NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure
Discussion
Gavia said:
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.
We don't know whether the OP was dual charged or not, or whether what the Rookie says is even right if the OP wasn't.You can interpret my previous post exactly as I wrote it. If I get paperwork for 150 on the Motorway, for example, then I would absolutely ignore the 172 if it avoided the speeding offence.
Dammit said:
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..
cmaguire said:
We don't know whether the OP was dual charged or not, or whether what the Rookie says is even right if the OP wasn't.
You can interpret my previous post exactly as I wrote it. If I get paperwork for 150 on the Motorway, for example, then I would absolutely ignore the 172 if it avoided the speeding offence.
The point is that it doesn’t. There are more saying that than supporting what The Rookie is claiming. Why are you supporting his view over others?You can interpret my previous post exactly as I wrote it. If I get paperwork for 150 on the Motorway, for example, then I would absolutely ignore the 172 if it avoided the speeding offence.
Gavia said:
The point is that it doesn’t. There are more saying that than supporting what The Rookie is claiming. Why are you supporting his view over others?
If supporting it means I hope he's right, then it's because that may help me one day.I don't see me supporting it in any other way.
ghe13rte said:
Here's what CPS can do.
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.
Is this from experience or speculation? If it can be assumed, with no evidence other than the fact that the car is only insured to one person, that the RK is the driver, why bother with a S172 at all?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:
There has been several cases where a keeper who has not nominated a driver has been charged and convicted of both fail to comply with S172 and with 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.
Has the threshold for a conviction been lowered recently? I must have missed that one.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.
cmaguire said:
If supporting it means I hope he's right, then it's because that may help me one day.
I don't see me supporting it in any other way.
The way you’re wording your answers doesn’t smack of someone “hoping they’re right”, it’s much more someone who believes they’re right. Sadly, he isn’t right amd you’re backing a loser. I don't see me supporting it in any other way.
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..
Does that help you?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:
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..
Does that help you?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..
sonnenschein3000 said:
Had he pleaded guilty by post (assuming he wants to plead guilty) with a full apology letter, what would have probably happened to him at 50 in a 110?
Would he have gotten 6pts + big fine, or a <56 day driving ban, or would they have tried to charge him for dangerous driving as well?
It’s all guesswork, but he definitely wouldn’t have been charged with two different offences for the same incident. Would he have gotten 6pts + big fine, or a <56 day driving ban, or would they have tried to charge him for dangerous driving as well?
My guess would be, his letter wouldn't matter and the court would defer the case and ask him to attend with any view to disqualification. What he gets for that amd a fine is based on what agtlaw posts a lot, but I’d reckon it’d be towards the top end of the scale for punishment.
http://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/3/25/speeding-...
ghe13rte said:
There has been several cases where a keeper who has not nominated a driver has been charged and convicted of both fail to comply with S172 and with 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.
No the court cannot come to that conclusion at all, simply cannot. Have a read of Elliot v Loake which establishes what would be needed.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.
The Rookie said:
ghe13rte said:
There has been several cases where a keeper who has not nominated a driver has been charged and convicted of both fail to comply with S172 and with 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.
No the court cannot come to that conclusion at all, simply cannot. Have a read of Elliot v Loake which establishes what would be needed.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.
As I am told they haven’t been dual charged - purely for failing to name driver.
In my view - and perhaps somewhat draconian (and accept for pool cars company secretary picks up points if don’t know who was driving) The penalty for speeding offence falls back to RK if no effort made to suggest different or plausible evidence to show they weren’t the driver, parallel in many ways that if a drunk driver refuses to give a sample they are automatically assumed to be over limit and charged accordingly.
In my view - and perhaps somewhat draconian (and accept for pool cars company secretary picks up points if don’t know who was driving) The penalty for speeding offence falls back to RK if no effort made to suggest different or plausible evidence to show they weren’t the driver, parallel in many ways that if a drunk driver refuses to give a sample they are automatically assumed to be over limit and charged accordingly.
jwo said:
..and accept for pool cars company secretary picks up points if don’t know who was driving..
No they don't.jwo said:
..if a drunk driver refuses to give a sample they are automatically assumed to be over limit and charged accordingly.
Again, not correct.If a person fails to co-operate with either a preliminary or specimen test, they commit an offence completely separate to drink / drug driving.
cmaguire said:
Very smug. Congratulations, you no doubt fit in well here.
I'm smug/you're selfish - round and round we go, sticks and stones old boy.However- what is incontrovertible is that you're a scofflaw who may end up killing someone wholly blameless simply because you have no self-control.
I hope that never happens, but if it does I hope that your posts on this forum are taken into consideration.
Why don't you do everyone a favour and hand in your licence until such a time as you reach maturity?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff