NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure
Discussion
konark said:
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.Would you be willing to get 6pts for refusing to reply to an s172 AND face a court case for 110 in a 50, rather than pass the ticket on to your wuckfit of a mate?
No, me neither.
Obvious advice probably but.
1. Surrender yourself, by appointment,early on a weekday morning when the court is sitting, at a police station close to the court that issued the warrant. ( less time in a cell/travelling in a sweat box)
2. Don't have anything with you that you don't want the police to find. ( sounds obvious but I have booked in people answering bail with drugs on them.)
3. Get a lawyer arranged in advance. Make sure you have any relevant paperwork with you.
4. Take a paper to read.
1. Surrender yourself, by appointment,early on a weekday morning when the court is sitting, at a police station close to the court that issued the warrant. ( less time in a cell/travelling in a sweat box)
2. Don't have anything with you that you don't want the police to find. ( sounds obvious but I have booked in people answering bail with drugs on them.)
3. Get a lawyer arranged in advance. Make sure you have any relevant paperwork with you.
4. Take a paper to read.
Willy Nilly said:
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?It's not even a legislated offence.
It's how parliament etc consider it that affects whether it gets legislated.
As it is, it's a relatively low level offence that has a graduated disposal enforcement policy.
The situation could actually happen if you were selling the vehicle and couldn't remember the potential buyer's name.
Is there a requirement to retain personal details of all the "potential buyers" and how many people do this?
Clearly the guy in this instance is trying to pull a fast one and so is feeling the pain!
Is there a requirement to retain personal details of all the "potential buyers" and how many people do this?
Clearly the guy in this instance is trying to pull a fast one and so is feeling the pain!
carinatauk said:
The situation could actually happen if you were selling the vehicle and couldn't remember the potential buyer's name.
Would you not be in the passenger seat...?carinatauk said:
Is there a requirement to retain personal details of all the "potential buyers" and how many people do this?
Would you not immediately reply to the s172, and say "Look, I'm really really sorry - I was selling the car, and it must have been somebody test-driving it. I can't find the details of him, but going back through my phone I think either this or this was his number."? I bloody would.TooMany2cvs said:
carinatauk said:
The situation could actually happen if you were selling the vehicle and couldn't remember the potential buyer's name.
Would you not be in the passenger seat...?carinatauk said:
Is there a requirement to retain personal details of all the "potential buyers" and how many people do this?
Would you not immediately reply to the s172, and say "Look, I'm really really sorry - I was selling the car, and it must have been somebody test-driving it. I can't find the details of him, but going back through my phone I think either this or this was his number."? I bloody would.I think you have a point, I think I would have been trying to explain things in a more detailed fashion, but was purely hypothetical
TooMany2cvs said:
carinatauk said:
Is there a requirement to retain personal details of all the "potential buyers" and how many people do this?
Would you not immediately reply to the s172, and say "Look, I'm really really sorry - I was selling the car, and it must have been somebody test-driving it. I can't find the details of him, but going back through my phone I think either this or this was his number."? I bloody would.I don't think anyone believes that this guy didn't do it; the question is only if he can be prosecuted for the speeding in the absence of his admission that he was the driver at the time of the offence. Give it six months and he will know...
a.lex said:
That would have left him in the same position re s172, because he's the keeper and was required to name the driver within 28 days, not just give the information he had. (Yes, there is a statutory defence, but I assume that's beyond this hypothetical!)
I don't think anyone believes that this guy didn't do it; the question is only if he can be prosecuted for the speeding in the absence of his admission that he was the driver at the time of the offence. Give it six months and he will know...
He’ll definitely be prosecuted for it (whether guilty or not will be interesting). I’d be amazed if he gets away with it, because as said previously it gives virtual Get Out or Jail Free care for excessive speeding. I don't think anyone believes that this guy didn't do it; the question is only if he can be prosecuted for the speeding in the absence of his admission that he was the driver at the time of the offence. Give it six months and he will know...
konark said:
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 Gavia said:
He’ll definitely be prosecuted for it (whether guilty or not will be interesting). I’d be amazed if he gets away with it, because as said previously it gives virtual Get Out or Jail Free care for excessive speeding.
How will he, no ID of driver, it’s probably more than 6 months after the offence, so unless dual charged it’s too late to commence proceedings.I know of a few cases of excess speed where the registered keeper opted to take the S172 penalty, no attempt was made to prosecute for speeding.
HantsRat said:
He will still be a suspect for the speeding offence. If he is the only insured driver there will be questions as to who was driving, if he still denies it there could be a further charge of 'permitting use without insurance'
110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
Realistically if he ignores all correspondence then what can the CPS do? 110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
They have him on a slam dunk on S172, which is punishing on insurance premiums. Granted the Police/CPS are likely to want to make an example of this person due to the speed/limit involved, but - well - tough luck?
When I've read of similar incidents like this usually the Police have turned up at the reg keepers house to presumably try and put them on the spot, but if that's not possible then I can't see how a speeding charge can be progressed without admittance by someone?
I can see how this state of affairs would be frustrating for Police, but I can't see how he could have "permitting use whilst uninsured" pinned on him when the Police/CPS have no definitive idea who was driving.
Willing to be told I'm wrong though.
Edited by Durzel on Saturday 20th January 21:36
The Rookie said:
Gavia said:
He’ll definitely be prosecuted for it (whether guilty or not will be interesting). I’d be amazed if he gets away with it, because as said previously it gives virtual Get Out or Jail Free care for excessive speeding.
{b]How will he, no ID of driver, [/b]it’s probably more than 6 months after the offence, so unless dual charged it’s too late to commence proceedings.I know of a few cases of excess speed where the registered keeper opted to take the S172 penalty, no attempt was made to prosecute for speeding.
If a keeper fails to identify the driver then that keeper will receive a fine and 6 points on conviction.
As the keeper provides no alternative driver then a court can and often does, when the keeper is dual-charged, reasonably conclude that the silent keeper was indeed the driver. 3 point and a fine or, in the case of 110mph in a 50mph limit more than 3 points and a larger fine.
So that's how.
Durzel said:
HantsRat said:
He will still be a suspect for the speeding offence. If he is the only insured driver there will be questions as to who was driving, if he still denies it there could be a further charge of 'permitting use without insurance'
110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
{b]Realistically if he ignores all correspondence then what can the CPS do?[/b] 110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
They have him on a slam dunk on S172, which is punishing on insurance premiums. Granted the Police/CPS are likely to want to make an example of this person due to the speed/limit involved, but - well - tough luck?
When I've read of similar incidents like this usually the Police have turned up at the reg keepers house to presumably try and put them on the spot, but if that's not possible then I can't see how a speeding charge can be progressed without admittance by someone?
I can see how this state of affairs would be frustrating for Police, but I can't see how he could have "permitting use whilst uninsured" pinned on him when the Police/CPS have no definitive idea who was driving.
Willing to be told I'm wrong though.
1. Charge the keeper with failing to provide the details of the driver.
2. Charge the keeper with exceeding the speed limit.
3. Off to court and prosecute both offences and convince the magistrates that the keeper was likely to be the driver.
Job done I reckon.
ghe13rte said:
cmaguire said:
If it is true then that is positive news, I'll put that on the back-burner.
It isn't true.Under the right circumstances, where no dual charge was made, I would take the failure to disclose over the actual offence if that avoided any penalty for the actual offence..
cmaguire said:
You seem to have conveniently skirted the dual-charged element that the Rookie already mentioned.
Under the right circumstances, where no dual charge was made, I would take the failure to disclose over the actual offence if that avoided any penalty for the actual offence..
Why do you think he wasn’t dual charged? Just because the OP hasn’t mentioned it doesn’t mean he wasn’t. Remember this story is third hand and the friend can easily leave out anything he wants. SP&L seems to be attracting those who give half a story quite a lot now. Under the right circumstances, where no dual charge was made, I would take the failure to disclose over the actual offence if that avoided any penalty for the actual offence..
cmaguire said:
You seem to have conveniently skirted the dual-charged element that the Rookie already mentioned.
Under the right circumstances, where no dual charge was made, I would take the failure to disclose over the actual offence if that avoided any penalty for the actual offence..
Tres ethical.Under the right circumstances, where no dual charge was made, I would take the failure to disclose over the actual offence if that avoided any penalty for the actual offence..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff