Speeding Fine Question

[ehyouwhat]

Hi all,

I'm positive this has been mentioned before (as I found out about it on here) but a quick search has revealed nothing.

A recent conversation with a BiB friend (actually, GiB) got us onto the topic of standard speed camera charges, the '3 points and £60 fine' type.

Now I'm sure I've read somewhere about a possible loophole where a person could say that two people were sharing the driving, kept swapping over, and were unsure as to which person was driving at the point of the camera detecting the instance of speeding. The said person would then state that, as they were unsure who was driving, it was up to the police to decide who to give the points and fine to. And as guilt cannot be assumed or attributed in this way, both drivers would be clear of the charges.

I told this to my friend, and she pointed out that the letter sent to the registered keeper of the car clearly states that if specific information is not given, the registered keeper is automatically given the points and the fine. Surely this is a breach of a persons right to remain silent? Surely it also assumes guilt where none might exist, which counters our 'innocent until proven guilty' ethos?

I've never had a speeding ticket so I'm unsure as to the procedure, but I'd be grateful if anyone could clear this up for me - I don't want to continue with an argument that has no truth to it.

[MrsMiggins]

ehyouwhat said:

she pointed out that the letter sent to the registered keeper of the car clearly states that if specific information is not given, the registered keeper is automatically given the points and the fine.

She's talking rubbish. Either someone gets the points by 'fessing up or being found guilty in court or the RK gets charged with failing to provide details of the driver, again points depend on a finding of guilt in court or a guilty plea.

[Dwight Vandriver]

When they send out the

%%&TT*(*& FLASH ££$^%&%&^*

papers to the reg keeper included is a form to name the driver which if not completed and returned within 28 days an offence is committed and court proceedings instituted.

There is a defence if it can be shown by the recepient of the form that he did not know who the driver was and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.

Whilst there are certian offences under road traffic (criminal) law placing the onus on responsibility on the owner/reg keeper speeding is not one of them. But in the realms of parking (decriminalised) PCN offences if the driver does not come forward then the Keeper is held responsible.

dvd

[ehyouwhat]

So how about the whole 'swapping drivers' scenario - is that a possible defence in this instance? If two people were swapping into the drivers seat regularly, and genuinely were unsure as to who was driving at the camera location, then surely it would be unfair for either them to 'guess' or the police to 'assume' who to give the points/fine to?

[MrsMiggins]

Indeed. It is a defence to the 'failing to identify the driver' charge if you can show that you could not identify the driver having used 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to do so. You'd probably have to stand up in court and convince the Magistrates of your diligence.

[deva link]

MrsMiggins said:

Indeed. It is a defence to the 'failing to identify the driver' charge if you can show that you could not identify the driver having used 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to do so. You'd probably have to stand up in court and convince the Magistrates of your diligence.

Indeed - and it's one of those things where you hear about high profile people who use it successfully (Neil and Christine Hamilton, for example, but that was on appeal) but the average person would probably get a hefty fine and 3 points 'cos the Mag's heard it 100 times before.

[vonhosen]

deva link said:

MrsMiggins said:

Indeed. It is a defence to the 'failing to identify the driver' charge if you can show that you could not identify the driver having used 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to do so. You'd probably have to stand up in court and convince the Magistrates of your diligence.

Indeed - and it's one of those things where you hear about high profile people who use it successfully (Neil and Christine Hamilton, for example, but that was on appeal) but the average person would probably get a hefty fine and 3 points 'cos the Mag's heard it 100 times before.

Punsihment option is being extended to 6 points under the new road safety bill

[deva link]

vonhosen said:

deva link said:

MrsMiggins said:

Indeed. It is a defence to the 'failing to identify the driver' charge if you can show that you could not identify the driver having used 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to do so. You'd probably have to stand up in court and convince the Magistrates of your diligence.

Indeed - and it's one of those things where you hear about high profile people who use it successfully (Neil and Christine Hamilton, for example, but that was on appeal) but the average person would probably get a hefty fine and 3 points 'cos the Mag's heard it 100 times before.

Punsihment option is being extended to 6 points under the new road safety bill

Just a correction/retraction: I'm not sure the Hamilton's case was on appeal, it might have just been at first appearance before magistrates. Neil used to be a barrister (and has had plenty of other experience of courts!) so he ought to be more able than most to handle magistrates.

[Demolay]

vonhosen said:

deva link said:

MrsMiggins said:

Indeed. It is a defence to the 'failing to identify the driver' charge if you can show that you could not identify the driver having used 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to do so. You'd probably have to stand up in court and convince the Magistrates of your diligence.

Indeed - and it's one of those things where you hear about high profile people who use it successfully (Neil and Christine Hamilton, for example, but that was on appeal) but the average person would probably get a hefty fine and 3 points 'cos the Mag's heard it 100 times before.

Punsihment option is being extended to 6 points under the new road safety bill

Yes, and a disgrace it is too. The camera partnerships routinely threaten people into 'fessing up with classic scare tactics. You don't have to look too far on police websites to see the misinformation that is peddled. I fear that the extra punishment available to the courts will make even more people that are unsure just take the rap for the sake of an easy life.