S172 Question for the Rozzers....
Discussion
Right.
This is the scenario.....
Car goes through Gatso. The offence is recorded on camera.
NIP and S172 goes to the registered keeper.
The keeper is a bloke.
He completes and signs the S172, nominating his wife as the driver at the time.
NIP goes out to wife.
She is summonsed to court for speeding offence.
She pleads not guilty and at the pre trial review tells the prosecutor that she never drives the car and that her husband is a liar.
The photo does not help identify the driver.
Neither husband nor wife is compellable in law to give evidence against the other and neither is prepared to give evidence against the other.
From these facts, we know that there has been an endorsable offence and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
But we don't know which one is guilty.
Who do you choose to prosecute?
Can you prove either offence against either husband or wife?
First correct answer wins half a lager shandy....
Cheers
Pat
This is the scenario.....
Car goes through Gatso. The offence is recorded on camera.
NIP and S172 goes to the registered keeper.
The keeper is a bloke.
He completes and signs the S172, nominating his wife as the driver at the time.
NIP goes out to wife.
She is summonsed to court for speeding offence.
She pleads not guilty and at the pre trial review tells the prosecutor that she never drives the car and that her husband is a liar.
The photo does not help identify the driver.
Neither husband nor wife is compellable in law to give evidence against the other and neither is prepared to give evidence against the other.
From these facts, we know that there has been an endorsable offence and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
But we don't know which one is guilty.
Who do you choose to prosecute?
Can you prove either offence against either husband or wife?
First correct answer wins half a lager shandy....
Cheers
Pat
^Slider^ said:I know that you are correct for document offences such as Test Certificate and Insurance prosecutions.
Nope, with motoring law its the other way around. Criminal law prosicution has to prove, motoring generally the defandant has to prove they did not do it.
But the burden of proof lies with the Crown for charges such as dangerous driving, careless driving or excess alcohol.
The same goes for speeding allegations. It is for the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I will have to have a look at s172 of the RTA to see if there is anything in there about a reverse burden of proof in respect of those allegations.
Cheers
Pat
^Slider^ said:
Nope, with motoring law its the other way around. Criminal law prosicution has to prove, motoring generally the defandant has to prove they did not do it.
You are confusing things slightly. Offences of commission (something you allegedly did) have to be proved by Crown. Offence of ommission, the onus is on the defendant for example omitting to have third party insurance. It would be impossible for the Crown to prove that you did not have insurance, so you must show that you did.
I may have been confusing things slightly but. In this example Speeding is an abosulte offence for the driver of the vehicle.
We know an offence has been commited.
We know the driver of the vehicle commited the offence.As this is an absolute offence.
We have asked the registered keeper of the vehicle who was driving.
The RK stated his wife.
The wife said it wasnt her.
Now she has to prove that she was not driving the vehicle.
And now so does the RK have to prove the same.
I believe that the defendant(s) have to prove it wasnt them not that the crown has to prove it was.
Edited to add:> I may well be wrong, luckily i dont go to the other side. I leave all that to the cps!
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Friday 18th March 10:57
We know an offence has been commited.
We know the driver of the vehicle commited the offence.As this is an absolute offence.
We have asked the registered keeper of the vehicle who was driving.
The RK stated his wife.
The wife said it wasnt her.
Now she has to prove that she was not driving the vehicle.
And now so does the RK have to prove the same.
I believe that the defendant(s) have to prove it wasnt them not that the crown has to prove it was.
Edited to add:> I may well be wrong, luckily i dont go to the other side. I leave all that to the cps!
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Friday 18th March 10:57
^Slider^ said:
I may have been confusing things slightly but. In this example Speeding is an abosulte offence for the driver of the vehicle.
We know an offence has been commited.
We know the driver of the vehicle commited the offence.As this is an absolute offence.
We have asked the registered keeper of the vehicle who was driving.
The RK stated his wife.
The wife said it wasnt her.
Now she has to prove that she was not driving the vehicle.
And now so does the RK have to prove the same.
I believe that the defendant(s) have to prove it wasnt them not that the crown has to prove it was.
Edited to add:> I may well be wrong, luckily i dont go to the other side. I leave all that to the cps!
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Friday 18th March 10:57
I think Pat is correct, although speeding is an absolute offence there is still the burden of proof on the CPS. This is the whole reason behind the S172 thing. Unless the photo clearly shows who was driving the CPS has no evidence unless the driver confesses on the S172 form.
As for the answer to Pat Healds question I think I would look at prosecuting both for attempting to pervert the course of justice. If wife can prove she never drives the car then she will be not guilty, and husband is guilty, if she does drive the car then she is guilty and he is not guilty.
Well maybe
Well maybe
^Slider^ said:
Wasnt there something about if all else fails the RK will get the points as they had a duty to know who was driving at the time of the offence??
think that depends upon whether due diligence is shown in attempt to find out who was actually driving.
You will probably remember ACC of Hampshire got fined despite every effort to find who was driving a CID vehicle.
Wonder how many were in the vehicle, if only one up bit more difficult to say "we can't remember" imho.
As said before all these "memory lapse" defences just make it harder in genuine cases imho.
Pat.
I think the prosecution are stuffed.
They cannot compel husband to give evidence against wife as you say!
They cannot prosecute both for driving as only one of them was.
There is obviously an attempt to pervert justice but the evidence will have to be gained from the wife.
The Section 172 was complied with so I doubt they could revert to that.
I suppose if Crown were clutching at straws, they could now send a section 172 to the wife who would then name the husband as the driver, so complying with the requirement. If he is then summonsed and pleads NG stating that his wife is lying.........!
Maybe there is a loophole in this that has not been plugged yet
I think the prosecution are stuffed.
They cannot compel husband to give evidence against wife as you say!
They cannot prosecute both for driving as only one of them was.
There is obviously an attempt to pervert justice but the evidence will have to be gained from the wife.
The Section 172 was complied with so I doubt they could revert to that.
I suppose if Crown were clutching at straws, they could now send a section 172 to the wife who would then name the husband as the driver, so complying with the requirement. If he is then summonsed and pleads NG stating that his wife is lying.........!
Maybe there is a loophole in this that has not been plugged yet
PatHeald said:
Right.
This is the scenario.....
Car goes through Gatso. The offence is recorded on camera.
NIP and S172 goes to the registered keeper.
The keeper is a bloke.
He completes and signs the S172, nominating his wife as the driver at the time.
NIP goes out to wife.
She is summonsed to court for speeding offence.
Eh? How did you make that jump? For the wife to be prosecuted for speeding she would have to have filled in the s172 form and sent it back nominating herself. If she didn't, she would be summonsed for s172.
PatHeald said:
She pleads not guilty and at the pre trial review tells the prosecutor that she never drives the car and that her husband is a liar.
Then she should have brought it up before now. As stated before, if she disputed that she was the driver then she shouldn't have filled in the NIP nominating herself. That is the only conceivable way she would be in this situation; and as such she would more than likely be prosecuted for it. After all, s12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act does say that the court may accept a signed statement from the accused, that they were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
The rest of your scenario will then never unfold, so forget it.
Nice try though...
^Slider^ said:
Wasnt there something about if all else fails the RK will get the points as they had a duty to know who was driving at the time of the offence??
Nope, there is no such duty for a private citizen. E.g. I go on holiday and leave the car with my family, all of whom are insured to drive it. How am I supposed to know who drove it on any specific day?
Different for companies I believe.
DeMolay said:You are right with regards to the wife being prosecuted for speeding. I was pickled in Shiraz at the time of my original post.
Right.
This is the scenario.....
Car goes through Gatso. The offence is recorded on camera.
NIP and S172 goes to the registered keeper.
The keeper is a bloke.
He completes and signs the S172, nominating his wife as the driver at the time.
NIP goes out to wife.
She is summonsed to court for speeding offence.
Eh? How did you make that jump? For the wife to be prosecuted for speeding she would have to have filled in the s172 form and sent it back nominating herself. If she didn't, she would be summonsed for s172.
PatHeald said:
She pleads not guilty and at the pre trial review tells the prosecutor that she never drives the car and that her husband is a liar.
Then she should have brought it up before now. As stated before, if she disputed that she was the driver then she shouldn't have filled in the NIP nominating herself. That is the only conceivable way she would be in this situation; and as such she would more than likely be prosecuted for it. After all, s12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act does say that the court may accept a signed statement from the accused, that they were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
The rest of your scenario will then never unfold, so forget it.
Nice try though...
But let us say that the wife sends the s172 notice back stating that she was not the driver and nominates her husband, after all, he is the registered keeper.
So... what can the police do next?
Presumably their best shot at a conviction is to prosecute the husband for the speeding offence, in view of the legal presumption that the registered keeper is the driver.
But the burden of proof lies with the Crown. If the husband gives evidence that he was not the driver and that his wife was using the car at the time, then in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the court surely has to acquit him?
The scenario is purely hypothetical. I was simply thinking about it in the bath the other day. In reality it is rather unlikely to arise, given the potential consequences of PCJ or perjury set against what would probably be a FPN.
And yes, these issues have been pretty widely canvassed in the Ping Pong thread, but I only discovered that after my initial post, so apologies to those who have been here before.
Cheers
Pat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff