Smile for the camera
Discussion
See the other site on similar lines:
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of RTA 88 Section 172 (2) subsection (a) is guilty of an offence of failing to name driver unless:
he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or,
as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
... and that Sir, could lead to a fine of £1000 (max), discretionary disqualification or 3 points.
Up to you satisfy the Court that you cannot ID the driver together with as much evidence as you can muster......
dvd
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of RTA 88 Section 172 (2) subsection (a) is guilty of an offence of failing to name driver unless:
he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or,
as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
... and that Sir, could lead to a fine of £1000 (max), discretionary disqualification or 3 points.
Up to you satisfy the Court that you cannot ID the driver together with as much evidence as you can muster......
dvd
This case is simple...
It does not state that you werent driving the car, but if it is a possibility....
If the photo is of you and it can be seen that it is you then you will be found out in the end.
If the photo is not you, or cannot be reasonably shown is you then if you continue the case you cannot lose in theory.
The sticking point comes down to how far you want to take it. If you stick to your guns and say it was the test driver, were you in the car at the same time? This is what the CPS will ask you on oath. If you are, then fair enough, but if it is only one person in the car then you will be asking the court to believe that despite the fact that you did not know the name of the driver (or really know him from Adam) that you let him drive away your car by yourself which they may not believe and think you are lying about the whole thing.
When you defend yourself, you can be present at court to fight the case and make the CPS prove who is driving from the photo, but you are under no obligation to stand on the dock and act as a witness, thus you can completely avoid these type of questions.
If you can honestly say you werent driving and can back this up then you should give evidence. However if your story requires 'being creative' then I would not recommend going down this route as perverting the course of justice will cost you a lot more than 3 points and £60.
It does not state that you werent driving the car, but if it is a possibility....
If the photo is of you and it can be seen that it is you then you will be found out in the end.
If the photo is not you, or cannot be reasonably shown is you then if you continue the case you cannot lose in theory.
The sticking point comes down to how far you want to take it. If you stick to your guns and say it was the test driver, were you in the car at the same time? This is what the CPS will ask you on oath. If you are, then fair enough, but if it is only one person in the car then you will be asking the court to believe that despite the fact that you did not know the name of the driver (or really know him from Adam) that you let him drive away your car by yourself which they may not believe and think you are lying about the whole thing.
When you defend yourself, you can be present at court to fight the case and make the CPS prove who is driving from the photo, but you are under no obligation to stand on the dock and act as a witness, thus you can completely avoid these type of questions.
If you can honestly say you werent driving and can back this up then you should give evidence. However if your story requires 'being creative' then I would not recommend going down this route as perverting the course of justice will cost you a lot more than 3 points and £60.
justinp1 said:
This case is simple...
It does not state that you werent driving the car, but if it is a possibility....
If the photo is of you and it can be seen that it is you then you will be found out in the end.
If the photo is not you, or cannot be reasonably shown is you then if you continue the case you cannot lose in theory.
The sticking point comes down to how far you want to take it. If you stick to your guns and say it was the test driver, were you in the car at the same time? This is what the CPS will ask you on oath. If you are, then fair enough, but if it is only one person in the car then you will be asking the court to believe that despite the fact that you did not know the name of the driver (or really know him from Adam) that you let him drive away your car by yourself which they may not believe and think you are lying about the whole thing.
When you defend yourself, you can be present at court to fight the case and make the CPS prove who is driving from the photo, but you are under no obligation to stand on the dock and act as a witness, thus you can completely avoid these type of questions.
If you can honestly say you werent driving and can back this up then you should give evidence. However if your story requires 'being creative' then I would not recommend going down this route as perverting the course of justice will cost you a lot more than 3 points and £60.
It does not state that you werent driving the car, but if it is a possibility....
If the photo is of you and it can be seen that it is you then you will be found out in the end.
If the photo is not you, or cannot be reasonably shown is you then if you continue the case you cannot lose in theory.
The sticking point comes down to how far you want to take it. If you stick to your guns and say it was the test driver, were you in the car at the same time? This is what the CPS will ask you on oath. If you are, then fair enough, but if it is only one person in the car then you will be asking the court to believe that despite the fact that you did not know the name of the driver (or really know him from Adam) that you let him drive away your car by yourself which they may not believe and think you are lying about the whole thing.
When you defend yourself, you can be present at court to fight the case and make the CPS prove who is driving from the photo, but you are under no obligation to stand on the dock and act as a witness, thus you can completely avoid these type of questions.
If you can honestly say you werent driving and can back this up then you should give evidence. However if your story requires 'being creative' then I would not recommend going down this route as perverting the course of justice will cost you a lot more than 3 points and £60.
£30 and three points against a ringpiece like an old rubber band and an involutary heroin problem.......
Tough choice.
Dont' be daft. Lying to a Court is a dumbass thing to do. Ask Jeffery Archer.
Now for the legal advice rather than the fireside chat.
"he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or..."
The clue here is "reasonable diligence" - i.e. it would have been reasonably diligent to note the time and date and get his name and address and see his licence.
I advise against arguing this one, but your call (as in rubber band...)
"he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or..."
The clue here is "reasonable diligence" - i.e. it would have been reasonably diligent to note the time and date and get his name and address and see his licence.
I advise against arguing this one, but your call (as in rubber band...)
Alex said:
I read on Pepipoo that the photos were not admissable as evidence to identify the driver, but were to confirm the speed only. True or not?
That might have something to do with the fact that they sometimes do a speed photo from the video at say 500 metres and then do a photo to check who is driving much closer so that they can see. The problem for the CPS is to prove the continuation of the evidence from one and the other, ie is it the same car/person.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff