NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure

[donkmeister]

A question re the "two bites of the cherry"... Isn't it the case that if a burglar murders someone whilst burgling a house, the CPS goes after the murder as the more severe crime, because the judge can't say "here's 14 years for the murder oh and an extra year on the end for the burglary".
So in the case of the OPs acquaintance wouldn't a guilty verdict on the speed just increase the points/fine to what the original speeding charge would have earned him/her?
Genuine question on the principle.

[TooMany2cvs]

janesmith1950 said:

Could a court be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mystery driver was not covered under their own insurance policy?

Either he says he did see proof of insurance and identity, taking basic precautions to ensure they were covered, or he's admitting to permitting driving without insurance - IN14, same penalties.

If he did see it, then can he really not remember anything about this mystery person? Why would he just chuck the keys for an unaccompanied drive to some random he doesn't know and have never met before...?

However this pans out, he's going to be walking for a while.

[mickmcpaddy]

Surely the answer is "no comment" in a situation like this, why would you say anything? You could just as easily be protecting someone who cant afford a ban or who was uninsured etc, absolutely no proof you were the driver at the time of the offence, where is the beyond reasonable doubt.

6 points and a hefty fine isn't too bad if its vital you keep your licence. fk the system.

[Helicopter123]

When this gets to Court, without proper legal advice, OPs 'friend' risks perjury and that's toothbrush time. Given what we know to date, I really cannot advise getting legal representation highly enough.

[Dolf Stoppard]

mickmcpaddy said:

Surely the answer is "no comment" in a situation like this, why would you say anything? You could just as easily be protecting someone who cant afford a ban or who was uninsured etc, absolutely no proof you were the driver at the time of the offence, where is the beyond reasonable doubt.

6 points and a hefty fine isn't too bad if its vital you keep your licence. fk the system.

If it’s vital you keep your licence, don’t drive at 110mph in a 50mph zone.

[mickmcpaddy]

Dolf Stoppard said:

If it’s vital you keep your licence, don’t drive at 110mph in a 50mph zone.

Without a time machine surely its damage limitation.

[TooMany2cvs]

mickmcpaddy said:

Surely the answer is "no comment" in a situation like this, why would you say anything? You could just as easily be protecting someone who cant afford a ban or who was uninsured etc, absolutely no proof you were the driver at the time of the offence, where is the beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr X's car has been photographed at more than twice the speed limit.
Mr X is the only person insured on the car.
Mr X did not identify the driver, and has been given a substantial penalty for that.
If Mr X was not driving, then who was? Mr X continues to refuse to identify the driver.

Is there reasonable doubt that Mr X himself was driving?

No, not really...

[mickmcpaddy]

TooMany2cvs said:

Mr X's car has been photographed at more than twice the speed limit.
Mr X is the only person insured on the car.
Mr X did not identify the driver, and has been given a substantial penalty for that.
If Mr X was not driving, then who was? Mr X continues to refuse to identify the driver.

Is there reasonable doubt that Mr X himself was driving?

No, not really...

The accused doesn't have to provide reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to provide evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt. You have the right to remain silent.

[rscott]

mickmcpaddy said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Mr X's car has been photographed at more than twice the speed limit.
Mr X is the only person insured on the car.
Mr X did not identify the driver, and has been given a substantial penalty for that.
If Mr X was not driving, then who was? Mr X continues to refuse to identify the driver.

Is there reasonable doubt that Mr X himself was driving?

No, not really...

The accused doesn't have to provide reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to provide evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt. You have the right to remain silent.

The prosecution could show that only one person was insured to drive the vehicle, the vehicle hadn't been reported stolen, etc. Thereby building a convincing case that the accused was the driver. If he continues to remain silent, where does the reasonable doubt come from?

[mickmcpaddy]

rscott said:

The prosecution could show that only one person was insured to drive the vehicle, the vehicle hadn't been reported stolen, etc. Thereby building a convincing case that the accused was the driver. If he continues to remain silent, where does the reasonable doubt come from?

Would this work if my gun (if I had one) had been used to shoot someone but not even my fingerprints were found on it.

I thought the saying went along the lines of "its not what they know but what they can prove."

[TooMany2cvs]

mickmcpaddy said:

You have the right to remain silent.

Indeed you do...

Every policeman said:

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.

[V8LM]

Is there a chance it would go all CSI with the prosecution having enough to collect the phone records to see where their mobile phone was at the time, or does such only happen on the tele?

[TooMany2cvs]

mickmcpaddy said:

Would this work if my gun (if I had one) had been used to shoot someone but not even my fingerprints were found on it.

A gun that was registered to you, was in your possession after the offence, and you refuse to say anything about who might have borrowed it?

You're right, I'm sure a quick wipe-down with an oily rag would be more than enough to clear you of any involvement...

[mickmcpaddy]

V8LM said:

Is there a chance it would go all CSI with the prosecution having enough to collect the phone records to see where their mobile phone was at the time, or does such only happen on the tele?

I would say no chance, as with most crimes if its not an easy automated conviction no-one wants to know.

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

V8LM said:

Is there a chance it would go all CSI with the prosecution having enough to collect the phone records to see where their mobile phone was at the time, or does such only happen on the tele?

I would say no chance, as with most crimes if its not an easy automated conviction no-one wants to know.

Our prison population bursting at the seams of capacity is witness to that fallacy.

[jwo]

Thanks all. For the prosecution to reach the required burden of proof would be very hard in my view. Still I may be able to update more next week if I find out the outcome from said person.

[mickmcpaddy]

vonhosen said:

Our prison population bursting at the seams of capacity is witness to that fallacy.

So why are there millions of successful convictions for speeding but none for being a middle lane moron?

[vonhosen]

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

Our prison population bursting at the seams of capacity is witness to that fallacy.

So why are there millions of successful convictions for speeding but none for being a middle lane moron?

Because it's not particularly important or a big problem.
It's not even a legislated offence.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

mickmcpaddy said:

vonhosen said:

Our prison population bursting at the seams of capacity is witness to that fallacy.

So why are there millions of successful convictions for speeding but none for being a middle lane moron?

Because it's not particularly important or a big problem.
It's not even a legislated offence.

Speeding isn't much of a problem either.

[konark]

rscott said:

The prosecution could show that only one person was insured to drive the vehicle, the vehicle hadn't been reported stolen, etc. Thereby building a convincing case that the accused was the driver. If he continues to remain silent, where does the reasonable doubt come from?

The fact that most people's insurance permits them to drive other people's cars on a 3rd party only basis. I often drive my friend's car.