The Old S172 Chestnut...Legal Eagles please...
Discussion
Dear all - hope you're all well and not facing speeding proceedings in the coming weeks! :-)
A hypothetical question for our legal eagles and BiBs if I may, particularly those in Scotland...
Suppose Person A was the registered keeper of a vehicle which was video'd by a Camera Van on a NSL single carriageway road at between 86 and 89mph, and subsequently sent a NIP. On examination of the 'photographic evidence' the driver cannot be identified. Suppose also that Person A had his friend Person B with him that day, and they both took turns driving as it was a long trip down south...and that as a result, they genuinely don't know who was driving at the time the alleged offence took place. So person A employs a solicitor for advice. The advice is, that the speed recorded is likely to result in a Summons rather than a Fixed Penalty and to send the camera partnership/Police details of all other potential drivers during that time. And then if it gets to court, try to persuade them that all due diligence has been taken to identify the driver but it is still unknown. Furthermore, hope that it doesn't get that far and that the Partnership/Police drop it when the doubt as to the drivers identity is made clear.
Question is, what happens with respect to the friend Person B at this point. Will he be sent another NIP? Person A's brief advised that under S172, you cannot answer "I don't remember". You're apparently forced to either admit or deny. Also, Person A's solicitor said that there's a possibility of a policeman being sent out to Person A and B's houses to interview them individually. Does this happen in practise? Person A's solicitor has been particularly unclear on this point...and I've heard some disturbing stories where both people denied until they were both eventually summoned to court ... and in one case both got points and fined!
Does anyone have any opinions on the above? Is the latter outcome a likely one? In the event of a police interview, what will the questions be?
And before anyone says it, we've already been on Pepipoo...
Cheers,
J.
A hypothetical question for our legal eagles and BiBs if I may, particularly those in Scotland...
Suppose Person A was the registered keeper of a vehicle which was video'd by a Camera Van on a NSL single carriageway road at between 86 and 89mph, and subsequently sent a NIP. On examination of the 'photographic evidence' the driver cannot be identified. Suppose also that Person A had his friend Person B with him that day, and they both took turns driving as it was a long trip down south...and that as a result, they genuinely don't know who was driving at the time the alleged offence took place. So person A employs a solicitor for advice. The advice is, that the speed recorded is likely to result in a Summons rather than a Fixed Penalty and to send the camera partnership/Police details of all other potential drivers during that time. And then if it gets to court, try to persuade them that all due diligence has been taken to identify the driver but it is still unknown. Furthermore, hope that it doesn't get that far and that the Partnership/Police drop it when the doubt as to the drivers identity is made clear.
Question is, what happens with respect to the friend Person B at this point. Will he be sent another NIP? Person A's brief advised that under S172, you cannot answer "I don't remember". You're apparently forced to either admit or deny. Also, Person A's solicitor said that there's a possibility of a policeman being sent out to Person A and B's houses to interview them individually. Does this happen in practise? Person A's solicitor has been particularly unclear on this point...and I've heard some disturbing stories where both people denied until they were both eventually summoned to court ... and in one case both got points and fined!
Does anyone have any opinions on the above? Is the latter outcome a likely one? In the event of a police interview, what will the questions be?
And before anyone says it, we've already been on Pepipoo...
Cheers,
J.
Edited by jezzaaa on Wednesday 19th December 10:49
Friends of mine did this.
They were snapped on the A1 by a scamera and the NIP was sent to the registered keeper. As the two of them had shared the driving they claimed that they had swapped on several occasions (the drive was London-Leeds) and as such they had no idea who was actually at the wheel at the time.
Case was dropped. It didn't get as far as court either. Letters appeared to be sufficient. They clearly identified themselves as hisband and wife who were both insured for the car but that they couldn't work out who was driving at the particular time.
They were snapped on the A1 by a scamera and the NIP was sent to the registered keeper. As the two of them had shared the driving they claimed that they had swapped on several occasions (the drive was London-Leeds) and as such they had no idea who was actually at the wheel at the time.
Case was dropped. It didn't get as far as court either. Letters appeared to be sufficient. They clearly identified themselves as hisband and wife who were both insured for the car but that they couldn't work out who was driving at the particular time.
Edited by E36GUY on Wednesday 19th December 11:27
E36GUY said:
Friends of mine did this.
They were snapped on the A1 by a scamera and the NIP was sent to the registered keeper. As the two of them had shared the driving they claimed that they had swapped on several occasions (the drive was London-Leeds) and as such they had no idea who was actually at the wheel at the time.
Case was dropped. It didn't get as far as court either. Letters appeared to be sufficient. They clearly identified themselves as hisband and wife who were both insured for the car but that they couldn't work out who was driving at the particular time.
Hi ya - yeah, that's what is hoped for of course...thing is it's worrying because I suspect the suspicion of the courts is high in these cases. Person B was insured, but only on his own Policy's "3rd Party cover for other vehicles". Person A let Person B drive at varying times on the journey south just because of nothing more than a friends trust and a desire not to do all the driving etc. The car concerned is quite valuable and I guess the court might take the view that it is unlikely that the owner would risk an expensive car in that way given that in the event of an accident, damage to the car wouldn't be covered. The protagonists are obviously not husband and wife and I wonder if the Scottish mags (or whatever they're called) will just be prejudiced on the basis of lots of people trying it on with this particular defense. I mean, it would be easy for anyone to call on a few mates in these circumstances and ask them if they mind being nominated as a potential driver. That's what worries the people concerned really...the fact that they'll go to court, give the simple circumstances and just not be believed. Obviously in theory there's this supposed burden of proof for the prosecution. The theory is that the RK should demonstrate reasonable diligence in trying to find who was driving in order to satisfy the S172 stipulations. In the event that it is still unknown, it comes down to the court believing the statements I guess. Thus the worry. I mean what are the chances of them just pinning the protagonists with PCoJ on the basis that the mags just don't believe what's being said?They were snapped on the A1 by a scamera and the NIP was sent to the registered keeper. As the two of them had shared the driving they claimed that they had swapped on several occasions (the drive was London-Leeds) and as such they had no idea who was actually at the wheel at the time.
Case was dropped. It didn't get as far as court either. Letters appeared to be sufficient. They clearly identified themselves as hisband and wife who were both insured for the car but that they couldn't work out who was driving at the particular time.
Edited by E36GUY on Wednesday 19th December 11:27
If it goes to court, don't lie. If you get rumbled it's perjury or perverting the course of justice. See what you can do by letter first. If it goes to court, you probably won't actually have to attend. Sending in a letter stating your case should be sufficient. Remember it's up to the authorities to prove who was driving not the other way around.
In the past I have spoken to these people http://www.motoringlaw.co.uk/ for advice who from memory say they have never (or hardly every) lost a S172 case in court!
The S172 doesn't allow you to say don't know. So when I had a "situation" (me RK, me def not driving) of genuinely not knowing, I sent the 172 back with an accompanying letter with reasonable detail about why it was not me (inc details of where I was at the time from my work diary) plus the details of who else could be driving (backed up with the insurance docs). I said I had asked the other potential drivers (as I had), but they couldn't be sure who was driving.
I then got another 172 notice with a photo, so I replied with the same info already provided.
The other two drivers then both got 172 notices and replied about their specific circs (it's only the RK that has to do diligence on the other poss drivers) which were as I had described twice.
I then got the standard "we are dropping it this one time only, dont do it again" letter. Which was a good result as we actually could not be certain who was driving.
HTH (it was in engerland BTW)
Bert
PS the letter also (incorrectly) told me I had a legal obligation to keep a written driver log!
The S172 doesn't allow you to say don't know. So when I had a "situation" (me RK, me def not driving) of genuinely not knowing, I sent the 172 back with an accompanying letter with reasonable detail about why it was not me (inc details of where I was at the time from my work diary) plus the details of who else could be driving (backed up with the insurance docs). I said I had asked the other potential drivers (as I had), but they couldn't be sure who was driving.
I then got another 172 notice with a photo, so I replied with the same info already provided.
The other two drivers then both got 172 notices and replied about their specific circs (it's only the RK that has to do diligence on the other poss drivers) which were as I had described twice.
I then got the standard "we are dropping it this one time only, dont do it again" letter. Which was a good result as we actually could not be certain who was driving.
HTH (it was in engerland BTW)
Bert
PS the letter also (incorrectly) told me I had a legal obligation to keep a written driver log!
jezzaaa said:
Hi ya - yeah, that's what is hoped for of course...thing is it's worrying because I suspect the suspicion of the courts is high in these cases.
Institionally they are encouraged to treat such defendants as liarsjezzaaa said:
Person B was insured, but only on his own Policy's "3rd Party cover for other vehicles". Person A let Person B drive at varying times on the journey south just because of nothing more than a friends trust and a desire not to do all the driving etc. The car concerned is quite valuable and I guess the court might take the view that it is unlikely that the owner would risk an expensive car in that way given that in the event of an accident, damage to the car wouldn't be covered.
Completely irrelevant. If Person B is legally insured it is at the sole discretion of Person A whether he is permitted to drive. No offence. No enquiry about insurance at this stage either. they are only after your money for the easy rap.jezzaaa said:
The protagonists are obviously not husband and wife and I wonder if the Scottish mags (or whatever they're called) will just be prejudiced on the basis of lots of people trying it on with this particular defense. I mean, it would be easy for anyone to call on a few mates in these circumstances and ask them if they mind being nominated as a potential driver. That's what worries the people concerned really...the fact that they'll go to court, give the simple circumstances and just not be believed. Obviously in theory there's this supposed burden of proof for the prosecution. The theory is that the RK should demonstrate reasonable diligence in trying to find who was driving in order to satisfy the S172 stipulations. In the event that it is still unknown, it comes down to the court believing the statements I guess. Thus the worry. I mean what are the chances of them just pinning the protagonists with PCoJ on the basis that the mags just don't believe what's being said?
It is down to the RK to respond to the S172 within 28 days by naming himself ( with addresses )and Person B as the drivers on or around the time alleged on the NIP. Stating that ( if true ) he and Person B had discussed who was at the wheel ( giving details if possible) but had been unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt. In the accompanying letter request the partnership forward photos or any other information that might assist the RK to help with the enquiry.This has happened to me and after a lot of threats and bluster it was dropped at the last minute.
It is necessary to answer a S172 charge, ignoring it is not an option. It is not and cannot be a legal requirement to ‘remember’ everything. It is also not a legal requirement for individuals in a private car to maintain records as to who is behind the wheel at any time
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff