Court date for failing to identify driver
Discussion
Hi - quick question or 2 - a mate has a court date for failing to identify the driver in a case where his partner filled out but did not sign the NIP. They are not pushing for a speeding conviction.
Which is the best case setting precidence which would act in his favour given these circumstances?
Also, would you recommend a soliciter or to go alone with the transcripts of the case?
I'm thinking Pickford-v-Crown
"The Court accepted that there was a lacuna in the law in that although the registered keeper is under a duty to identify the driver he is not required to make a witness statement to that effect. While this might be an unattractive finding it was not the Court's function to fill in or remedy defective legislation. This was the function of Parliament."
Which is the best case setting precidence which would act in his favour given these circumstances?
Also, would you recommend a soliciter or to go alone with the transcripts of the case?
I'm thinking Pickford-v-Crown
"The Court accepted that there was a lacuna in the law in that although the registered keeper is under a duty to identify the driver he is not required to make a witness statement to that effect. While this might be an unattractive finding it was not the Court's function to fill in or remedy defective legislation. This was the function of Parliament."
Contact Paul Smith at SafeSpeed. He'll give you chapter and verse on the findings of Judge Owen and the Dwight Yorke case, which appears to be similar to yours. Get a good solicitor with experience of these cases - look on Pepipoo's web-site - and this will all go away at a CPS pre-trial review. The motto here is "hang tough".
Cheers guys - I'll post an update after the case has been heard. The 'pleed guilty' date was Jan 17th, but it said they'll announce another date given a not guilty plee.
Interestingly in the stuff they've sent, there's a wittness statement from some guy at the ticket office stating that he DID NOT RECEIVE THE NIP by June 06. Also attached is a copy of the unsigned NIP with a stamp from the ticket office of 04/06. Almost wish I was a lawyer to get this guy on the stand looking stupid!!!
They've also sent loads of stuff from the scamera partnership on calibration of the equipment and on how they took the reading. Very interesting, but I'm not sure how it's of any relevence to a failing to identify the driver case?!
Interestingly in the stuff they've sent, there's a wittness statement from some guy at the ticket office stating that he DID NOT RECEIVE THE NIP by June 06. Also attached is a copy of the unsigned NIP with a stamp from the ticket office of 04/06. Almost wish I was a lawyer to get this guy on the stand looking stupid!!!
They've also sent loads of stuff from the scamera partnership on calibration of the equipment and on how they took the reading. Very interesting, but I'm not sure how it's of any relevence to a failing to identify the driver case?!
dont need to be a lawer to make him look a twat
do it m8
They've also sent loads of stuff from the scamera partnership on calibration of the equipment and on how they took the reading. Very interesting, but I'm not sure how it's of any relevence to a failing to identify the driver case?!
its not relovent if its just a fail to sign case
but its handy for wasing time
>> Edited by Roadrage on Tuesday 23 December 01:57
do it m8
They've also sent loads of stuff from the scamera partnership on calibration of the equipment and on how they took the reading. Very interesting, but I'm not sure how it's of any relevence to a failing to identify the driver case?!
its not relovent if its just a fail to sign case
but its handy for wasing time
>> Edited by Roadrage on Tuesday 23 December 01:57
Pickford -v- Crown is not an authority for S172.
1) It was a speeding case.
2) It was only the Crown Court.
By all means throw it in, but don't expect it to do very much.
Thev prosecution will cite DPP -v- Broomfield.
1) It was a speeding case.
2) It was only the Crown Court.
By all means throw it in, but don't expect it to do very much.
Thev prosecution will cite DPP -v- Broomfield.
So it looks like there is no precident for this case - There was no attempt to convict Yorke of failing to identify the driver, so this area is still unclear.
Surely there must be somebody attempting to take this exact issue to the CA / HoL to set precident?! Without clear case law, I can't see how my friend can be convicted s172 when he the driver has clearly been identified and the CPS have provided evidence proving that they were in receipt of this.
Is this the first case of anybody on this forum where the CPS are only going for failing to identify the driver or has anybody else been there to date?
Surely there must be somebody attempting to take this exact issue to the CA / HoL to set precident?! Without clear case law, I can't see how my friend can be convicted s172 when he the driver has clearly been identified and the CPS have provided evidence proving that they were in receipt of this.
Is this the first case of anybody on this forum where the CPS are only going for failing to identify the driver or has anybody else been there to date?
onedsla said:
Surely there must be somebody attempting to take this exact issue to the CA / HoL to set precident?! Without clear case law, I can't see how my friend can be convicted s172 when he the driver has clearly been identified and the CPS have provided evidence proving that they were in receipt of this.
Idris Francis was convicted of S172 for not signing at Aldershot Magistrates' Court on 20th Oct. '03. He has lodged his appeal with the High Court. It is expected to be heard in February, I believe. Until then, it is a lottery, some win, some lose.
Probably best not to try and delay, though. That way you get two bites of the cherry.
I.e., a) you can win before Idris loses (if he does).
b) if you lose, ask the clerk for permission to appeal 'out of time' (assuming that it would be too late) pending the outcome of Idris's appeal. If he wins, you can get it undone.
onedsla said:
Is this the first case of anybody on this forum where the CPS are only going for failing to identify the driver or has anybody else been there to date?
It seems to depend upon the area.
Some go for speeding only, some for S172 only, and some for both.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff