Friday 19th March 2004

Loophole Closed

Idris Francis gets knocked back in High Court

---

The loophole by which speeding tickets could be contested by not signing the 'Section 172' form has been closed by the High Court.

In a test case, Idris Francis from Hampshire contested that without signing the 172 form, the evidence provided on it (i.e. identification of the driver) would be inadmissible.

However, this week High Court judges insisted that there is a requirement to sign the form prior to submitting it. They have stated that their reasons coming to this decition won't be published for another week or so.

[M@H]

Bugger !!

so an unsigned document is now statement evidence !! what is the country coming to !!??


Cheers
Matt

[tonyrec]

In reality, it was only a matter of time, im sure we will all agree.

[forever_driving]

Someone nicks your car for a joyride and triggers a scamera, you can't indentify the driver. So then, you'll receive 3 points and a fine for having your car stolen.

That's just f***ing great.

[M@H]

tonyrec said:

In reality, it was only a matter of time, im sure we will all agree.

..but taking it in a broader context this is horrendous. Someone produces a piece of paper you have written on, without your signature and it is an evidential confession !!??

[MajorClanger]

forever_driving said:

Someone nicks your car for a joyride and triggers a scamera, you can't indentify the driver. So then, you'll receive 3 points and a fine for having your car stolen. That's just f***ing great.

But's that's 'not being able to identify the driver' not 'not signing'. If you can prove you made every reasonable effort to identify the driver then that can be used as a defence.

MC

[tonyrec]

Exactly!

[tja]

How about sending back two versions of the S172, both unsigned and filled in with different driver names (one husband, one wife maybe?). How can the court know which one is correct? How can the court know which one the driver returned?

Perverting the course of justice? Maybe, but how would they prove who had actually done it? Would they be bothered to chase it for a £60 fine?

After sending in an unsigned S172, how about standing up in court and denying that you sent it?

"Is it signed m'lord?"
"No"
"Then how do you know it is mine?"

Doesn't a non-signed form open the door for the scamera partnerships to create fake S172 responses?

Any legal types on here, feel free to shoot my ideas down in flames.

[jeffreyarcher]

In a test case, Idris Francis from Hampshire contested that without signing the 172 form, the evidence provided on it (i.e. identification of the driver) would be inadmissible.

However, this week High Court judges disagreed with him <...>.

That is not true.
They did not say that an unsigned form would be admissable.
What they did say, was that there was a requirement to sign the form (reasons TBA).

[M@H]

jeffreyarcher said:

In a test case, Idris Francis from Hampshire contested that without signing the 172 form, the evidence provided on it (i.e. identification of the driver) would be inadmissible. However, this week High Court judges disagreed with him <...>. That is not true. They did not say that an unsigned form would be admissable. What they did say, was that there was a requirement to sign the form (reasons TBA).

Oh I see


Well they're going to have some fun coming up with the reason, as they'll have to amend S172 of the RTA.. it says nothign about signatures at all.

Cheers
Matt

[Size Nine Elm]

M@H said:

Bugger !! so an unsigned document is now statement evidence !! what is the country coming to !!?? Cheers Matt

Nope, he was done for failing to identify the driver, not for speeding. It would appear that a signature is required to be deemed identifying the driver.

I'll be interested to hear what the substance of the ruling is given he presumably had sent the form back with his name on it, and how that constitutes failing to identify the driver.

[funkihamsta]

Can anyone explain to me why "judges" (high court/lord chief justice etc) rally to the support of burglars and more recently asylum claimants against the wishes of the government, but are happy to persecute against the rights of the motorist?

Is it anything to do with protecting the legal professions income sources and nothing to do with rights?

[puggit]

Does this mean the NIP must be filled out now, and you can't type out the response on a different piece of paper and send it back?

[forever_driving]

MajorClanger said:

forever_driving said: Someone nicks your car for a joyride and triggers a scamera, you can't indentify the driver. So then, you'll receive 3 points and a fine for having your car stolen. That's just f***ing great. But's that's 'not being able to identify the driver' not 'not signing'. If you can prove you made every reasonable effort to identify the driver then that can be used as a defence. MC

OK, thanks for pointing out my error, I can calm down again now

[jeffreyarcher]

puggit said:

Does this mean the NIP must be filled out now, and you can't type out the response on a different piece of paper and send it back?

No. That was settled by a different case. Jones v DPP ruled that there was no requirement to use the form. It did not address the signing issue. Therefore you can use a letter, but it will have to be signed (Francic v CC Hants).

[robert farago]

Isn't the general principle at stake here whether or not drivers have the right not to have to incriminate themselves (a.k.a. the right to remain silent)?

Oh wait, British citizens (subjects?) don't have a written constitution and the right to remain silent has already been curtailed ("if you fail to mention something you later rely upon in court...").

My mistake.

[puggit]

We await (and support) Idris's trip to Europe

[skittle]

This is a worrying shift in our legal system. The burden of proof is/has shifted from the state having to proving someone guilty to an individual having to prove his/her innocence.

For the motorist this has already taken place e.g. speeding fines, parking tickets, road tax fines, congestion charging etc. We are easy targets. We own cars therefore we can be traced, taxed etc. The scrotes who have no insurance etc don’t give a dam so there’s no skin off their nose.

Its worrying because the increasing incidence of number plate cloning. If I do not have an alibi, or cannot prove I was in a particular place at a point in time how could I prevent from being found guilty of a speeding offence from a similar car?

I must admit I have started to look at number plates on cars that are the same year, colour etc and wondered about getting a set of false plates made up.......

[skid]

But is it actually closed????

Ok, so lets say I do a bad bit of speeding and am in ban territory. Surley it's worth going to court with an unsigned NIP. no traffic conviction or ban, but a fine for not identifying driver. Jesus £1000 fine would be worth saving a licence!!!!

What do you think?

[fergus]

Burden of proof still remains with the 'accuser' under UK law doesn't it. It's not Napoleanonic law (as per france, etc)...

False plates are likely to get you a small custodial, as it's seen as a very serious issue! (£5k max fine and/or up to 2 years in the 'big house')

Caveat emptor!

[Sgt^Roc]

what did I say....