Naming of driver.
Discussion
A question occurred to me as a result of being camera nicked while driving my wife's car, and reading the following:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7594081/R...
Since we frequently share the driving, had I not seen the camera van neither of us would have remembered for certain who was driving at any particular point.
I also recall that one may not be compelled to incriminate oneself, nor to offer evidence against one's spouse.
What is the law in the light of the possibility of genuinely being unable to name the driver with certainty, and the laws regarding a spouse being compelled to give evidence?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7594081/R...
Since we frequently share the driving, had I not seen the camera van neither of us would have remembered for certain who was driving at any particular point.
I also recall that one may not be compelled to incriminate oneself, nor to offer evidence against one's spouse.
What is the law in the light of the possibility of genuinely being unable to name the driver with certainty, and the laws regarding a spouse being compelled to give evidence?
For the sake of clarity, because I saw the camera van, I did remember that I was driving, my wife named me as required, and I paid the fine.
There would however be occasions when neither would remember who was driving a particular part of a journey several days later, as was the case with the couple in the linked article.
Were they lucky in appearing before a reasonable magistrate, or is this a generally accepted defence?
There would however be occasions when neither would remember who was driving a particular part of a journey several days later, as was the case with the couple in the linked article.
Were they lucky in appearing before a reasonable magistrate, or is this a generally accepted defence?
Reasonable Diligence.
No mileage whatsoever in the suggestion that complying with a valid s.172 request is a breach of any rights or protections you think you may have had.
No mileage whatsoever in the suggestion that complying with a valid s.172 request is a breach of any rights or protections you think you may have had.
Tyre Smoke said:
Clearly it is not a "generally accepted defence" because if it was everyone would be doing it.
It is nonetheless a statutory defence to an allegation of failing to provide driver details. One reason it may not be more widely utilised is because it can require a very particular set of circumstances to be unable to remember who was driving during [what is likely to have been] such a recent journey.A mate has just just been prosecuted for this after he had a speeding fine and following increasing levels of unpleasantness up to magistrates as he hadn't received any of the communications.
This all happened in a shortish period of time he'd moved out his house for a couple of months while his ex-girlfriend wanted to go her separate way so he did the decent thing and let her stay in his house while she got sorted.
Helpfully she was throwing away all of his post as it came for those couple of months without telling him, and he only found out when the ruling in his absence came through a few days after he moved back in.
He took it to appeal, stood up in court owning up to the speeding offence without question, explained the situation, evidenced it with documentation that proved the timeline of events, the reaction was simple, 'you owned the car, you didn't provide the details, £1000 fine and 6 points'
I can't imagine 'I don't remember who was driving' will wash any better.
This all happened in a shortish period of time he'd moved out his house for a couple of months while his ex-girlfriend wanted to go her separate way so he did the decent thing and let her stay in his house while she got sorted.
Helpfully she was throwing away all of his post as it came for those couple of months without telling him, and he only found out when the ruling in his absence came through a few days after he moved back in.
He took it to appeal, stood up in court owning up to the speeding offence without question, explained the situation, evidenced it with documentation that proved the timeline of events, the reaction was simple, 'you owned the car, you didn't provide the details, £1000 fine and 6 points'
I can't imagine 'I don't remember who was driving' will wash any better.
The self incrimination argument was tried and failed in the ECtHR several years ago. A condition of operating a car is that you have to identify the driver of the car in some circumstances. This is not an invasion of any rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
If you can convince the prosecution or a court that you really can't remember and you have done your best - asked for and checked the photos, spoken to the other possible drivers, checked diaries, looked at phone records, credit card bills etc. Then you should not be convicted. It has worked for quite a few people.
Breadvan72 said:
The self incrimination argument was tried and failed in the ECtHR several years ago. A condition of operating a car is that you have to identify the driver of the car in some circumstances. This is not an invasion of any rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
the eu court is as corrupt as our court for allowing this self incrimination https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
The self incrimination argument was tried and failed in the ECtHR several years ago. A condition of operating a car is that you have to identify the driver of the car in some circumstances. This is not an invasion of any rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
the eu court is as corrupt as our court for allowing this self incrimination https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
The Wookie said:
A mate has just just been prosecuted for this after he had a speeding fine and following increasing levels of unpleasantness up to magistrates as he hadn't received any of the communications.
This all happened in a shortish period of time he'd moved out his house for a couple of months while his ex-girlfriend wanted to go her separate way so he did the decent thing and let her stay in his house while she got sorted.
Helpfully she was throwing away all of his post as it came for those couple of months without telling him, and he only found out when the ruling in his absence came through a few days after he moved back in.
He took it to appeal, stood up in court owning up to the speeding offence without question, explained the situation, evidenced it with documentation that proved the timeline of events, the reaction was simple, 'you owned the car, you didn't provide the details, £1000 fine and 6 points'
I can't imagine 'I don't remember who was driving' will wash any better.
I would venture to say that this is unusual, in my experience the keeper would return to court to explain the series of events to the office, be given a Statutory Declaration to fill out and then present this to a Bench and swear it as accurate. It would then revert to stage one, he would plead guilty to Speeding and be fined accordingly with added court costs if deemed suitable. This all happened in a shortish period of time he'd moved out his house for a couple of months while his ex-girlfriend wanted to go her separate way so he did the decent thing and let her stay in his house while she got sorted.
Helpfully she was throwing away all of his post as it came for those couple of months without telling him, and he only found out when the ruling in his absence came through a few days after he moved back in.
He took it to appeal, stood up in court owning up to the speeding offence without question, explained the situation, evidenced it with documentation that proved the timeline of events, the reaction was simple, 'you owned the car, you didn't provide the details, £1000 fine and 6 points'
I can't imagine 'I don't remember who was driving' will wash any better.
Happens tens of times per day in my city.
Dave Hedgehog said:
the eu court is as corrupt as our court for allowing this self incrimination
The ECtHR is not an EU Court. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, an organisation older and larger than the EU. I take it that by “corrupt” you mean no more than “I do not agree with the Court”.
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
The self incrimination argument was tried and failed in the ECtHR several years ago. A condition of operating a car is that you have to identify the driver of the car in some circumstances. This is not an invasion of any rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
the eu court is as corrupt as our court for allowing this self incrimination https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
In other countries they either have our system or the keeper is liable by default, unless they nominate another driver.. It's pretty much the same thing and often worse.
Aprisa said:
I would venture to say that this is unusual, in my experience the keeper would return to court to explain the series of events to the office, be given a Statutory Declaration to fill out and then present this to a Bench and swear it as accurate. It would then revert to stage one, he would plead guilty to Speeding and be fined accordingly with added court costs if deemed suitable.
Happens tens of times per day in my city.
From what he's described to me I think he may have gone through that process.Happens tens of times per day in my city.
He did say that just before he'd walked in for his hearing they had just come out of a much more serious case (possibly attempted murder?) which was either overturned or acquitted and might have made them a bit less sympathetic to a trivial traffic job. He said that even the CPS lawyer commented on it being harsh.
Graveworm said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
The self incrimination argument was tried and failed in the ECtHR several years ago. A condition of operating a car is that you have to identify the driver of the car in some circumstances. This is not an invasion of any rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
the eu court is as corrupt as our court for allowing this self incrimination https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81359#{"...
In other countries they either have our system or the keeper is liable by default, unless they nominate another driver.. It's pretty much the same thing and often worse.
With serious offences it would then be the same as here.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff