Enforced Perjury................
Discussion
Hi Guys.
A car owned and registerred by my father has been caught speeding on a dual carriageway by some sort of laser gun/video machine.
At the time of the incident he was out of the country, and was greeted by a NIP on his return. He returned 18 days after the offence, he has told me judging by the postmark the NIP was sent within the 14 days necessary for it to be valid.
Four people had the use of the vehicle (insured on an any driver basis) whilst he was away and no one has admitted the offence. Accordingly he wrote to the office handling the matter, outlining the above, including a copy of his flight tickets etc and asked if they could provide a photograph to help him identify the driver. The photograph has arrived and although it shows the rear numberplate of the vehicle the driver is merely an outline and can't be identified.
He phoned the speed camera office this morning and has been told that he must complete the form (which he returned uncompleted with his earlier letter) or he will be taken to court for not disclosing the details of the driver.
The options here is to either:
(a) perjure himself by "taking" the ticket himself even though he has provided evidence to the police that he was out of the country at the time.
or
(b) provide the details of all the possible drivers who could have been driving. (I think indicated not good enough on the phone)
or
(c) go to court, get found guilty of not being able to provide details of a specific driver, get a £1,000 fine and possibly more points than option "a" as well.
Has anyone experience of a similar situation or can advice on what he should do?
thanks
DAZ
I'm half tempted to say take the points, pointing out that you are perjuring yourself under the duress of a larger fine and possibly more points. But I'm not a solicitor or a policeman.
A car owned and registerred by my father has been caught speeding on a dual carriageway by some sort of laser gun/video machine.
At the time of the incident he was out of the country, and was greeted by a NIP on his return. He returned 18 days after the offence, he has told me judging by the postmark the NIP was sent within the 14 days necessary for it to be valid.
Four people had the use of the vehicle (insured on an any driver basis) whilst he was away and no one has admitted the offence. Accordingly he wrote to the office handling the matter, outlining the above, including a copy of his flight tickets etc and asked if they could provide a photograph to help him identify the driver. The photograph has arrived and although it shows the rear numberplate of the vehicle the driver is merely an outline and can't be identified.
He phoned the speed camera office this morning and has been told that he must complete the form (which he returned uncompleted with his earlier letter) or he will be taken to court for not disclosing the details of the driver.
The options here is to either:
(a) perjure himself by "taking" the ticket himself even though he has provided evidence to the police that he was out of the country at the time.
or
(b) provide the details of all the possible drivers who could have been driving. (I think indicated not good enough on the phone)
or
(c) go to court, get found guilty of not being able to provide details of a specific driver, get a £1,000 fine and possibly more points than option "a" as well.
Has anyone experience of a similar situation or can advice on what he should do?
thanks
DAZ
I'm half tempted to say take the points, pointing out that you are perjuring yourself under the duress of a larger fine and possibly more points. But I'm not a solicitor or a policeman.
If it was me (and obviously it isn't) I'd be inclined to supply the names and addresses of the drivers to the court and let them sort it out between them, then argue it later if necessary. It's surely up to those four to be interviewed by the police (or whoever) to determine who was driving. Under oath, if necessary.
I would have thought the owner's alibi to be cast-iron.
But then again, what do I know? ianal.
My main opinion is that's it's probably best not to go making things up (like admitting it) to cover for perceived failings in the judicial system.
I would have thought the owner's alibi to be cast-iron.
But then again, what do I know? ianal.
My main opinion is that's it's probably best not to go making things up (like admitting it) to cover for perceived failings in the judicial system.
If you falsely admit to it, you can go to prison!
Tell them to stick it. Politely, of course.
If those 2 blokes can get away with killing an old man, I'm sure that CPS will drop this case like a stone. Write to 'em. I did when I was arguing my case, and it got dropped before going for 2nd hearing.
Tell them to stick it. Politely, of course.
If those 2 blokes can get away with killing an old man, I'm sure that CPS will drop this case like a stone. Write to 'em. I did when I was arguing my case, and it got dropped before going for 2nd hearing.
I would have thought, Daz, that if the other valid drivers can genuinely not recall exactly who had the car at what time on the day in question, the case would be dropped.
My MD played this card a couple of years ago, when he and his wife were taking turns in ferrying friends to & from the airport using the same car and one of them got zapped on one leg of one of the (numerous) journeys that day. Couldn't remember exactly who was driving at XX:YY o'clock & it went no further.
Guess it would 'help' if the road was local to your gaff and so anybody could have popped out for 5 mins in the car in question...
My MD played this card a couple of years ago, when he and his wife were taking turns in ferrying friends to & from the airport using the same car and one of them got zapped on one leg of one of the (numerous) journeys that day. Couldn't remember exactly who was driving at XX:YY o'clock & it went no further.
Guess it would 'help' if the road was local to your gaff and so anybody could have popped out for 5 mins in the car in question...
Thanks guys.
I'll tell him to advise the police in writing of the four people who had the use of the vehicle whilst he was away (ie ignore what he was advised on the phone about wanting "only the driver")
I just don't like the way this is going, whereby he can get more points and a much larger fine than whoever commited the offence.
cheers
DAZ
I'll tell him to advise the police in writing of the four people who had the use of the vehicle whilst he was away (ie ignore what he was advised on the phone about wanting "only the driver")
I just don't like the way this is going, whereby he can get more points and a much larger fine than whoever commited the offence.
cheers
DAZ
hertsbiker said: Why should you get *more* points because you don't know who was driving? that would be a spiteful reaction.
C
If he were the driver he could take a fixed penalty 3 points and £60. If he go's to court for not identifying the specific friver he can be fined upto £1000 and have upto 6 points put on his license.
DAZ
(since when did this sort of thing make sense from all angles?)
That law is in place to stop people saying "Yeah I know who was driving it, it wasn';t me but I don't feel like telling you who it was". S172 has provision for the registered keeping making a reasonable effort to identify the driver. Your old man can prove he was three thousand miles away at the time, can furnish the CPS with the names and addresses of the four people who it could have been, that sounds like a reasonable effort to me hence he can't be prosecuted as you describe.
The only further effort he could have made would have been to set up a log book system before he left on holiday, and somehow enforced it such that each time the car was used in his absence a note was made of the time, date and driver.
The conviction of some chief constable or other was entirely specious, because he HAD made reasonable effort to ensure that the driver of the police vehicle registered in his name could be identified by setting up such a logbook system. The logbook was not filled in which is why the driver could not be identified, and there is no way that the chief constable could be held responsible for this, he had made reasonable effforts to enforce this policy. Yet, despite S172 clearly saying that he was INNOCENT of failing to identify the driver, because he had made such efforts to do so, he pleaded guilty anyway! Why? Perhaps to confuse the average motorist as to the meaning of the law, and encourage them to "cop the fine" in the very circumstances you describe, rather than drawing attention to the prvisions made in S172 which outline that your father cannot be charged with any offence for the reasons I stated above.
To summarise; your dad has done everything reasonably possible to help the police/CPS identify who was driving, therefore he is not guilty of any offence and should certainly not plead guilty to the speeding charge.
>> Edited by aww999 on Friday 25th October 16:22
The only further effort he could have made would have been to set up a log book system before he left on holiday, and somehow enforced it such that each time the car was used in his absence a note was made of the time, date and driver.
The conviction of some chief constable or other was entirely specious, because he HAD made reasonable effort to ensure that the driver of the police vehicle registered in his name could be identified by setting up such a logbook system. The logbook was not filled in which is why the driver could not be identified, and there is no way that the chief constable could be held responsible for this, he had made reasonable effforts to enforce this policy. Yet, despite S172 clearly saying that he was INNOCENT of failing to identify the driver, because he had made such efforts to do so, he pleaded guilty anyway! Why? Perhaps to confuse the average motorist as to the meaning of the law, and encourage them to "cop the fine" in the very circumstances you describe, rather than drawing attention to the prvisions made in S172 which outline that your father cannot be charged with any offence for the reasons I stated above.
To summarise; your dad has done everything reasonably possible to help the police/CPS identify who was driving, therefore he is not guilty of any offence and should certainly not plead guilty to the speeding charge.
>> Edited by aww999 on Friday 25th October 16:22
your dad can clearly prove he was out of the country so he can not possibly know who the driver was without them telling him.
Send all four names to the cops, and they won't be able to do jack. your dad will have done all reasonably possible, and they won't have a hope to prosecute him.
They cant prosecute your dad just because he can't provide a name.
Send all four names to the cops, and they won't be able to do jack. your dad will have done all reasonably possible, and they won't have a hope to prosecute him.
They cant prosecute your dad just because he can't provide a name.
HAd to register to post about this..
We've got a numner of works vans. One day a few months back two of our guys were working in Ossett, near Halifax, and got zapped on a dual carriageway. As a company we got the usual NIP. I asked them who was driving at the time, and of course they couldnt say (or wouldnt, but they SAID couldnt :P)
I wrote back to the police explaining, and got the standard threat that I would be prosecuted (Would liked to have had the bollox to push that one, because Im NOT the registered keeper either, but the letter was personally addressed to ME! ). I did exactly what has been suggested above - wrote to them with names and details of both the possible drivers.
As far as I know we havent heard anything back. They cant prosecute the registered keeper either as he was on holiday in the Med on a cruise!
Anyway, splendid looking forum, Im going to have a
read
Buzz (1996 Impreza turbo)
We've got a numner of works vans. One day a few months back two of our guys were working in Ossett, near Halifax, and got zapped on a dual carriageway. As a company we got the usual NIP. I asked them who was driving at the time, and of course they couldnt say (or wouldnt, but they SAID couldnt :P)
I wrote back to the police explaining, and got the standard threat that I would be prosecuted (Would liked to have had the bollox to push that one, because Im NOT the registered keeper either, but the letter was personally addressed to ME! ). I did exactly what has been suggested above - wrote to them with names and details of both the possible drivers.
As far as I know we havent heard anything back. They cant prosecute the registered keeper either as he was on holiday in the Med on a cruise!
Anyway, splendid looking forum, Im going to have a
read
Buzz (1996 Impreza turbo)
Thanks for the replies guys.
With me having explained what has been said on this forum and him having taken personal legal advice, my father has "fired" a further letter into the opposition and the ball is now in their court.
He now expects to receive either a summons or nothing (I don't expect they will bother telling him if they are taking no further action)
cheers
DAZ
PS - If he receives no further correspondence, how long do the police have to issue a summons? As when dealing with insurance renewal this would count as a pending speeding issue.
With me having explained what has been said on this forum and him having taken personal legal advice, my father has "fired" a further letter into the opposition and the ball is now in their court.
He now expects to receive either a summons or nothing (I don't expect they will bother telling him if they are taking no further action)
cheers
DAZ
PS - If he receives no further correspondence, how long do the police have to issue a summons? As when dealing with insurance renewal this would count as a pending speeding issue.
Dazren said:
PS - If he receives no further correspondence, how long do the police have to issue a summons? As when dealing with insurance renewal this would count as a pending speeding issue.
Your father won't have a pending speeding issue only the possibility of a pending "failure to disclose who was driving issue" It's already been shown he was not driving and can't be prosecuted for the speeding.
Dazren said:
He now expects to receive either a summons or nothing (I don't expect they will bother telling him if they are taking no further action)
cheers
DAZ
PS - If he receives no further correspondence, how long do the police have to issue a summons? As when dealing with insurance renewal this would count as a pending speeding issue.
Police have 6 months from the date of the offence to lay the information before a magistrates clerk so that summons can be issued. The summons can be served at any time within or after the 6 months, as long as the infomation has been laid before the court.
Just my 2p.
I myself would have involved my local MP in this, copied them on letters, etc and possibly the local rag. Just to show that there are flaws in the system.
After-all, the MP is paid to serve (regardless if you like them or their party). And if you make sure the 'angle' is right then the press might not make a hash of it.
I myself would have involved my local MP in this, copied them on letters, etc and possibly the local rag. Just to show that there are flaws in the system.
After-all, the MP is paid to serve (regardless if you like them or their party). And if you make sure the 'angle' is right then the press might not make a hash of it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff