Sec. 172 duty to identify driver - used at roadside...
Discussion
Interested by the above situation at 12m 40sec - as I've never heard or seen 172 used at roadside. Only heard used for traffic camera offences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eSVp5Qoc
Seems like legislation does cover roadside[?] (the stopped driver may be a scrote/may not - none of us or the officer know this) however the 'immediate' nature of the officers demand raised a couple of questions for me, and keen to understand use of S172 in this context as the officers use and explanation to the driver during the stop [and camera afterwards] seem a little confused to me, with talk of registered keeper, and need for information immediately etc so...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
I would suggest it's not unreasonable for the driver to not know who driver was 'last week' (he states it's his dads car so he's prob. not the reg keeper). It may require some time and effort to investigate on his part as he seems compelled to, but to me the officer fails to give driver enough info to ID the driver, so..
[1]What would be best response to officer at road side as making a mistake could be...
[3] Officer states afterwards 'he started to talk himself into being arrested' << what for?
[4] Officer states 'you are not being questioned' 'it's a legal requirement to answer' 'you can't speak to a solicitor' << correct?
For me throughout the officer seems to give a confused explanation of S172 and supplies the driver NO date or time for when he wants the current driver to give details of the 'fail to stop' driver for?
In the end it seems like the driver is given a form and sent on his way?
NOTE: S172 has been tested right to the Euro courts, and overrules the to right to silence/ not to self incriminate
I look forward to the hives response!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3eSVp5Qoc
Seems like legislation does cover roadside[?] (the stopped driver may be a scrote/may not - none of us or the officer know this) however the 'immediate' nature of the officers demand raised a couple of questions for me, and keen to understand use of S172 in this context as the officers use and explanation to the driver during the stop [and camera afterwards] seem a little confused to me, with talk of registered keeper, and need for information immediately etc so...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
I would suggest it's not unreasonable for the driver to not know who driver was 'last week' (he states it's his dads car so he's prob. not the reg keeper). It may require some time and effort to investigate on his part as he seems compelled to, but to me the officer fails to give driver enough info to ID the driver, so..
[1]What would be best response to officer at road side as making a mistake could be...
- [a] bad for you 'perversion of justice' cases we've seen for points sharing people
- [b] bad for the person you misidentify - I assume they would receive a letter or visit dependant on the offence
[3] Officer states afterwards 'he started to talk himself into being arrested' << what for?
[4] Officer states 'you are not being questioned' 'it's a legal requirement to answer' 'you can't speak to a solicitor' << correct?
For me throughout the officer seems to give a confused explanation of S172 and supplies the driver NO date or time for when he wants the current driver to give details of the 'fail to stop' driver for?
In the end it seems like the driver is given a form and sent on his way?
NOTE: S172 has been tested right to the Euro courts, and overrules the to right to silence/ not to self incriminate
I look forward to the hives response!
Edited by hoganscrogan on Tuesday 1st December 10:34
As a person other than keeper (assuming it was indeed his father's car), s.172 would placed a statutory obligation on the driver to have provided any information which was in his power to give and which may have lead to identification of the driver.
The officer's repeated claims that the driver was lawfully required to tell them who was driving were incorrrect.
The officer's repeated claims that the driver was lawfully required to tell them who was driving were incorrrect.
Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 1st December 13:35
Bit of a strange one.
It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
Durzel said:
Bit of a strange one.
It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
The vehicle was stopped because of its failure to stop on a previous date - nothing wrong with that.It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
Nor is there any problem with issuing a s.172 request on a person other than the owner / keeper of the vehicle.
Where I believe the officer was incorrect was his assertions that the driver was obliged to confirm directly who was driving when the vehicle failed to stop.
Whilst s.172 would have placed a statutory requirement on the driver (being a person other than keeper), this obligation would only have been to provide any information which was in his power to give and which may have lead to identification of the driver at a specified time.
That may have consisted of little more than 'I wasn't driving, but persons A, B, C & D do also have access to the vehicle'.
It's his father's car. It's clear the driver would have had some information which was in his power to give. If he failed to provide anything, then he may well find conviction for failing to provide being the likeliest outcome.
SS2. said:
Durzel said:
Bit of a strange one.
It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
The vehicle was stopped because of its failure to stop on a previous date - nothing wrong with that.It seems to me that the officer went about this all wrong. He's got no proof that this guy was the driver from 2 weeks ago, and as far as I can tell the guy was stopped for no reason? I know the Police can stop people if they suspect an offence has been committed, but they don't know that guy has committed any offence, as it's two weeks later, etc.
That being said people who throw up the "I want to speak to a solicitor" (at the roadside?) and being obstinate don't enamour themselves to me.
How many people can say hand on heart that they don't have any clue who has got their car at any given time?
Nor is there any problem with issuing a s.172 request on a person other than the owner / keeper of the vehicle.
Where I believe the officer was incorrect was his assertions that the driver was obliged to confirm directly who was driving when the vehicle failed to stop.
Whilst s.172 would have placed a statutory requirement on the driver (being a person other than keeper), this obligation would only have been to provide any information which was in his power to give and which may have lead to identification of the driver at a specified time.
That may have consisted of little more than 'I wasn't driving, but persons A, B, C & D do also have access to the vehicle'.
It's his father's car. It's clear the driver would have had some information which was in his power to give. If he failed to provide anything, then he may well find conviction for failing to provide being the likeliest outcome.
Watching again, as far as the officer was concerned I think he just wanted to use fear and pressure to get a name from the driver right there, using his intimidation tools to make the situation as scary as possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but policing rule 1 is - get them to fess everything up! And the officer tried his hardest to achieve this as you'd expect.
Understandably he got slightly irritated when the driver stood up for himself with Q's about the law/reason and wanting legal advice before telling police anything (defence rule 1 tell police nothing). I think the driver did a reasonable job of remaining firm, calm and deflecting the Police pressure, although it looked pretty stressful for him (whether he was/knew the 'bad' driver or not).
Still not sure what the result was, sounded like some form of paperwork handed to driver and on hi way, anyone know what that would be??
Correct me if I'm wrong but policing rule 1 is - get them to fess everything up! And the officer tried his hardest to achieve this as you'd expect.
Understandably he got slightly irritated when the driver stood up for himself with Q's about the law/reason and wanting legal advice before telling police anything (defence rule 1 tell police nothing). I think the driver did a reasonable job of remaining firm, calm and deflecting the Police pressure, although it looked pretty stressful for him (whether he was/knew the 'bad' driver or not).
Still not sure what the result was, sounded like some form of paperwork handed to driver and on hi way, anyone know what that would be??
Edited by hoganscrogan on Tuesday 1st December 17:26
hoganscrogan said:
Watching again, as far as the officer was concerned I think he just wanted to use fear and pressure to get a name from the driver right there, using his intimidation tools to make the situation as scary as possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but policing rule 1 is - get them to fess everything up! And the officer tried his hardest to achieve this as you'd expect.
Understandably he got slightly irritated when the driver stood up for himself with Q's about the law/reason and wanting legal advice before telling police anything (defence rule 1 tell police nothing). I think the driver did a reasonable job of remaining firm, calm and deflecting the Police pressure, although it looked pretty stressful for him (whether he was/knew the 'bad' driver or not).
Still not sure what the result was, sounded like some form of paperwork handed to driver and on hi way, anyone know what that would be??
That officer lost the plot totally, although we do only see certain bits of the interaction to make good TV!Correct me if I'm wrong but policing rule 1 is - get them to fess everything up! And the officer tried his hardest to achieve this as you'd expect.
Understandably he got slightly irritated when the driver stood up for himself with Q's about the law/reason and wanting legal advice before telling police anything (defence rule 1 tell police nothing). I think the driver did a reasonable job of remaining firm, calm and deflecting the Police pressure, although it looked pretty stressful for him (whether he was/knew the 'bad' driver or not).
Still not sure what the result was, sounded like some form of paperwork handed to driver and on hi way, anyone know what that would be??
Edited by hoganscrogan on Tuesday 1st December 17:26
If you watch at the end of the video the narrator explains the outcome - case withdrawn - which usually indicates lack of police evidence!
Bigends said:
...or, 'I havent a clue who was driving last week - youd better ask my dad - its his car'
^^This^^Especially as PC Barker never mentions a time and date for the fail to stop.
Last week could be anything from 1 to 13 days prior depending on which day of the week this stop took place.
Giving incorrect information* is also an offence so certainty is quite important.
* cf Chris Huhne.
The driver states that it's his father's car not his.
Therefore if the father is the RK (easily confirmable by a PNC check) why not simply issue the S.172 to him?
The obligation to provide is more stringent so surely more likely to get a result?
Red Devil said:
Giving incorrect information* is also an offence so certainty is quite important.
* cf Chris Huhne.
Hmm, it wasn't quite that though.* cf Chris Huhne.
Red Devil said:
The driver states that it's his father's car not his.
Therefore if the father is the RK (easily confirmable by a PNC check) why not simply issue the S.172 to him?
The obligation to provide is more stringent so surely more likely to get a result?
Indeed, if they knew the reg (to know it was the same car that didn't stop), why not just issue the S172 to the RK?Therefore if the father is the RK (easily confirmable by a PNC check) why not simply issue the S.172 to him?
The obligation to provide is more stringent so surely more likely to get a result?
Red Devil said:
^^This^^
Especially as PC Barker never mentions a time and date for the fail to stop.
Last week could be anything from 1 to 13 days prior depending on which day of the week this stop took place.
Giving incorrect information* is also an offence so certainty is quite important.
* cf Chris Huhne.
The driver states that it's his father's car not his.
Therefore if the father is the RK (easily confirmable by a PNC check) why not simply issue the S.172 to him?
The obligation to provide is more stringent so surely more likely to get a result?
Yup, giving incorrect information or 'lying' on S172 can end up with court & prison!Especially as PC Barker never mentions a time and date for the fail to stop.
Last week could be anything from 1 to 13 days prior depending on which day of the week this stop took place.
Giving incorrect information* is also an offence so certainty is quite important.
* cf Chris Huhne.
The driver states that it's his father's car not his.
Therefore if the father is the RK (easily confirmable by a PNC check) why not simply issue the S.172 to him?
The obligation to provide is more stringent so surely more likely to get a result?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/29/la...
I think the officer was just following police rule 1 'get suspect to self/other person incriminate' right there and then, hence the straight-in aggressive, give me info now or you're in trouble mode, driver gave resistance, officer ramped up but got no results so just handed out a form by the sounds.
Was interesting as I've not seen the S172 used face to face before only as an after the fact.
TBH it felt to me the the officer was a bit clumsy and didn't come across as one of their finest! However I'm sure he's had plenty of people give up info right away under that kind of legal threat and pressure.
Edited by hoganscrogan on Thursday 3rd December 16:57
Having just watched it
police man 3/10. Obviously grumpy about the car getting away the other week. Didn't handle the interaction well, and lost his temper a bit.
- BMW driver: 3/10. Whilst keeping his cool and technically being "right", far too much of the "I'm really scared right now", and "am I under arrest?...am I under arrest?" for my liking.
I don't know why they didn't just post the s172 to the rk after the first failure to stop? (given the police guy "knew" the car).
police man 3/10. Obviously grumpy about the car getting away the other week. Didn't handle the interaction well, and lost his temper a bit.
- BMW driver: 3/10. Whilst keeping his cool and technically being "right", far too much of the "I'm really scared right now", and "am I under arrest?...am I under arrest?" for my liking.
I don't know why they didn't just post the s172 to the rk after the first failure to stop? (given the police guy "knew" the car).
Ian Geary said:
Having just watched it
police man 3/10. Obviously grumpy about the car getting away the other week. Didn't handle the interaction well, and lost his temper a bit.
- BMW driver: 3/10. Whilst keeping his cool and technically being "right", far too much of the "I'm really scared right now", and "am I under arrest?...am I under arrest?" for my liking.
I don't know why they didn't just post the s172 to the rk after the first failure to stop? (given the police guy "knew" the car).
Good point and so obvious I missed it! The definitive way of 'knowing' it was the same car would mean they had a registration number! = S172 in post.police man 3/10. Obviously grumpy about the car getting away the other week. Didn't handle the interaction well, and lost his temper a bit.
- BMW driver: 3/10. Whilst keeping his cool and technically being "right", far too much of the "I'm really scared right now", and "am I under arrest?...am I under arrest?" for my liking.
I don't know why they didn't just post the s172 to the rk after the first failure to stop? (given the police guy "knew" the car).
Officer just 'knowing' it's same car that 'made off in the last week' but not the reg, hmmmm???? Might not even be same car and any driver would be pretty freaked out by that stop!
PC Barker flexing for the cameras?
Cat said:
hoganscrogan said:
Good point and so obvious I missed it! The definitive way of 'knowing' it was the same car would mean they had a registration number! = S172 in post.
Unless it's showing no current keeper, in trade, previous keeper etc. on PNC. Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff