Notice of Intended Prosecution

[Bohally]

Morning All,

I received an NIP in the post this week asking me to name the driver at the time of the offense. I'm genuinely not sure who was driving (4 family members are insured on my car and we all just share cars, so if "my" car was parked at the bottom of the driveway they would have taken that). The location of the NIP doesn't give away who was driving either as it was pretty close to home.


I called up the "Safety Partnership" office and asked for the photo to be sent out, however as the reference number had an R in it, this means they got the speed from the rear facing camera as the vehicle was going away from them, so there would be no image of the driver.

Where does this leave me? Is the onus on the Safety Partnership to prove who was driving? Or if I don't name the driver does this mean I'm looking at 6 points?

None of the individuals insured on my car can remember driving it that day.. Funnily enough!

Advice please.

[Frix]

You need to write this post in a letter to them.

[SS2.]

Bohally said:

Where does this leave me? Is the onus on the Safety Partnership to prove who was driving?

Not at all, no - responsibility rests with you.

Bohally said:

Or if I don't name the driver does this mean I'm looking at 6 points?

If you cannot provide the details of the driver, then it will almost certainly result in a summons being issued and a trip to court.

In court, you would need to demonstrate that you had exercised 'reasonable diligence' in attempting to identify the driver, what those actions were and why, despite your best efforts, the driver's identity remains unknown.

If the court agree that you did everything which could have been reasonably expected of you, then you should be found not guilty. If they think you could have done more, or if they decide that you were spinning a yarn, then 6 points, a hefty fine (& costs) and increased insurance premiums for the next 5 years would be the likely outcome.

So, other than ask the individuals concerned (and request a photo), what other steps have you taken thus far to identify the driver ?

[Deva Link]

...and when if it gets to court then be prepared to demonstate that you've made strenuous efforts to determine who was driving.

[covboy]

But does standing up in Court and saying “I Can’t remember if I was driving it myself” count as a “strenuous effort” ?

[SS2.]

covboy said:

But does standing up in Court and saying “I Can’t remember if I was driving it myself” count as a “strenuous effort” ?

On its own ? Not a chance.

[Soovy]

It's really your responsiblity to keep a record of who drove when.

If you don't, it's YOUR problem!

[Monkeylegend]

Are you really saying that all 4 of you have no recollection of who might have been driving at the time in question, even by a process of elimination?

That probably wouldn't go down to well with the magistrates.

[Soovy]

Monkeylegend said:

Are you really saying that all 4 of you have no recollection of who might have been driving at the time in question, even by a process of elimination?

That probably wouldn't go down to well with the magistrates.

No it won't. They've heard it a million times before.

[MadMark911]

Name the person with the cleanest licence?

Toss a coin?

Just don't ignore it .....

[Soovy]

MadMark911 said:

Name the person with the cleanest licence?

Good luck in prison!

[Andehh]

I would imagine you would need to, at the very least, prove that all 4 of you use the car at very irregular times, very often, and that it genuinely is confusing calculating exactly who was driving and when.

All can be backed up with proven advanced bookings, signed up classes, memberships, attendances etc etc.

[oldcynic]

Surely a process of elimination would improve matters - who drove anywhere at all at the time in question? Who was even home? Credit/debit card transactions from shopping trips?

[SS2.]

oldcynic said:

..who drove anywhere at all at the time in question? Who was even home? Credit/debit card transactions from shopping trips?

That (and more), is exactly what would be required - and soon, such that a response can be fired off before the 28 day response window expires.

[3Dee]

Playing devils advocate - I wonder if this bit of legislation is indeed 'Just' Law?

If speeding convictions are termed as a criminal offence, then 'failing to identify the driver' is this a criminal offence?

If so, this where it gets muddy for me...and I suspect raised before, but:

'Beyond Reasonable doubt that he/she did it' is the criteria for conviction in criminal prosecutions, yet this appears not to be so when situations like this come along... as it seems the defendant has to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt that he/she didn't do it, which is a total reversal!

OK, I understand why the law was introduced, as too many were getting away with 'memory loss' excuses, but does this make this bit of the law rather wrong?

[SS2.]

3Dee said:

If speeding convictions are termed as a criminal offence, then 'failing to identify the driver' is this a criminal offence?

Yes.

3Dee said:

'Beyond Reasonable doubt that he/she did it' is the criteria for conviction in criminal prosecutions, yet this appears not to be so when situations like this come along... as it seems the defendant has to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt that he/she didn't do it, which is a total reversal!

A defendant accused of failing to provide driver details does not have to 'prove' that they did or didn't 'do it'.

Rather, and in the case of a vehicle keeper (as opposed to a person other than keeper), they would need to demonstrate that they did everything which could have been reasonably expected of them in attempting to identify the driver of a particular vehicle at a particular time and place.

[Frix]

3Dee said:

Playing devils advocate - I wonder if this bit of legislation is indeed 'Just' Law?

If speeding convictions are termed as a criminal offence, then 'failing to identify the driver' is this a criminal offence?

If so, this where it gets muddy for me...and I suspect raised before, but:

'Beyond Reasonable doubt that he/she did it' is the criteria for conviction in criminal prosecutions, yet this appears not to be so when situations like this come along... as it seems the defendant has to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt that he/she didn't do it, which is a total reversal!

OK, I understand why the law was introduced, as too many were getting away with 'memory loss' excuses, but does this make this bit of the law rather wrong?

I think it may be "muddy" because you haven't distinguished between the two offences. There is an obligation to provide the driver details in relation to an offence - in this case speeding. If and when this is complied with the prosecution still have to prove the speeding offence. Admitting being the driver does not constitute an admission of speeding.

[BertBert]

Soovy said:

It's really your responsiblity to keep a record of who drove when.

If you don't, it's YOUR problem!

Its not your responsibility at all. It might make life easier. But then again it might not. Log book not filled in, 4 drivers, same problem.

[BertBert]

Soovy said:

It's really your responsiblity to keep a record of who drove when.

If you don't, it's YOUR problem!

Its not your responsibility at all. It might make life easier. But then again it might not. Log book not filled in, 4 drivers, same problem.

[3Dee]

But here is the rub...

SS2 said "everything which could have been reasonably expected of them in attempting to identify the driver"

Yet the opinion of many is that if in front of the Mag, the likelihood of this 'test' being rigorously used within the meaning of 'reasonable' may be somewhat remote, given the comment (and I suspect Mag attitude) about 'heard this all before?'

Would you not think that the Mag may apply a much harsher (and possibly incorrect) interpretation of what is 'reasonable', bearing in mind the culture promoted by the potential for many 'failed' prosecutions if not?