'No L Plates displayed and driver unaccompanied'

[Hardcore2000]

I need help quickly for a court case!

On the coppers withness statement it sais:

'No L Plates were displayed and the driver was unaccompanied'

I was going to use this against the police officer in court because i had freinds in the car at the time who are my witnesses. Im worried that the above statement may have something to do with whether i was being supervised at the time of the olleged offence?

if it means i had no passengers in the car then this brings into question his statement and the grounds of the whole case.

can anyone shed some light on this quote?

thanks

[tvradict]

Right, let me get this straight, your a learner?

Not displaying L's but you had a few friends in the car! Was the friend sitting NEXT to you (passenger seat) over 21 and held a licence for 3+years???? If so, they may do your or him or both for not displaying the L's, if not! Your Fd

Unaccompanied means Unsupervised by a suitable person. Over 21 AND held a FULL UK Licence for 3 year or more!

Heard of a case recently when a girl went out for a drive Unaccompanied and without L's, Banned for 3 years, x number of hundred pound fine!!

That sort of thing they come down heavy on, bit like driving while banned!!!

>> Edited by tvradict on Sunday 24th March 15:49

[Hardcore2000]

no no no!

i have a full driving license and been driving for years. I am asking for advice if what the copper is saying is:

a> simply saying i was on my own in the car / no passengers

or

b> i had no L's on and i was unacompanied because he's just stating the obvious that i dont need to be accompanied by anyone!

i think this must be a standard thing put on all the statements they send out. I just want to know in what context it is being said?

thanks

[tvradict]

quote:
no no no!

i have a full driving license and been driving for years.

sorry!

quote:
I am asking for advice if what the copper is saying is:

a> simply saying i was on my own in the car / no passengers

or

b> i had no L's on and i was unacompanied because he's just stating the obvious that i dont need to be accompanied by anyone!

Sounds to me like the coppers Fd up!
I don't think they state the obvious when sending out statements! If he has said that you had no one in the car and you did, then you should be able to use that against him! But saying you had no L's on usually means your a learner driving without them. Which of course is highly illegal! There are some Plod on here who might be able to give moe advice/explain it a bit better!


>> Edited by tvradict on Sunday 24th March 18:08

[Hardcore2000]

This has really confused me now!

There are many descrepancys on her statement and this is just one of them!

but is this just a standard bit of jargon that could cause me much embarassment or is it a chance to completely discredit the SINGLE copper witness.

The statement was made over a month after i was stopped for allegedly speeding (we all know that nobody speeds on this forum - we just unfortunately accused)

Can anyone clear this up?

[nonegreen]

quote:
This has really confused me now!

There are many descrepancys on her statement and this is just one of them!

but is this just a standard bit of jargon that could cause me much embarassment or is it a chance to completely discredit the SINGLE copper witness.

The statement was made over a month after i was stopped for allegedly speeding (we all know that nobody speeds on this forum - we just unfortunately accused)

Can anyone clear this up?

Sounds like a standard bit of preamble. If she was on her own and you had a load of mates in the car then just do 2 against 1 liar liar pants on fire.

[m111rod]

I believe all it means is that if later on in Court you are found to be a provisional licence holder or no licence at all then the evidence has already been submitted by the Police.

[john robson]

I am asuming that the unacompanied/ no 'L' plates has come from the tick boxes on the HO/RT/1 that you were issued the unacompanied does not refer to wheter or not you had passengers it refers to if you were being supervised, ie as previously mentioned by a full licence holder who is 21 or over with 3 years driving experience. The offence an provisional licence holder commits if he is not supervised or does not have 'L' plates or for that matter does not have a licence is
"Drive other than in accordance with licence". This is a blanket offence which covers the above offences plus many more. It was brought in several years ago instead of all the separate offences. In your case it seems that what you have got is a sort of pro-forma statement I use them all the time the paragraph you are refefing to is there to just cover the fact that a person may be given a HO/RT/1 and then go on to produce a provisional licence in that case the statement would include the necesary evidence for the above offence

>> Edited by john robson on Monday 25th March 00:25

[nubbin]

quote:
i have a full driving license and been driving for years.

Am I being really thick here? I don't display L plates, and often drive on my own, because I, too, have a full licence. Is this the only issue, or were yoo speeding as well?

[JonRB]

Welcome back, John! Good to see a posting from you again.

Kind regards
Jon