summons for s.175
Discussion
Ok guys bear with me I`m posting for a friend
A friend of mine has recieved a summons for failing to provide details
He was caught doing just over 40 in a 30 zone coming into marple nr glossop. When he recieved his NIP he telephone the BiB that caught him him to explain there where 2 people driving that day and he needed to see a photo or something. so he went from southport all the way to marple to meet this bobby with the other driver and they both gave a statment saying they were both driving that day and they are both insured.
All the BiB can remember is seeing a red vectra speeding. Now if you saw his car you would describe it as Brown not Red but it says red on the log book/DVLA. Sounds like he cant remember just checked their computer and came back saying red.
The bobby then says hhmm dont know what to do about this and leaves it at that.
So my pal recieves a summons for failing to notify???
he notified by giving a statement WTF?
UPDATE>
in court on the 14th december ..
this is what the summons says.
between 05/07/2007 and 28/08/2007 at charlsworth , having been required by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the derbyshire constabulary failed to give information which it was in your power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of the vehicle , namely a vectra reg xxxxxxx who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence contrary to section 172 (3) of the road traffic act 1988 and scheduled 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988
but information was given in the form of a recoreded verbal statement by both parties at glossop police station ..
also i have written this letter but thave not yet posted it
To whom it may concern
In refernece to your letter . i would like to offer for subbmission an account of the events proceeding the incident on july 3rd 2007
myself and Mr jones were taking a camping holiday in the glossop area and were suprised to find several weeks afterward a letter detailing a speeding offence .
i queried the contents of the letter over the phone with PC D BIB (PC000) and aranged to travel with mr jones to glossop police station to give a statement .
As some time had passed between the original holiday and the letter detailing the offence . we were unable to accurately say who was driving the car on that day at that particular time . We had both covered several hundred miles of our journey and had taken it in turn to drive . and , as no incident of particualr noteworthy reference had caused us to take note of the journey thus far we we are unable to provide accurate details of the request being made of us .
i am certain beyond doubt that a police officer taking speed measurements would have caused either one of us to take note of the event . thus helping us in remembering who was driving at that time .
on the returning journey to glossop police station , i made a point of driving along the road where the incident occured and discovered that the speed reduction sign was all but totaly covered by over grown trees . which can be seen by the enclosed photos.
we both believe this to be a contributory factor as to why no adjustment to the speed was made on the date of the incident and would consider the inadequate display of imformation to be a suitable exemption to the offence .
it is my sincerest hope that the lapse in time , the lack of any striking event and subsequent discovery of obsured imformation has satisfied as an expalanation as to why we have been unable to disclose the requierd imformation
kinds regards
Pics Below
Those road works were there at the time of the offence.
What do i do plead guilty/not guilty/ guilty with mitigating circumstances
I told them it was either myself or my pal. asked them for the evidence ie a photo so i could say who it was. this never turned up plus the bib kinda gave the impression they had no evidence of the original offence.
Any help greatly appreciated
We have had it confirmed that the sign is non compliant, so a speeding offence could not have won in court but how.can we use that for the s.172 summons
Edited s.175 to s.172
A friend of mine has recieved a summons for failing to provide details
He was caught doing just over 40 in a 30 zone coming into marple nr glossop. When he recieved his NIP he telephone the BiB that caught him him to explain there where 2 people driving that day and he needed to see a photo or something. so he went from southport all the way to marple to meet this bobby with the other driver and they both gave a statment saying they were both driving that day and they are both insured.
All the BiB can remember is seeing a red vectra speeding. Now if you saw his car you would describe it as Brown not Red but it says red on the log book/DVLA. Sounds like he cant remember just checked their computer and came back saying red.
The bobby then says hhmm dont know what to do about this and leaves it at that.
So my pal recieves a summons for failing to notify???
he notified by giving a statement WTF?
UPDATE>
in court on the 14th december ..
this is what the summons says.
between 05/07/2007 and 28/08/2007 at charlsworth , having been required by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the derbyshire constabulary failed to give information which it was in your power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of the vehicle , namely a vectra reg xxxxxxx who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence contrary to section 172 (3) of the road traffic act 1988 and scheduled 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988
but information was given in the form of a recoreded verbal statement by both parties at glossop police station ..
also i have written this letter but thave not yet posted it
To whom it may concern
In refernece to your letter . i would like to offer for subbmission an account of the events proceeding the incident on july 3rd 2007
myself and Mr jones were taking a camping holiday in the glossop area and were suprised to find several weeks afterward a letter detailing a speeding offence .
i queried the contents of the letter over the phone with PC D BIB (PC000) and aranged to travel with mr jones to glossop police station to give a statement .
As some time had passed between the original holiday and the letter detailing the offence . we were unable to accurately say who was driving the car on that day at that particular time . We had both covered several hundred miles of our journey and had taken it in turn to drive . and , as no incident of particualr noteworthy reference had caused us to take note of the journey thus far we we are unable to provide accurate details of the request being made of us .
i am certain beyond doubt that a police officer taking speed measurements would have caused either one of us to take note of the event . thus helping us in remembering who was driving at that time .
on the returning journey to glossop police station , i made a point of driving along the road where the incident occured and discovered that the speed reduction sign was all but totaly covered by over grown trees . which can be seen by the enclosed photos.
we both believe this to be a contributory factor as to why no adjustment to the speed was made on the date of the incident and would consider the inadequate display of imformation to be a suitable exemption to the offence .
it is my sincerest hope that the lapse in time , the lack of any striking event and subsequent discovery of obsured imformation has satisfied as an expalanation as to why we have been unable to disclose the requierd imformation
kinds regards
Pics Below
Those road works were there at the time of the offence.
What do i do plead guilty/not guilty/ guilty with mitigating circumstances
I told them it was either myself or my pal. asked them for the evidence ie a photo so i could say who it was. this never turned up plus the bib kinda gave the impression they had no evidence of the original offence.
Any help greatly appreciated
We have had it confirmed that the sign is non compliant, so a speeding offence could not have won in court but how.can we use that for the s.172 summons
Edited s.175 to s.172
Edited by matty g on Wednesday 5th December 15:47
You need to show reasonable diligence in identifying the driver - did one of you pay for petrol, did you ask any petrol stations that you stopped off at for CCTV footage of you driving, are their phone records etc.
Just saying you can't remember really isn't enough for most magistrates - let's face it, you don't do that drive often, knowing how anal most blokes are about driving, I'd suggest that you can remember who was driving at the time(let's face it, I know plenty of blokes who will recount every detail of a car journey in tedious detail).
And I don't know what s.175 is? Do you mean 172...?
Just saying you can't remember really isn't enough for most magistrates - let's face it, you don't do that drive often, knowing how anal most blokes are about driving, I'd suggest that you can remember who was driving at the time(let's face it, I know plenty of blokes who will recount every detail of a car journey in tedious detail).
And I don't know what s.175 is? Do you mean 172...?
One needs to exercise caution on this as two offences are like an iceberge - one floating on the surface (S 172) one submerged.
One submerged is the offence of speeding. Whoever was the driver has a reasonable argument to escape because of the obscured sign by foliage and the High Court decision:-
In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin), (2006) The Times, 29 December, a driver's conviction for speeding, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 89, was quashed by the Divisional Court (following an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court) because the road sign imposing the 30-mph limit in question was obscured by overgrown hedgerows, so that it became visible to motorists only at the point where it was passed.
Referring to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 85 (below), Walker J held that this imposed (at the least) a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. Motorists should not be convicted of speeding in the absence of adequate guidance.
So what this is saying is that the signs were not maintained - a requirement under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 in relation to speed limit signing - so the 40 limit is unenforceable so no offence committed????
Whilst it would appear that a summons for the speed has not been served one has to be careful in any admission which could be made.
S 172 RTA 88 has a defence:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police,
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be.
As the poster requested a photo which has been inconclusive and has asked amongst other who could have been the driver without gain, even to taking a statement, then it appears there is little more he can do and therefore satisfies reasonable diligence. Consideration should therefore be given to entering a Not Guilty plea.
Now some convoluted (Nick Freeman type) thinking.
S 172 can only be brought in if certain traffic offences have been committed, one of which is speeding. The effect of Coombes v DPP 2006 is no offence committed as signs not clearly visible. This means that the 172 request is invalid?
If argueing this then care should be taken not to make any admission of being the driver at the time the 'offence?' was committed.
My personal feeling is that with care one should be able to convince the Magistrates to acquit on the 172 charge. However, it should be bourne in mind they have heard this countless times in the past, so presentation will be everything.
dvd
PS Section 175 RTA 88 deals with the issue of false documents.
[
One submerged is the offence of speeding. Whoever was the driver has a reasonable argument to escape because of the obscured sign by foliage and the High Court decision:-
In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin), (2006) The Times, 29 December, a driver's conviction for speeding, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 89, was quashed by the Divisional Court (following an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court) because the road sign imposing the 30-mph limit in question was obscured by overgrown hedgerows, so that it became visible to motorists only at the point where it was passed.
Referring to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s. 85 (below), Walker J held that this imposed (at the least) a requirement that, at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably have been expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. Motorists should not be convicted of speeding in the absence of adequate guidance.
So what this is saying is that the signs were not maintained - a requirement under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 in relation to speed limit signing - so the 40 limit is unenforceable so no offence committed????
Whilst it would appear that a summons for the speed has not been served one has to be careful in any admission which could be made.
S 172 RTA 88 has a defence:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police,
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be.
As the poster requested a photo which has been inconclusive and has asked amongst other who could have been the driver without gain, even to taking a statement, then it appears there is little more he can do and therefore satisfies reasonable diligence. Consideration should therefore be given to entering a Not Guilty plea.
Now some convoluted (Nick Freeman type) thinking.
S 172 can only be brought in if certain traffic offences have been committed, one of which is speeding. The effect of Coombes v DPP 2006 is no offence committed as signs not clearly visible. This means that the 172 request is invalid?
If argueing this then care should be taken not to make any admission of being the driver at the time the 'offence?' was committed.
My personal feeling is that with care one should be able to convince the Magistrates to acquit on the 172 charge. However, it should be bourne in mind they have heard this countless times in the past, so presentation will be everything.
dvd
PS Section 175 RTA 88 deals with the issue of false documents.
[
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 5th December 08:54
Dwight VanDriver said:
S 172 can only be brought in if certain traffic offences have been committed, one of which is speeding. The effect of Coombes v DPP 2006 is no offence committed as signs not clearly visible. This means that the 172 request is invalid?
Sorry DVD, but I disagree..s.172 does not require an offence to be proven before a request can be lawfully made - it merely requires the allegation of an offence..
Dwight VanDriver said:
If argueing this then care should be taken not to make any admission of being the driver at the time the 'offence?' was committed.
That would be relevant if the defendant was being tried for both speeding AND failing to furnish. In the present case, the OP's friend has been summoned for failing to furnish only and, as such, any 'confession' in court as to who may have been driving at the time would have little consequence on the alleged speeding offence.One might say that as both possible drivers attended at the police station and 'offered' themselves up for questioning by a police officer, then they have made every effort to identify the driver. After all, how many of those who pass or fail the S172 test actually go in person for interrogation by police officers voluntarily. If from that the police are unable to conclude the identification satisfactorily, how can an ordinary member of the public be expected to do so?
Is the law now that if the police cannot gain the evidence to convict, then we must 'convict' ourselves?
Is the law now that if the police cannot gain the evidence to convict, then we must 'convict' ourselves?
SS2
Can one allege an offence that hasn't been committed?
Evidence given by a defendant in a witness box given under oath (or from the well of the Court) is not privileged. Whilst in the box he has a right not to make any statement that may incriminate himself if he makes an open admission in Court he was the driver, why cannot this be used as evidence for subsequence enquiry and issue of a summons for speeding?. The reason for my warning is that it has been mentioned that some authorities in such cases issue two summons - (1) 172 (2) Speed.
A trap for the unwary? Wrong in my opinion.
dvd
Can one allege an offence that hasn't been committed?
Evidence given by a defendant in a witness box given under oath (or from the well of the Court) is not privileged. Whilst in the box he has a right not to make any statement that may incriminate himself if he makes an open admission in Court he was the driver, why cannot this be used as evidence for subsequence enquiry and issue of a summons for speeding?. The reason for my warning is that it has been mentioned that some authorities in such cases issue two summons - (1) 172 (2) Speed.
A trap for the unwary? Wrong in my opinion.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Can one allege an offence that hasn't been committed?
IMO, yes. Where a defendant is on trial for failing to furnish, the prosecution are not required to prove the substantive offence (speeding, for instance). For the s.172 request to be lawful, they merely need demonstrate that an allegation has been made, be it justifiable or otherwise.If a defendant chose to contest a bogus allegation of excess speed, he should provide the s.172 information as requested and await a summons for the substantive offence. In court, he would have have the opportunity to counter the allegation.
If the defendant deliberately ignored the s.172 request, then a summons for FTF would be forthcoming. Irrespective of the fact that the substantive offence remained unproven, the defendant would be guilty of failing to provide driver details.
Dwight VanDriver said:
..why cannot this be used as evidence for subsequence enquiry and issue of a summons for speeding?.
It can. And I admit to scanning the thread originally and reading 'June' not 'July' for the offence date. As such, I thought they had until December 3rd to commence proceedings for the alleged speeding offence - but its actually January 3rd 2008..oopsTha said, if the OP's friend is entering a plea of Not Guilty, then the trial scheduled for 14.12.2007 will be adjourned, almost certainly until after 03.01.2008. If that's the case, then even if the defendant were to admit to driving in court, then it would be too late to lay an information for the alleged speeding offence.
Dwight VanDriver said:
The reason for my warning is that it has been mentioned that some authorities in such cases issue two summons - (1) 172 (2) Speed.
A trap for the unwary? Wrong in my opinion.
A trap, perhaps.. More likely a bargaining tool, IMO.. 'fess up to one and we'll drop the other..A trap for the unwary? Wrong in my opinion.
Very wrong..
Dwight VanDriver said:
Tha said, if the OP's friend is entering a plea of Not Guilty, then the trial scheduled for 14.12.2007 will be adjourned, almost certainly until after 03.01.2008. If that's the case, then even if the defendant were to admit to driving in court, then it would be too late to lay an information for the alleged speeding offence.
So if my mate goes to court and says ok it was me driving would that get him off the FTF. I didnt think it would be that simple.He has to put something into court by fri. So it needs posting tomorrowwith regards to the signs i`m led to believe that as it has a white background its non compliant
Edited by matty g on Wednesday 5th December 16:55
Edited by matty g on Wednesday 5th December 17:05
matty g said:
Dwight VanDriver was not the one who said:
That said, if the OP's friend is entering a plea of Not Guilty, then the trial scheduled for 14.12.2007 will be adjourned, almost certainly until after 03.01.2008. If that's the case, then even if the defendant were to admit to driving in court, then it would be too late to lay an information for the alleged speeding offence.
So if my mate goes to court and says ok it was me driving would that get him off the FTF. I didnt think it would be that simple.He has to put something into court by fri. So it needs posting tomorrow
Your friend was issued a request under s.172 to provide the driver details within 28 days of receipt of the notice.
By failing to do so, he committed an offence.
To successfully defend this, he would need to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, that he exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the driver and why, despite his best efforts, the driver's identity remains unknown.
Simply standing up in court and stating that he was the driver will not avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details..
Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 5th December 17:08
I'd focus on the S172 atm. I consulted here www.motoringlaw.co.uk on a S172 problem. Their view was that they didn;t lose a single one. After chatting, I went it alone and had no problem sorting it.
Bert
Bert
SS2. said:
matty g said:
Dwight VanDriver was not the one who said:
That said, if the OP's friend is entering a plea of Not Guilty, then the trial scheduled for 14.12.2007 will be adjourned, almost certainly until after 03.01.2008. If that's the case, then even if the defendant were to admit to driving in court, then it would be too late to lay an information for the alleged speeding offence.
So if my mate goes to court and says ok it was me driving would that get him off the FTF. I didnt think it would be that simple.He has to put something into court by fri. So it needs posting tomorrow
Your friend was issued a request under s.172 to provide the driver details within 28 days of receipt of the notice.
By failing to do so, he committed an offence.
To successfully defend this, he would need to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, that he exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the driver and why, despite his best efforts, the driver's identity remains unknown.
Simply standing up in court and stating that he was the driver will not avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details..
Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 5th December 17:08
I didnt think it would be simple .
so concentrating on the s172.
Is showing to the court that my friend drove a 100 mile trip with the other driver and giving statements and asking for a photo so they could see who was driving enough. they have both said if it was me, fine. But they dont want the other one to be done for something they havnt done
If the police had shown a photo this wouldnt be on going the guilty party would have just put his hand up said fair cop guv.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff