Conflict of opinion
Discussion
(trying again as other post didn't get an answer)
Fred is driving Alice's car and speeds past a
Talivan
Alice receives a NIP - correctly returns the form with the named driver, Fred, on it.
Fred then denies he was driving - no proof, one person's word against another.
Where does the law stand?!
Fred is driving Alice's car and speeds past a
Talivan Alice receives a NIP - correctly returns the form with the named driver, Fred, on it.
Fred then denies he was driving - no proof, one person's word against another.
Where does the law stand?!
206xsi said:
(trying again as other post didn't get an answer)
Fred is driving Alice's car and speeds past a
Alice receives a NIP - correctly returns the form with the named driver, Fred, on it.
Fred then denies he was driving - no proof, one person's word against another.
Where does the law stand?!
Fred is summonsed and either has to plead guilty or not guilty. If he can provide evidence that he was somewhere else at the time, he will be aquitted or in fact someone else other than him was driving the car if he was actually in it.
So, what happens if Alice names Fred, he gets the NIP and in turn names Alice, who then presumably gets another NIP on which she names Fred? How far does this go before one or both get a summons or the CPS give up and drop the whole thing on the basis of lack of proper useable evidence? In reality, there is no evidence, surely.
And what if each time neither sign the NIP, or is that another matter still?
And what if each time neither sign the NIP, or is that another matter still?
Exactly my point - the law as I understand it presents a little pressure to the registered keeper. If the registered keeper does the correct thing and points the finger, how much can the law lean on the fingered individual? (ooer 
)
If someone accused me of shoplifting with no evidence and just a written statement that would never stand up in court...
How can they make the signed NIP stand up in court as hard-and-fast evidence?
(assuming photo evidence is poor etc)
I still have 0 points, but dammit I'm getting ready for them!
) If someone accused me of shoplifting with no evidence and just a written statement that would never stand up in court...
How can they make the signed NIP stand up in court as hard-and-fast evidence?
(assuming photo evidence is poor etc)
I still have 0 points, but dammit I'm getting ready for them!
The registered keeper is oblidged by law to help the authorities as much as he/she can, in order to identify the driver.
However helpful the reg. keeper might be, sometimes it's just not possible to identify the driver with total certainty.
I've YET to see a clear frontal photo used as means of identification of the driver (for scamera purposes)
That's that.
However helpful the reg. keeper might be, sometimes it's just not possible to identify the driver with total certainty.
I've YET to see a clear frontal photo used as means of identification of the driver (for scamera purposes)
That's that.
Or what if Alice as regd keeper sends the NIP back uncompleted and unsigned with a letter agreeing she is the registered driver naming herself to the best of her recollection but stating she is not completly sure and Fred sends letter blaming himself as far as he can remeber too. Both ask for photos to help. Photo comes as usual showing an unrecognisable blur in the driver's seat.
Alice has discharged the obligation under S172 and there is no obliogatioon to use the scamera partnerships craftily drafted NIP forms anyway - I never do.
Either the CPS drop it or they put a pin in and summons one of them. When the day in court comes up say Fred pleads not guilty, citing Alices letter as evidence that he cannot beyond reasonable doubt be convicted.
Since the CPS have no other evidence the prosecution fails or if as sometimes happens the mags see their function as rubber stamping the CPS and convict there is a cast iron case for appeal.
Does anyone know of this having been used ?
Alice has discharged the obligation under S172 and there is no obliogatioon to use the scamera partnerships craftily drafted NIP forms anyway - I never do.
Either the CPS drop it or they put a pin in and summons one of them. When the day in court comes up say Fred pleads not guilty, citing Alices letter as evidence that he cannot beyond reasonable doubt be convicted.
Since the CPS have no other evidence the prosecution fails or if as sometimes happens the mags see their function as rubber stamping the CPS and convict there is a cast iron case for appeal.
Does anyone know of this having been used ?
justme said:
I've YET to see a clear frontal photo used as means of identification of the driver (for scamera purposes)
And, indeed, this piece of legislation apparently gets in the way of doing it; www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm , although I don't think it has actually been tested in court yet.
Richard C said:
there is no obliogatioon to use the scamera partnerships craftily drafted NIP forms anyway
There is, DPP -v- Broomfield. This is a subject it actually does comment on, unlike signing.
Re. the 'confession' from both husband and wife.
This does seem a really good wheeze.
If both deny the offence then the CPS know you're trying to get away with it. However, if you both offer to 'confess' as clearly it was one of you but you are not sure which one, you could ask the CPS to decide whose confession they wish to choose. Point out that you can't sign the confession as they may have other evidence and to sign one in error could be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
If they then chose one of you, they would, in effect, be indemnifying both from risk of perversion etc, but would probably not secure a conviction as there would be no real evidence except a very doubtful and unsigned 'confession'.
This does seem a really good wheeze.
If both deny the offence then the CPS know you're trying to get away with it. However, if you both offer to 'confess' as clearly it was one of you but you are not sure which one, you could ask the CPS to decide whose confession they wish to choose. Point out that you can't sign the confession as they may have other evidence and to sign one in error could be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
If they then chose one of you, they would, in effect, be indemnifying both from risk of perversion etc, but would probably not secure a conviction as there would be no real evidence except a very doubtful and unsigned 'confession'.
206XSi said:
I've not heard of that - but I have heard (urban myth?) of a car being pulled over with 2 occupants.
By the time BiB reached the car both occupants were in the rear - both said the other was the driver...
Apparently got away with it...
Indeed. The sickening thing was they were both drunk, and had mown down a bunch of people at a bus stop. As it was a serious offence, the "beyond reasonable doubt" thing kicked in, and neither could be convicted.
If it was a simple matter of speed, they'd have been forced to incriminate themselves. As it was serious, they had the right to silence.
Go figure.
madcop said:
Fred is summonsed and either has to plead guilty or not guilty. If he can provide evidence that he was somewhere else at the time, he will be aquitted or in fact someone else other than him was driving the car if he was actually in it.
Hate to query you mapcop but surely Fred would be niped before hand. If he was summoned with out his nip confession then the prosecution would have to prove he was driving. The nip statement from Alice that he was drive would surly be insufficient on its own for conviction, after all she could have lent him the car and he then let someone else drive. Unless she gave evidence in court that she had seen him driving I do not see how you could obtain a conviction.
tonybav said:
The nip statement from Alice that he was drive would surly be insufficient on its own for conviction, after all she could have lent him the car and he then let someone else drive. Unless she gave evidence in court that she had seen him driving I do not see how you could obtain a conviction.
The 3rd person would then be done for driving without insurance? Alice didn't give her permission for A.N.Other to drive the car...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff