Shropshire Star - Pensioner wins speed trap fight
Discussion
Just reporting this as the paper says it.......
Farmer Tom Harrison claims to have found a loophole alleging the onus is on the prosecution to prove who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.
The CPS confirmed that the case had been dropped after Mr Harrison wrote to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police saying it could have been any member of his family who was driving when his car was caught on camera travelling at 70 in a 60 in September 2001. He added he was entitled under human rights legislation not to incriminate himself or anyone else.
The case had gone before the magistrates in March last year but the prosecution had not produced any evidence.
He is currently going through the same procedue to oppose two more speeding fines.
"These camera cannot identify the driver so that is why they send these forms out asking you to identify and incriminate yourself"
A CPS spokesman said they could now go after the registered keeper of the vehicle for failing to identify who was driving at the time.
Farmer Tom Harrison claims to have found a loophole alleging the onus is on the prosecution to prove who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.
The CPS confirmed that the case had been dropped after Mr Harrison wrote to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police saying it could have been any member of his family who was driving when his car was caught on camera travelling at 70 in a 60 in September 2001. He added he was entitled under human rights legislation not to incriminate himself or anyone else.
The case had gone before the magistrates in March last year but the prosecution had not produced any evidence.
He is currently going through the same procedue to oppose two more speeding fines.
"These camera cannot identify the driver so that is why they send these forms out asking you to identify and incriminate yourself"
A CPS spokesman said they could now go after the registered keeper of the vehicle for failing to identify who was driving at the time.
regmolehusband said:
Just reporting this as the paper says it.......
Farmer Tom Harrison claims to have found a loophole alleging the onus is on the prosecution to prove who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.
The CPS confirmed that the case had been dropped after Mr Harrison wrote to the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police saying it could have been any member of his family who was driving when his car was caught on camera travelling at 70 in a 60 in September 2001. He added he was entitled under human rights legislation not to incriminate himself or anyone else.
The case had gone before the magistrates in March last year but the prosecution had not produced any evidence.
He is currently going through the same procedue to oppose two more speeding fines.
"These camera cannot identify the driver so that is why they send these forms out asking you to identify and incriminate yourself"
A CPS spokesman said they could now go after the registered keeper of the vehicle for failing to identify who was driving at the time.
I'm suspicious. Let's see the link.
regmolehusband said:
try this www.shropshirestar.com/artman/publish/article_3681.shtml
Brilliant RMH!
I appologise for doubting you!
This really could be a breakthrough!
"Carol Doherty, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said she could not comment on individual cases but the CPS had achieved many successful prosecutions through photographic evidence."
yeah right! Name ONE!
"She added that a separate charge could be brought against the 'registered keeper' of a vehicle for failing to identify who the driver was at any given time."
I don't understand this bit. Wasn't the chap in court the registered owner of the vehicle? Please explain!
Also notice the word "could". In CPS speak does this means "I am talking b0ll0cks"
Finally, isn't it too late to bring a separate charge?
yeah right! Name ONE!
"She added that a separate charge could be brought against the 'registered keeper' of a vehicle for failing to identify who the driver was at any given time."
I don't understand this bit. Wasn't the chap in court the registered owner of the vehicle? Please explain!
Also notice the word "could". In CPS speak does this means "I am talking b0ll0cks"
Finally, isn't it too late to bring a separate charge?
I've got off two sets of points so far by saying that I didn't know who was driving at the time of the offence and suggested we discuss it in court. The police force have backed down in both cases since as far as I am aware, under British law you are innocent until proven guilty, and it's up to them to prove you're guilty, not you to prove you're innocent (although I'm prepared to be corrected on that).
This bothers me a bit. Does anyone know of any law that says that you can be prosecuted for being unable to identify the driver? If there is such a law, what would you be charged with, pressumably it would have to be perverting the course of justice. Not being funny, but what would the punishment be if found guilty of perverting the course of justice? I'm assuming you wouldn't get points on you license and would do community service or something else instead.
Are there any legal boffins out there that could advise?
regmolehusband said:
A CPS spokesman said they could now go after the registered keeper of the vehicle for failing to identify who was driving at the time.
This bothers me a bit. Does anyone know of any law that says that you can be prosecuted for being unable to identify the driver? If there is such a law, what would you be charged with, pressumably it would have to be perverting the course of justice. Not being funny, but what would the punishment be if found guilty of perverting the course of justice? I'm assuming you wouldn't get points on you license and would do community service or something else instead.
Are there any legal boffins out there that could advise?
It's the sign of a vindictive, vengeful mechanism that prosecutes for something new when the original charge can't be made to stick.
Phew, just as well they can ask a mugger to identify themselves based on blurry CCTY footage, and put them inside for refusing to acknowledge it was them !!! I feel so much safer now.
Phew, just as well they can ask a mugger to identify themselves based on blurry CCTY footage, and put them inside for refusing to acknowledge it was them !!! I feel so much safer now.
No 1 said:
This bothers me a bit. Does anyone know of any law that says that you can be prosecuted for being unable to identify the driver? If there is such a law, what would you be charged with, pressumably it would have to be perverting the course of justice. Not being funny, but what would the punishment be if found guilty of perverting the course of justice? I'm assuming you wouldn't get points on you license and would do community service or something else instead.
Are there any legal boffins out there that could advise?
Well who was the registered keeper in this case? My understanding was that a car is driven through a camera trap. The police check the film and get the registration of the car concerned. The police write to the Registered Keeper asking them who was driving. The Registered keeper does 1 of 2 things: -
1. Replies signing the form telling the police who was driving. The police then issue a NIP to the driver and often offer to settle for £60 and 3 points
2. The registered keeper ignores the request, completes the form saying they don't know who was driving, or complete it and don't sign it. Whichever the police then threaten prosecution for non-completion. It think it is in S172 of the Road Traffuc Act that one has to supply certain information.
I might be guilty of conspiracy theory but I always wondered if there was more than met the eye behind the case where ACC Hampshire was done for failing to identify the driver of a Hants plain clothes car caught on camera.
Seemed like a good scam to get precedent case law on the books for failing to identify.
Seemed like a good scam to get precedent case law on the books for failing to identify.
blueyes said:It's because they can't just add a new offence whilst in court dealing with charge(s) brought against the defendent, they have to follow due process.... so if they are going to follow up on it they'll have to go back to court sometime in the future.
"She added that a separate charge could be brought against the 'registered keeper' of a vehicle for failing to identify who the driver was at any given time."
I don't understand this bit. Wasn't the chap in court the registered owner of the vehicle? Please explain!
I'm sure this will be most valuable use of CPS resource who obviously have so much free time on their hands, half of them should be made redundant and the other half take a paycut
MC
I too am a little confused. If he wrote to the Chief BiB saying he was unable to identify who was driving and under European Human Rights isn't obliged to incriminate himself or anyone else - and it was presumably on this point that CPS dropped the case, how on earth can CPS then expect to bring him (the registered keeper?) to court for failing to identify the driver when under European Human Rights he isn't obliged to incriminate himself etc....
sidekick said:
I too am a little confused. If he wrote to the Chief BiB saying he was unable to identify who was driving and under European Human Rights isn't obliged to incriminate himself or anyone else - and it was presumably on this point that CPS dropped the case, how on earth can CPS then expect to bring him (the registered keeper?) to court for failing to identify the driver when under European Human Rights he isn't obliged to incriminate himself etc....
Isn't this the basis of the Idris Francis case going to Strasbourg? Its on the ABD website, no result yet...
sidekick said:
I too am a little confused. If he wrote to the Chief BiB saying he was unable to identify who was driving and under European Human Rights isn't obliged to incriminate himself or anyone else - and it was presumably on this point that CPS dropped the case, how on earth can CPS then expect to bring him (the registered keeper?) to court for failing to identify the driver when under European Human Rights he isn't obliged to incriminate himself etc....
They're not asking him to incriminate anyone, they're doing him because he didn't try to provide the evidence.
It's a minor difference, but in Law these things can be made to matter.
If he had requested a photo and on that basis told them he was unable to identify the driver he would now be scott free, as he can be shown to have tried to assist the police in their enquiries.
His refusal to be seen to help them will be his downfall.
He is now in the firing line of a 1000 pound fine and 3 points.
My understanding is as follows.
Under s.172 of the 1988 act you are obliged to give details of the driver. However, sub-section 3 says that 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, the rider of the cycle was.
Hence a simple refusal to provide the information makes him guilty of the absolute offence in law. Human rights arguments have been held to be ineffective hence he gets prosecuted. He needs to strive valiently (yet fail) to identify the driver. For example, two people drove that day and I asked them both which one used the A452, but they declined to answer my question.
Under s.172 of the 1988 act you are obliged to give details of the driver. However, sub-section 3 says that 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, the rider of the cycle was.
Hence a simple refusal to provide the information makes him guilty of the absolute offence in law. Human rights arguments have been held to be ineffective hence he gets prosecuted. He needs to strive valiently (yet fail) to identify the driver. For example, two people drove that day and I asked them both which one used the A452, but they declined to answer my question.
so let me get this right,
hypothetically
i am on away from home with 3 mates, we are all insured to drive said vehicle, my wife who is the reg keeper is at home.
the car gets flashed by a gatso.
i under e.h.r cant and shouldn't incriminate my self or my friends.
my wife asks for photographic evidence, but its a gatso it doesn't show the driver, she has no way of knowing who was driving but has tried to find out who it was.
result we have won ? true or false ,is this the case.
hypothetically
i am on away from home with 3 mates, we are all insured to drive said vehicle, my wife who is the reg keeper is at home.
the car gets flashed by a gatso.
i under e.h.r cant and shouldn't incriminate my self or my friends.
my wife asks for photographic evidence, but its a gatso it doesn't show the driver, she has no way of knowing who was driving but has tried to find out who it was.
result we have won ? true or false ,is this the case.
To reduce the penalty inccurred when speeding.
Don't use your car, or any vehicle you are entitled to drive.
It would appear the penalty for Taking without consent, or Aggravated vehicle taking (ie crash it) is far less than being in a hurry, or enjoying your car on an open dual carriageway, with wide sweeping bends and an unmarked car in a layby.
Not that I am bitter and twisted or anything of the sort.
Don't use your car, or any vehicle you are entitled to drive.
It would appear the penalty for Taking without consent, or Aggravated vehicle taking (ie crash it) is far less than being in a hurry, or enjoying your car on an open dual carriageway, with wide sweeping bends and an unmarked car in a layby.
Not that I am bitter and twisted or anything of the sort.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff