Settle a pub arguement anyone??

[eltax91]

Right, was with my cousin for a beer yesterday afternoon. And some local know-it-all comes over to say hello.
He tells us that a guy who lives opposite my cousin has recently been to court for doing 104 in a 50 limit. The guy apparently received a 4 month ban, 3 points and a £400 fine. Right, ok me thinks, seen the guy getting taxi's lately so maybe.

Anyway, the arguement arose when it turns out this driver said in his defence he was egged on by his passenger to do 104. And said PASSENGER was also tried in court and given a 28 day ban and 3 points on his license, after claiming he told the driver to SLOW DOWN when he reached 85.

The guy we were talking to is well known for his fabrication efforts, so this cannot really be true can it? I can't take my disliked Monster-In-Law home one night and get her banned into the bargain can i?

[tps]

A charge of ‘Aiding and Abetting’ can be brought against a person who encouraged a driver to drive in a careless or dangerous manner, for example, a passenger who told a driver to speed,
So yes it is possible he is telling the truth.

Edited by tps on Monday 30th April 14:00

[SS2.]

But then he claimed to have received a 4 month ban AND 3 points ? Unless the Mags dropped a bollock when sentencing, its one or the other, not both..

[Bing o]

I usually use one if these to settle a pub argument.....

[eltax91]

tps said:

A charge of ‘Aiding and Abetting’ can be brought against a person who encouraged a driver to drive in a careless or dangerous manner, for example, a passenger who told a driver to speed,
So yes it is possible he is telling the truth.

Edited by tps on Monday 30th April 14:00

Now that's interesting, that's what he said. He said it was aiding and abetting. Just wondered whether you could actually get points and a ban for that though? I thought it was one or the other!

One quick question, how do you prove this "crime" when it's one word against another?

[mg6b]

eltax91 said:

One quick question, how do you prove this "crime" when it's one word against another?

Aid and abet, Counsel or procure. That is the offence and the penalty is the same as if the person involved in the conduct is committing the principle offence.

Aid and abet offences etc are usually proved after interviews of the people directly involved in the offences. Normally an aid or abet will require admissions unless it is something like someone giving a pillion ride to another with no helmet. The driver of the motorcycle knows that the passenger should have head protection because they are wearing such themselves. The passenger commits the principle offence, the driver aids and abets.

Depends on the offence and whether it is one of strict liability as well. The above offence is of strict liability. Much the same as failing to display L plates and learner drivers can get caught out by such conduct.

Any offence where there is an element of mens rea (guilty mind) to be proved on the part of the principle offender is more difficult to prove in relation to aid/abet or counsel/procure.

Aid and abet is basically having the knowledge that the offence exists and actively helping or encouraging someone to commit the offence. In some circumstances where there are co offenders,it is difficult to see where an offence of aid and abet is not committed unless both actively take part in the principle offence to help commit it.

If you give someone the bank details and pin number of a cash or credit card, knowing the other person will use it to take money without permission, even though you did not take the money yourself, you will have assisted the principle offence of theft and will be guilty of aid and abet! That is how it works. Both thoughts and actions are important regarding the circumstances of who is charged with the principle offence and who is charged with assisting them to commit it.

[tps]

As posted above.If this is true from your first post...Quote,after claiming he told the driver to SLOW DOWN when he reached 85 and he said that to the police that would be the evidence to charge him with the offence as well.

Edited by tps on Monday 30th April 17:20

[eltax91]

Thanks for the replies everyone, looks like the guy was not giving us BS on this occasion!

You learn something new everyday.