Failure to identify the driver of a vehicle 8(
Discussion
Guys
Any comments welcome here. Im up in court tommorrow as I 'failed to id the driver of my vehicle' during an alleged speeding offence. 3 people used my car on the day in question [moving my brother from his home to my mothers house]. I tried to ascertain the driver at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. I then asked in writing for a copy of the truvelo pic after taking more advice from my brother in law [police officer] to see if i could establish who was driving my car at the time. The pic was rubbish and so i wrote again requesting a better pic. They wrote back stating that i was in breach for failure...blah, blah.. and that they would pass this on to the prosecution unit to see if they would proceed. I then heard nothing for about 3 months {i assumed foolishly it had been dropped] at which point a summons appears!
Im up in court tommorrow, and am pleading not guilty....How the hell am i supposed to know who was driving??
Any comments would be usefull. Im really peeved about this but never been in a court room b4.
Regards
Rich
Northampton
PS. I have an RX7 and 6 points, will this go against me?
Any comments welcome here. Im up in court tommorrow as I 'failed to id the driver of my vehicle' during an alleged speeding offence. 3 people used my car on the day in question [moving my brother from his home to my mothers house]. I tried to ascertain the driver at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. I then asked in writing for a copy of the truvelo pic after taking more advice from my brother in law [police officer] to see if i could establish who was driving my car at the time. The pic was rubbish and so i wrote again requesting a better pic. They wrote back stating that i was in breach for failure...blah, blah.. and that they would pass this on to the prosecution unit to see if they would proceed. I then heard nothing for about 3 months {i assumed foolishly it had been dropped] at which point a summons appears!
Im up in court tommorrow, and am pleading not guilty....How the hell am i supposed to know who was driving??
Any comments would be usefull. Im really peeved about this but never been in a court room b4.
Regards
Rich
Northampton
PS. I have an RX7 and 6 points, will this go against me?
Sounds like you took every reasonable piece of advice, did the right thing etc.
I think you'll find this comes under the Hamiliton case ruling??.
Ask to see the evidence of who was driving, then you'll be able to comply. But you have already done this so you have in effect complied, but faied to be able to ID the driver.
I think you'll find there will be some knoweledgeable posts shortly.
Do a search for Hamilton on this forum
I think you'll find this comes under the Hamiliton case ruling??.
Ask to see the evidence of who was driving, then you'll be able to comply. But you have already done this so you have in effect complied, but faied to be able to ID the driver.
I think you'll find there will be some knoweledgeable posts shortly.
Do a search for Hamilton on this forum
Be honest and courteous and explain your situation to the court, explaining that you have tried to ascertain who the driver was (if you really have) and cross your fingers. I don't see how the can secure a conviction against you if it's as you described. It's up to them to provide the necessary evidence.
They cannot take your taste in cars or previous convictions into account when sentencing so don't worry about that. They can't say "he's sped before so it must've been him this time".
Good luck.
They cannot take your taste in cars or previous convictions into account when sentencing so don't worry about that. They can't say "he's sped before so it must've been him this time".
Good luck.
After consulting 2 different solicitors, they both pretty much deemed I should defend myself as having a 'brief' might not look too good.
I really appreciate your points everyone, i gotta say im winding myself up about this even though I dont see how i can own up to something which may not have been me.
Rich
I really appreciate your points everyone, i gotta say im winding myself up about this even though I dont see how i can own up to something which may not have been me.
Rich
The law, as written, only requires that you have shown 'reasonable diligence'.
However, in practice that won't be enough. You should attempt to show that you have excercised exceptional diligence.
If possible, bring the three other potential drivers as witnesses to back up your assertion that you had all discussed the matter (assuming that you had, of course) and no one was able to say for sure who was driving.
If they won't be any good though, don't bother.
Bring copies of your correspondence with the scammers about the picture.
Finally, say that you realised a declaration of which you were not certain, could lead to a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Therefore, you were at a loss as to what else you could do.
As to the Hamiltons, that was an aberration. Must be more to do with the magistrates' political allegiences than anything else.
That must be just about the only occassion where someone has got off a S172 by saying virtually, 'We dunno, sorry'.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Monday 19th April 13:26
However, in practice that won't be enough. You should attempt to show that you have excercised exceptional diligence.
If possible, bring the three other potential drivers as witnesses to back up your assertion that you had all discussed the matter (assuming that you had, of course) and no one was able to say for sure who was driving.
If they won't be any good though, don't bother.
Bring copies of your correspondence with the scammers about the picture.
Finally, say that you realised a declaration of which you were not certain, could lead to a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Therefore, you were at a loss as to what else you could do.
As to the Hamiltons, that was an aberration. Must be more to do with the magistrates' political allegiences than anything else.
That must be just about the only occassion where someone has got off a S172 by saying virtually, 'We dunno, sorry'.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Monday 19th April 13:26
Also bring your insurance docs if necessary to prove that others were insured to drive your car and any docs to back up your story about your brother moving house.
My cousin's boyfriend went to court for the same offence (albeit slightly different circumstances) and the CPS failed to bring any evidence so it got thrown out of court! He's now claiming expenses....
My cousin's boyfriend went to court for the same offence (albeit slightly different circumstances) and the CPS failed to bring any evidence so it got thrown out of court! He's now claiming expenses....
[quote] If possible, bring the three other potential drivers as witnesses[/quote]
Not possible unfortunately as my brother cant get time off work and my friend is in Australia. They would only say they dont know anyway especially my brother who was having to move out due to relationship issues.
[quote]
Bring copies of your correspondence with the scammers about the picture. [/quote]
They took that long between events I chucked away the 2 letters i sent to them. Is this a problem? I have letters from them 'referring' to my letters tho.
[quote]
Finally, say that you realised a declaration of which you were not certain, could lead to a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Therefore, you were at a loss as to what else you could do. [/quote]
Yes good advice, although i dont want to sound too knowledgable and cocky. However as I said I did consult with a Police officer as to how to proceed.
Fingers crossed I dont get a Maj with PMT I guess??
Ill let you know how it goes all.
REgards
Rich
Not possible unfortunately as my brother cant get time off work and my friend is in Australia. They would only say they dont know anyway especially my brother who was having to move out due to relationship issues.
[quote]
Bring copies of your correspondence with the scammers about the picture. [/quote]
They took that long between events I chucked away the 2 letters i sent to them. Is this a problem? I have letters from them 'referring' to my letters tho.
[quote]
Finally, say that you realised a declaration of which you were not certain, could lead to a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Therefore, you were at a loss as to what else you could do. [/quote]
Yes good advice, although i dont want to sound too knowledgable and cocky. However as I said I did consult with a Police officer as to how to proceed.
Fingers crossed I dont get a Maj with PMT I guess??
Ill let you know how it goes all.
REgards
Rich
Just a quick note to let you all know that my case got chucked out of court as the prosecutor couldnt prove it was me driving.
WAHEEYYYY!!!
Thanks for your comments yesterday, i shall remain a member even tho ive realised I dont have any piston in my car!! hehe
Rich Clark
RX-7 1
Northants Police 0
WAHEEYYYY!!!
Thanks for your comments yesterday, i shall remain a member even tho ive realised I dont have any piston in my car!! hehe
Rich Clark
RX-7 1
Northants Police 0
Top result. How far did it get? Did they do much waffling (Technical term, I've never been in court either
to Northants Scameraship (only cos there isn't a v-sign smiley 
)3dslwebber said:
Just a quick note to let you all know that my case got chucked out of court as the prosecutor couldnt prove it was me driving.
WAHEEYYYY!!!
Thanks for your comments yesterday, i shall remain a member even tho ive realised I dont have any piston in my car!! hehe
Rich Clark
RX-7 1
Northants Police 0
But I thought you were being charged with a section 172 (Failing to identify driver) offence ?
There is no need for identification of the driver to convict you of this.
lunarscope said:
But I thought you were being charged with a section 172 (Failing to identify driver) offence ?
There is no need for identification of the driver to convict you of this.
I suspect the case was thrown out not because they couldn't prove who was driving (unless it was speeding and S172 on the charge sheet) but because they fully complied with S172. Providing you have excecised due dilengce and still can not identify the driver than there is no case.
Trouble is only the Mag in court can decide if you have excercised sufficient due dilengce.
Congratulations and 
What a waste of taxpayers money even bringing the case! You'd have thought that a "common sense filter" might weed out speeding charges where the photo's are crap and thereby avoid all the bureaucratic costs of even trying.
Or are common sense and the CPS mutually exclusive...?
What a waste of taxpayers money even bringing the case! You'd have thought that a "common sense filter" might weed out speeding charges where the photo's are crap and thereby avoid all the bureaucratic costs of even trying.
Or are common sense and the CPS mutually exclusive...?
3dslwebber said:
Just a quick note to let you all know that my case got chucked out of court as the prosecutor couldnt prove it was me driving.
WAHEEYYYY!!!
Thanks for your comments yesterday, i shall remain a member even tho ive realised I dont have any piston in my car!! hehe
Rich Clark
RX-7 1
Northants Police 0
Hope you're charing them expenses/damages for stress due to wrongful charges????? Make the w*nkers PAY...
I deduce by your terminology that you may well be an officer yourself. As you say my main defense was that I had tried everything to id the driver including asking for the camera shot [which was head on, but shite] but Northants police had railroaded me into either admitting to something which potentially I hadnt done [isnt this perverting the course of justice] or forcing me to appear in court!! The Maj wasnt impressed with what had happened obviously and said i could go home. Still a waste of my time and tax payers money though.....useless wa**ers.
Right which one of you piston pussies wants a race around the Northampton Ring Road then???? IM KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!
Regards
Clarkee
www.clarkee.me.uk
www.fduk.org
www.mazdarotaryclub.com
Right which one of you piston pussies wants a race around the Northampton Ring Road then???? IM KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!
Regards
Clarkee
www.clarkee.me.uk
www.fduk.org
www.mazdarotaryclub.com
bluepolarbear said:
But I thought you were being charged with a section 172 (Failing to identify driver) offence ?
There is no need for identification of the driver to convict you of this.
I suspect the case was thrown out not because they couldn't prove who was driving (unless it was speeding and S172 on the charge sheet) but because they fully complied with S172. Providing you have excecised due dilengce and still can not identify the driver than there is no case.
Trouble is only the Mag in court can decide if you have excercised sufficient due dilengce.
3dslwebber said:
isnt this perverting the course of justice
Yes. There was a case (Hampshire IIRC) reported on [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk[/url] a couple of months back where the form filler in got three months in jail for that. The circumstances were not clear, but it appears that it was obvious from the photographs that the named driver was not the driver and the FPO picked it up.
Quite outrageous, really, when every scameraship will deny to the end that there even is a sub-section (4) defence and will browbeat people into naming someone.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff