what's the law??
Discussion
regarding admission of guilt over a speeding offence. apparently i have been pictured (from the front) speeding - i haven't seen the photo yet, my girlfriend has. she says you can'r make oiut the driver as it's obscured by the car. when the police show me the photo - what do i say?? shouldn't it be up to them to prove it was me??
Were you driving at the time?
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
abz said:
i will end up admitting it as it can only have been me. but surely its the only example where i have to admit guilt and that's it?? it should be up to the police to prove it was me shouldn't they, as in any other crime?
It's two fold.
You are firstly being asked to identify the driver, which has a legal duty attached to it (not in itself an admission of guilt)
Then the nominated driver can defend or accept the speeding case.
Unfortunately you then get into semantics arguments - ie you're naming the driver not admitting guilt.mg6b said:
Were you driving at the time?
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
Where does it say he was guilty?
Why would he have to perjure himself?
It's up to the Crown to prove the speed he was travelling at, not the accused.
I have numerous cases on my books involving partnerships lying in their teeth to secure fines and using civilian operators instead of police.
They don't take the cases all the way to trial because THEY would have to commit perjury to gain a conviction.
ABZ, the identification of the driver is NOT an admission of guilt, and don't let them fool you into thinking it is.
Insist on the photos before you admit anything.
jith- what would be your advice then?? basically they have a photo that my girlfriend has seen. she knows it me and her in the car, but she says you can't see my head or face, you can see here but even the policeman said to her that it doesnt look like her (!)
when they get in touch with me, and assuming they show me the same photograph- what do i say?? "well i can't see the face so i can't confirm it's me"?
apparently it's only a small offence, but i just wondered where i stood on thsi and how it could proceed??
when they get in touch with me, and assuming they show me the same photograph- what do i say?? "well i can't see the face so i can't confirm it's me"?
apparently it's only a small offence, but i just wondered where i stood on thsi and how it could proceed??
abz said:
apparently it's only a small offence, but i just wondered where i stood on thsi and how it could proceed??
Sadly wrong in the eyes of those in authority. It is a heinous crime. Therefore, your right of self incrimination has been revoked.
This was upheld in the ECJ as well (unbiased lot that they are too....) so now you can rest safely in your bed tonight knowing that should another motorist drive at 34mph on camera they will have to admit their guilt or face a prison term for perverting the course of justice BUT should your wife/girlfriend be raped tonight by an armed burglar who just felt like it, when caught (ho ho, I jest of course, the police don't go after mere rapists/burglars) he can deny it to his hearts content, and the CPS must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whilst at all times his defence team look at everything the CPS say and do to ensure it is compliant with PACE S76 (IIRC)...
jasandjules said:
abz said:
apparently it's only a small offence, but i just wondered where i stood on thsi and how it could proceed??
Sadly wrong in the eyes of those in authority. It is a heinous crime. Therefore, your right of self incrimination has been revoked.
This was upheld in the ECJ as well (unbiased lot that they are too....) so now you can rest safely in your bed tonight knowing that should another motorist drive at 34mph on camera they will have to admit their guilt or face a prison term for perverting the course of justice BUT should your wife/girlfriend be raped tonight by an armed burglar who just felt like it, when caught (ho ho, I jest of course, the police don't go after mere rapists/burglars) he can deny it to his hearts content, and the CPS must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whilst at all times his defence team look at everything the CPS say and do to ensure it is compliant with PACE S76 (IIRC)...
Whatever happened to the appeal to the ECJ by Idris?
abz, get yourself over to the PEPIPOO website, look up the PACE defence and use the form of letter they advocate in reply to the NIP you'll receive 'inviting' you to name yourself as the driver. the PACE defence, in a nutshell, says that the 'information' you are providing as the undersigned on the letter is just that' information', and is supplied on the strict understanding that it will not be used as a witness statement against the undersigned as the undersigned has not been cautioned as required under then Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).
This requirement to self-confess (that's what it amounts to in practice) under duress is nothing but a bloody disgrace and an affront to the English principles of justice. To be told to fill in a form which will be used to find you guilty, even though you may well be guilty, or to face prosecution for failing to either confess or name someone who will confess is unacceptable to many people and the more that think about it the more unacceptable it becomes.
This requirement to self-confess (that's what it amounts to in practice) under duress is nothing but a bloody disgrace and an affront to the English principles of justice. To be told to fill in a form which will be used to find you guilty, even though you may well be guilty, or to face prosecution for failing to either confess or name someone who will confess is unacceptable to many people and the more that think about it the more unacceptable it becomes.
vonhosen said:
[quote=abz]<...> You are firstly being asked to identify the driver, which has a legal duty attached to it (not in itself an admission of guilt)
Ah, but what you've failed to mention is that the form you use to identify the driver (the request for information) transforms magically (alchemically?) into a signed statement in writing, and is all the police/CPS need as proof of the driver.
Is that a plane I hear leaving to the European Courts of Justice? I'm counting the days now...
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
[quote=abz]<...> You are firstly being asked to identify the driver, which has a legal duty attached to it (not in itself an admission of guilt)
Ah, but what you've failed to mention is that the form you use to identify the driver (the request for information) transforms magically (alchemically?) into a signed statement in writing, and is all the police/CPS need as proof of the driver.
Is that a plane I hear leaving to the European Courts of Justice? I'm counting the days now...
No - it's the sound of pig engines ( the bovines have come to investigate), hearing that someone still believes that DRIVERS AND MOTORISTS are still inocent till provan guilty.
jith said:
mg6b said:
Were you driving at the time?
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
If so. Then you have 2 choices.
1. Admit and accept the penalty and sleep at night
2. Deny and hope that you can convince a court through lying that it was not you and then worry andlose sleep about being captured for perjury at a later date!
The choice is yours!
Where does it say he was guilty?
Why would he have to perjure himself?
It's up to the Crown to prove the speed he was travelling at, not the accused.
I have numerous cases on my books involving partnerships lying in their teeth to secure fines and using civilian operators instead of police.
They don't take the cases all the way to trial because THEY would have to commit perjury to gain a conviction.
ABZ, the identification of the driver is NOT an admission of guilt, and don't let them fool you into thinking it is.
Insist on the photos before you admit anything.
mg6b, good job you have a disclaimer in your profile with this piece of advice given on the site. As Vonhoosen will confirm, a Police office from a different website was investigated by his super's from this type of post!!!
Be careful what advise you post, even if it is your own opinion, most people do look to this site for advice, and dare I say, take some things said on here as literal, and act upon them.
Mr F
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
[quote=abz]<...> You are firstly being asked to identify the driver, which has a legal duty attached to it (not in itself an admission of guilt)
Ah, but what you've failed to mention is that the form you use to identify the driver (the request for information) transforms magically (alchemically?) into a signed statement in writing, and is all the police/CPS need as proof of the driver.
That still doesn't mean you are guilty of speeding.
They have to produce the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that you were.
Of course the requirement under 172 doesn't extend to just speeding offences either. No Sec 172 & what's going to happen when someone hits your car & drives off ?
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 14th August 21:52
[quote=vonhosenNo Sec 172 & what's going to happen when someone hits your car & drives off ?
I notice you used that scenario, as opposed to the 2 million plus NIPs that are issued annually. Leaving the scene of an accident is much more serious than doing 35mph in a 30mph zone, I'm sure you'll agree.
It will, I hope, revert to once it was. Good old plod doing some detective work.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 14th August 21:52
[/quote] I notice you used that scenario, as opposed to the 2 million plus NIPs that are issued annually. Leaving the scene of an accident is much more serious than doing 35mph in a 30mph zone, I'm sure you'll agree.
It will, I hope, revert to once it was. Good old plod doing some detective work.
[quote=Mr FreefallThe choice is yours!
mg6b, good job you have a disclaimer in your profile with this piece of advice given on the site. As Vonhoosen will confirm, a Police office from a different website was investigated by his super's from this type of post!!!
Be careful what advise you post, even if it is your own opinion, most people do look to this site for advice, and dare I say, take some things said on here as literal, and act upon them.
Mr F[/quote]
When i see persons i suspect are police officers having to post disclaimers on their profile and the above - i wonder where britain is heading - why do senior police officers have to interfere with the private lives of their staff - after all 99.9% of the time these trafpols are doing in their spare time (and as a hobby) what they do at work - because they want to uphold the religion of good driving.
Carry on blokes - I like a lot of other PH s back you to the hilt.
The rest is PC(not in uniform) madness.
mg6b, good job you have a disclaimer in your profile with this piece of advice given on the site. As Vonhoosen will confirm, a Police office from a different website was investigated by his super's from this type of post!!!
Be careful what advise you post, even if it is your own opinion, most people do look to this site for advice, and dare I say, take some things said on here as literal, and act upon them.
Mr F[/quote]
When i see persons i suspect are police officers having to post disclaimers on their profile and the above - i wonder where britain is heading - why do senior police officers have to interfere with the private lives of their staff - after all 99.9% of the time these trafpols are doing in their spare time (and as a hobby) what they do at work - because they want to uphold the religion of good driving.
Carry on blokes - I like a lot of other PH s back you to the hilt.
The rest is PC(not in uniform) madness.
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
No Sec 172 & what's going to happen when someone hits your car & drives off ?
I notice you used that scenario, as opposed to the 2 million plus NIPs that are issued annually. Leaving the scene of an accident is much more serious than doing 35mph in a 30mph zone, I'm sure you'll agree.
It will, I hope, revert to once it was. Good old plod doing some detective work.
But when the owner says, "It wasn't me & I'm under no obligation to tell you who it was either".
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 14th August 22:15
vonhosen said:
Demolay said:
vonhosen said:
No Sec 172 & what's going to happen when someone hits your car & drives off ?
I notice you used that scenario, as opposed to the 2 million plus NIPs that are issued annually. Leaving the scene of an accident is much more serious than doing 35mph in a 30mph zone, I'm sure you'll agree.
It will, I hope, revert to once it was. Good old plod doing some detective work.
But when the owner says, "It wasn't me & I'm under no obligation to tell you who it was either".
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 14th August 22:15
Section 172, and more importantly s12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, have been abused to allow for mass enforcement with minimal (ie none) investigative work. The judicial process is reduced to bullying by the police. S172 is a perfectly good piece of legislation when properly applied. Unfortunately, it is being used for something that was never intended: and now we hear that it is to carry a six point penalty because too many people "forget" who was driving. This will, of course, scare people who genuinely are unsure as to who was driving into nomintating themselves for the sake of an easy life.
Just what the scammers are after: it'll save them another few bob.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff