one of you and you cannot remember, ask for any photographic evidence to help with the identification etc...
Inside information just received, is that two Bib together have reported the car for excessive speed, ie the dangerous driving, but do not know who was driving at the time. I think the wife is just going to carry on ignoring the Nip and take the s172 as she can't be sure who was driving and the s172 is better than anyone getting a DD conviction.
jeffreyarcher said:
ISTR Elliot v Loake stuck it on the keeper without anything else, however that would seem to have been disposed of by a ECHR judgement. I can't remember the details, but it was a case against Austria.
I've looked it up; it's Telfner v Austria (No 33501/96) 20 March 2001.
klm said:
Inside information just received, is that two Bib together have reported the car for excessive speed, ie the dangerous driving, but do not know who was driving at the time. I think the wife is just going to carry on ignoring the Nip and take the s172 as she can't be sure who was driving and the s172 is better than anyone getting a DD conviction.
If she genuinely can't be sure, return the S172 saying so and explaining why. Name all the drivers it might have been - eg, all the drivers named on the insurance who had access on the day, or whatever.
They'll then have to try and prove who out of that selection was driving.
Insurers take a pretty dim view of a failing to supply conviction, I believe - better to avoid it if you can.
"Exessive speed" (what a pious description!) isn't going to get you a Dangerous Driving, unless you were well into 3 figures, I'd've thought.
>> Edited by JohnL on Monday 5th July 12:14
JohnL said:
If she genuinely can't be sure, return the S172 saying so and explaining why. Name all the drivers it might have been - eg, all the drivers named on the insurance who had access on the day, or whatever.
They'll then have to try and prove who out of that selection was driving.
Or far more likely, they'll just go "la la la la we can't hear you" and send you another reminder or just hit you with the failure to supply.
Guilty until proven innocent. Great system, innit?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff