Driver identification
Discussion
Morning all,
My car was recently gatsoed and the police have issued me the usual notice.
Problem is I dont know who was driving (honestly). It could have been me or my other half. The photograph supplied by the traffic section doesn't help as it's a rearward shot.
I returned the notice saying I was unable to supply driver details but they're now threatening to prosecute me under section 172 of the RTA 1988.
Where do I stand? I'm holding up my hands and saying 'yes, it was my vehicle and one of us was driving', but if I really dont know who it was, then do I have to take the points myself simply because I'm the registered keeper?
Any and all advice welcomed.
Cheers,
Peter
ps 43mph in a 30 zone, civic type R with big seats so we cant see the driver from the back.
My car was recently gatsoed and the police have issued me the usual notice.
Problem is I dont know who was driving (honestly). It could have been me or my other half. The photograph supplied by the traffic section doesn't help as it's a rearward shot.
I returned the notice saying I was unable to supply driver details but they're now threatening to prosecute me under section 172 of the RTA 1988.
Where do I stand? I'm holding up my hands and saying 'yes, it was my vehicle and one of us was driving', but if I really dont know who it was, then do I have to take the points myself simply because I'm the registered keeper?
Any and all advice welcomed.
Cheers,
Peter
ps 43mph in a 30 zone, civic type R with big seats so we cant see the driver from the back.
Write back with a nice letter explaining that it was definately you or your wife driving, but that you really do now know which. Ask them to send any better quality photos they may have together with any other evidence which may help you to identify the driver. Appear as helpful as you can.
You could also ask them if they will just accept the name of either one of you, even though that may not be the correct name, and ask them which one of you they would prefer the 'confession' to come from and to confirm that, should any evidence come to light later which shows you to have inadvertently given the wrong name, then they will indemnify you and your wife from any prosecution for 'Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice'.
You could take a look at the Pepipoo web site for details of the PACE defence as well.
Failing that, use the 'Hamilton Defence' and take it to court.
You could also ask them if they will just accept the name of either one of you, even though that may not be the correct name, and ask them which one of you they would prefer the 'confession' to come from and to confirm that, should any evidence come to light later which shows you to have inadvertently given the wrong name, then they will indemnify you and your wife from any prosecution for 'Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice'.
You could take a look at the Pepipoo web site for details of the PACE defence as well.
Failing that, use the 'Hamilton Defence' and take it to court.
The law provides a statutory defence for people in your position. It's S172 paragraph 4, sometimes called "The Hamilton Defence". If the court believes you are telling the truth, you cannot be convicted.
The problem is that the courts now have a long history of ignoring the truth in these cases, and frankly it's become a gamble. Get over to Pepipoo where you'll find a load of folk who have been through the process.
www.pepipoo.com
I wish you the best of luck. I'm afraid you're going to need it.
The problem is that the courts now have a long history of ignoring the truth in these cases, and frankly it's become a gamble. Get over to Pepipoo where you'll find a load of folk who have been through the process.
www.pepipoo.com
I wish you the best of luck. I'm afraid you're going to need it.
Cooperman said:
Appear as helpful as you can.
You could also ask them if they will just accept the name of either one of you, even though that may not be the correct name, and ask them which one of you they would prefer the 'confession' to come from and to confirm that, should any evidence come to light later which shows you to have inadvertently given the wrong name, then they will indemnify you and your wife from any prosecution for 'Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice'.
I like that.
safespeed said:
The law provides a statutory defence for people in your position. It's S172 paragraph 4, sometimes called "The Hamilton Defence". If the court believes you are telling the truth, you cannot be convicted.
The problem is that the courts now have a long history of ignoring the truth in these cases, and frankly it's become a gamble. Get over to Pepipoo where you'll find a load of folk who have been through the process.
www.pepipoo.com
I wish you the best of luck. I'm afraid you're going to need it.
Paul is right....a gamble is what it's become...
Blame it on the guilt people who have lied through their teeth in the past claiming not to know who was driving......now, people like you, who really can't remember who was driving find themselves in a lose/lose situation.
A member on here recently got a £750 fine and 3 points for 'not remembering'.....
Street
£750?!
Scary stuff.
The temptation is just to stick my hand up and say "I'll take the points on my licence" as I dont need to drive for a living whereas my other half does and has 3 points already. Somehow that doesn't feel right though.
I think I'm going to just give them both our names, explain I really dont want to perjure myself my admitting to a crime I may not have committed, and see what they do next
Pete
Scary stuff.
The temptation is just to stick my hand up and say "I'll take the points on my licence" as I dont need to drive for a living whereas my other half does and has 3 points already. Somehow that doesn't feel right though.
I think I'm going to just give them both our names, explain I really dont want to perjure myself my admitting to a crime I may not have committed, and see what they do next
Pete
Streetcop said:
Paul is right....a gamble is what it's become...
Blame it on the guilt people who have lied through their teeth in the past claiming not to know who was driving......now, people like you, who really can't remember who was driving find themselves in a lose/lose situation.
Oh no. We have to blame the courts for not giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to honest people.
It is absolutely disgraceful.
Streetcop said:
The law provides a statutory defence for people in your position. It's S172 paragraph 4, sometimes called "The Hamilton Defence". If the court believes you are telling the truth, you cannot be convicted.
The problem is that the courts now have a long history of ignoring the truth in these cases, and frankly it's become a gamble. Get over to Pepipoo where you'll find a load of folk who have been through the process.
<a href="http://www.pepipoo.com">www.pepipoo.com</a>
I wish you the best of luck. I'm afraid you're going to need it.
Paul is right....a gamble is what it's become...
Blame it on the guilt people who have lied through their teeth in the past claiming not to know who was driving......now, people like you, who really can't remember who was driving find themselves in a lose/lose situation.
A member on here recently got a £750 fine and 3 points for 'not remembering'.....
Street
SC,
How many times do I have to tell you that I wasn't done for "not remembering". I gave my name, address and licence number but simply didn't sign the s172/NIP.
All according the current Road Traffic Act.
Why didn't the BiB interview me under PACE rules ?
BTW, the case used (Idris Francis) to find me guilty had not even been decide at the time of my 'offence'.
BTW, you forgot to mention the £275 costs I had to pay (£5 more than the prosecution asked for) to cover the extra time the Prosecution and Mags needed to read the case law which they should have known by heart ! :-(
SC & Paul,
The legislation, such as it is, has removed the ancient right to silence.
If you tell someone that unless they confess they will be, effectively, guilty of failing to confess, then we should not be surprised if they then react by being economical with the truth.
It's one thing to know someone has committed an offence, and another to provide the evidence to convict in a court.
Every other alleged offence still has a right to silence (perhaps excepting some terrorist things) except for the PBD (poor bloody driver).
Any law has to earn the respect of 'Joe Public' and be seen to be fair and in-line with out traditions of freedom, and the speed camera laws simply have not and will not.
I can only speak personally here, but this requirement to self-incriminate is the basis of my objection to speed-camera enforcement, plus the cash-collection element, of course. The fact that the subsequent reduction in TrafPol has allowed other, more serious traffic offences, to flourish is another matter entirely.
The legislation, such as it is, has removed the ancient right to silence.
If you tell someone that unless they confess they will be, effectively, guilty of failing to confess, then we should not be surprised if they then react by being economical with the truth.
It's one thing to know someone has committed an offence, and another to provide the evidence to convict in a court.
Every other alleged offence still has a right to silence (perhaps excepting some terrorist things) except for the PBD (poor bloody driver).
Any law has to earn the respect of 'Joe Public' and be seen to be fair and in-line with out traditions of freedom, and the speed camera laws simply have not and will not.
I can only speak personally here, but this requirement to self-incriminate is the basis of my objection to speed-camera enforcement, plus the cash-collection element, of course. The fact that the subsequent reduction in TrafPol has allowed other, more serious traffic offences, to flourish is another matter entirely.
lunarscope said:
SC,
How many times do I have to tell you that I wasn't done for "not remembering". I gave my name, address and licence number but simply didn't sign the s172/NIP.
All according the current Road Traffic Act.
Why didn't the BiB interview me under PACE rules ?
BTW, the case used (Idris Francis) to find me guilty had not even been decide at the time of my 'offence'.
BTW, you forgot to mention the £275 costs I had to pay (£5 more than the prosecution asked for) to cover the extra time the Prosecution and Mags needed to read the case law which they should have known by heart ! :-(
Sorry...my alzheimer's kicking in again...
It's just that the £750 is such a page stopper....
Cooperman said:
SC & Paul,
The legislation, such as it is, has removed the ancient right to silence.
If you tell someone that unless they confess they will be, effectively, guilty of failing to confess, then we should not be surprised if they then react by being economical with the truth.
So are you saying that the erosion of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" principle in courts is a fairly direct result of the violation of the right to silence principle?
Interesting idea...
mereditp said:
They sent me the photos already, after I filled in the original notice saying I couldn't name the drive.
It's a rubbish rear 3/4 shot. You cant even see anyone in the car, let alone who is driving.
pete
You're f
ked, mate. There is no justice for normal, respectable people.
Chavs and scrotes simply get a wrist slapping 'cos they are scum and therefore can't help it.
You should have seen the scum in the waiting room at the Mags court when I was done for s172. I was there in my best suit, shiny shoes, briefcase, etc. whereas most of the other 'customers' were in shell suits/sports gear, shorts, baseball caps, etc.
FFS, a cheap suit can be bought for the price of a pair of Nike trainers. If I had known, I'd have put on 'fancy dress' and got off with 'ten minutes of sitting quietly at the back of the Court'.
lunarscope said:
There is no justice for normal, respectable people.
Chavs and scrotes simply get a wrist slapping 'cos they are scum and therefore can't help it.
You should have seen the scum in the waiting room at the Mags court when I was done for s172. I was there in my best suit, shiny shoes, briefcase, etc. whereas most of the other 'customers' were in shell suits/sports gear, shorts, baseball caps, etc.
FFS, a cheap suit can be bought for the price of a pair of Nike trainers. If I had known, I'd have put on 'fancy dress' and got off with 'ten minutes of sitting quietly at the back of the Court'.
I have to agree with you 100%......
No wonder there is no repect for the courts...they are the ones feeling sheepish whilst the chavs stride about like they own the place...The only time the chavs settle down is when the police are there...(My town has a policy of zero tolerance in public buildings)....
Pity there wasn't enough BiB to have zero tolerance everywhere..when dealing with such miscreants...
Streetcop said:
I have to agree with you 100%......
No wonder there is no repect for the courts...they are the ones feeling sheepish whilst the chavs stride about like they own the place...The only time the chavs settle down is when the police are there...(My town has a policy of zero tolerance in public buildings)....
Pity there wasn't enough BiB to have zero tolerance everywhere..when dealing with such miscreants...
They don't always quiet down in the presence of BiB, either.
In the 'phone box incident, I was with the GiB who attended as she was asking a couple of teenage lads (normal lads, not scum) if they knew who had done it and one started mouthing off that the damage was already there (I saw the chav do it, only 10 minutes previously) and that I was lying. As I was explaining to the GiB he continued to talk boll
ks and she said nothing. In the end I had to tell him to "shut it" (Sweeney style). Well, what can we do about it ?
safespeed said:
SC & Paul,
The legislation, such as it is, has removed the ancient right to silence.
If you tell someone that unless they confess they will be, effectively, guilty of failing to confess, then we should not be surprised if they then react by being economical with the truth.
So are you saying that the erosion of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" principle in courts is a fairly direct result of the violation of the right to silence principle?
Interesting idea...
The Right to Silence and the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" have not been eroded as they still exist elsewhere in law.
What we have regarding S172 law is a highly politicised issue where in reality there is no way of determining the driver identity unless the driver is honest and admits it, or the driver is stopped by the cops and his identity determined on the spot.
When this legislation was being written it was obvious the only way to make it work was to include the draconian "confess and be punished or do not confess and be punished" thus ensuring those committing the crime get punished whilst accepting a whole load of innocents get caught up in the same net.
This criminalisation of innocents is the price the Gov. have accepted inorder to make the Gatso solution, and all it stands for (revenue generation, political point scoring with the anti-car brigades, reduction in cost of Traf Police), work.
Whilst this Gov. may not have introduced the Gatso, it has certainly seen to it that it dominates the policy on policing of the roads at the expense of the police themselves.
lunarscope said:
They don't always quiet down in the presence of BiB, either.
In the 'phone box incident, I was with the GiB who attended as she was asking a couple of teenage lads (normal lads, not scum) if they knew who had done it and one started mouthing off that the damage was already there (I saw the chav do it, only 10 minutes previously) and that I was lying. As I was explaining to the GiB he continued to talk boll
Well, what can we do about it ?
You'd have seen a different policing style if I'd have attended...
The GiB you describe is another example of the standard of police officers who are being recruited. They are social workers, diversity experts, political correct fanatics....
It's all going to end in tears....the dinosaurs are going to become extinct again...
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff