It wasnt me it was him/her - how is this allowed to happen?
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
Car KO's cyclist in hit and run
Police identify it was one of 2 people driving
Neither will say who it was which seems a depressingly common defence
Has the time come to just charge them both in this scenario?
numtumfutunch said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...
Car KO's cyclist in hit and run
Police identify it was one of 2 people driving
Neither will say who it was which seems a depressingly common defence
Has the time come to just charge them both in this scenario?
There were 2 people eligible to drive but that does not mean that another unknown person could have been the actual driver. The problem is that without knowing who the actual driver was, what evidence would the CPS give to convict one of the 2 suspects?Car KO's cyclist in hit and run
Police identify it was one of 2 people driving
Neither will say who it was which seems a depressingly common defence
Has the time come to just charge them both in this scenario?
The report does say that the guy to who the vehicle was hired received 6 point and a small fine for failing to provide driver details, so they didn't get off scott free.
You can't prosecute someone for something you think they might know but aren't telling you. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and it shouldn't rely on self-incrimination to convict.
It's a bit s
tty really in this instance because most would believe it to be the case that one of the two people that were "eligible to drive the car" must have known who was responsible, and morally you'd like to think that one of them would admit to being at fault, but alas this has not been the case.
In spite of that I don't think you can start convicting people of offences you can't prove because you have a strong suspicion they did it. That's coincidentally why Failure to Furnish (which one of them was prosecuted for) exists, and has a fairly high penalty of 6 points, to disincentivise exactly this sort of behaviour. Unfortunately there will always be crimes like this, or ones more ... sympathetic like doing crazy 3 figure speeds... where "ignoring" the paperwork and accepting prosecution for FtF is the lesser of two likely punishments.
It's a bit s
tty really in this instance because most would believe it to be the case that one of the two people that were "eligible to drive the car" must have known who was responsible, and morally you'd like to think that one of them would admit to being at fault, but alas this has not been the case.In spite of that I don't think you can start convicting people of offences you can't prove because you have a strong suspicion they did it. That's coincidentally why Failure to Furnish (which one of them was prosecuted for) exists, and has a fairly high penalty of 6 points, to disincentivise exactly this sort of behaviour. Unfortunately there will always be crimes like this, or ones more ... sympathetic like doing crazy 3 figure speeds... where "ignoring" the paperwork and accepting prosecution for FtF is the lesser of two likely punishments.
_dobbo_ said:
Seems like joint enterprise would be a good way to discourage this kind of thing. Watch them suddenly remember who was driving when they are both charged.
"Simple association or accidental presence during a crime is insufficient for a charge under joint enterprise.". It would be tough to argue (prove) that happening to find yourself a passenger in the car with someone who commits a road traffic offence constitutes joint enterprise, I would've thought. IANAL though.It's a tricky one this, there is not really good solution.
Either:
A. Set a precedent, as long as they didn't see you, keep your mouth shut and you'll get away with it.
B. Assume/transfer guilt to another potentially innocent party.
Neither is really that palatable.
Much in the same way that failing to provide a breath sample has the same penalty as being pissed at the wheel. Could failing to identify the driver be changed mirror the punishment for whatever transgression took place. Would have to take into account pools cars, etc. but there are only a finite amount of people that could have been possibly driving the car.
Either:
A. Set a precedent, as long as they didn't see you, keep your mouth shut and you'll get away with it.
B. Assume/transfer guilt to another potentially innocent party.
Neither is really that palatable.
Much in the same way that failing to provide a breath sample has the same penalty as being pissed at the wheel. Could failing to identify the driver be changed mirror the punishment for whatever transgression took place. Would have to take into account pools cars, etc. but there are only a finite amount of people that could have been possibly driving the car.
Durzel said:
"Simple association or accidental presence during a crime is insufficient for a charge under joint enterprise.". It would be tough to argue (prove) that happening to find yourself a passenger in the car with someone who commits a road traffic offence constitutes joint enterprise, I would've thought. IANAL though.
This isn't that though - this is both potential drivers saying they can't remember if they were driving at the time.funkyrobot said:
What makes this different to a speeding offence? Is it the lack of a photograph?
If someone was caught speeding wearing a gorilla mask and two people had access to the vehicle, but both said it was neither, what happens with that?
Similar result - the registered keeper gets 6 points and fined for Failure to Furnish, which is what happened in this case.If someone was caught speeding wearing a gorilla mask and two people had access to the vehicle, but both said it was neither, what happens with that?
EskimoArapaho said:
Under-investigated?
Surely the scumbags' mobile phone network would reveal which of them was on that route at that time? If that evidence showed that both were in the car, and they still won't cough to it, they should both get done for PtCoJ.
I understand that the two eligible drivers had undeniable proof that they were elsewhere at the time of the event. I also understand that the vehicle had been supplied to them as an accident replacement. This could indicate that they "know the system" and could possibly have a network of bent lawyers, doctors, body repair shops etc, around them. Surely the scumbags' mobile phone network would reveal which of them was on that route at that time? If that evidence showed that both were in the car, and they still won't cough to it, they should both get done for PtCoJ.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Similar result - the registered keeper gets 6 points and fined for Failure to Furnish, which is what happened in this case.
The registered keeper is a leasing company. They did not get 6 points for failure to furnish. They had it contract hired to another vehicle rental company. They subsequently hired it to a fleet management company who hired it to an accident management/credit hire outfit, who gave it to the driver(s) of a vehicle that had been in a third party fault accident.I can confirm that the registered keeper of the vehicle in question has fulfilled their obligations in identifying who they supplied the vehicle to.
Edited by S11Steve on Wednesday 3rd February 15:35
vxr8mate said:
Durzel said:
You can't prosecute someone for something you think they might know but aren't telling you, unless that relates to a traffic offence that is. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and it shouldn't rely on self-incrimination to convict.
There, fixed that for you.* The CPS do seem on occasion to dual charge speeding (for example) and Failure to Furnish, but this seems to be done as a means for an accused to seize an opportunity to cop to the original offence and avoid 6 points
S11Steve said:
EskimoArapaho said:
Under-investigated?
Surely the scumbags' mobile phone network would reveal which of them was on that route at that time? If that evidence showed that both were in the car, and they still won't cough to it, they should both get done for PtCoJ.
I understand that he two eligible drivers had undeniable proof that they were elsewhere at the time of the event. I also understand that the vehicle had been supplied to them as an accident replacement. This would indicate that they "know the system" and could possibly have a network of bent lawyers, doctors, body repair shops etc, around them. Surely the scumbags' mobile phone network would reveal which of them was on that route at that time? If that evidence showed that both were in the car, and they still won't cough to it, they should both get done for PtCoJ.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Similar result - the registered keeper gets 6 points and fined for Failure to Furnish, which is what happened in this case.
The registered keeper is a leasing company. They did not get 6 points for failure to furnish. They had it contract hired to another vehicle rental company. They subsequently hired it to a fleet management company who hired it to an accident management/credit hire outfit, who gave it to the driver(s) of a vehicle that had been in a third party fault accident.I can confirm that the registered keeper of the vehicle in question has fulfilled their obligations in identifying who they supplied the vehicle to.
bbc said:
As a result, the prosecution for failing to stop and failing to report was discontinued. The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver detail
see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...Interesting comment from youtube:
Andrew Deighton said:
I was reading this on the BBC - I notice they have given anonymity to a 52 year old man convicted of failing to hand over the details of who the driver was - that's odd isn't it? a tv celebrity charged with shoplifting can be all over the BBC website before they are even tried. - but in this case a person guilty of obstructing justice is not named. Why anonymous for this type of crime?
Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Wednesday 3rd February 13:09
jesusbuiltmycar said:
According to the BBC someone got 6 points and fine £150
bbc said:
As a result, the prosecution for failing to stop and failing to report was discontinued. The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver detail
see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff