Daughter due in crown court not identifying driver

[zumbanikki]

hate it when u never find out.

[Guest]

par for the course it seems nowadays

[Conniff]

Probably got six months so she can't answer

[panther12]

Probably got six months so she can't answer

User has posted recently regarding parking eye claim so looks like they can't be bothered to update or acknowledge others time & effort spent helping.

[honeybee13]

User has posted recently regarding parking eye claim so looks like they can't be bothered to update or acknowledge others time & effort spent helping.

 

That's disappointing, isn't it? I hope deb66 will find her way back here and let us know.

 

HB

[Mollierose8]

And any hope of a donation is out of the window! I love this site they have really helped me in the past.

[king12345]

Hi guys, a curious question I was asked regarding not identifying the driver but I couldn't answer, so I pass it on.

If someone is required to name the driver for speeding but genuinely doesn't know who was driving at the time because 3 people share the car, what happens?

Can they say: "I'm not sure who was driving at the time, but to avoid prosecution I take the points and fine"

Wouldn't this be a miscarriage of justice?

Or it is ok for the authorities to fine and give points to someone who genuinely doesn't know if they have committed the offence but want to avoid further trouble?

[Old Cogger]

if you have a vehicle then you know who is able to drive the said vehicle? and insured no doubt to drive that vehicle, do not mess with a DJ in court!

[unclebulgaria67]

I am not sure courts would believe that the driver was not known and it would be the registered keeper that ended up with the relevant sanction.

 

I am still not sure what the OP meant by formal diagnosis. Perhaps there was no outcome and there is still nothing to report. Perhaps the daughter has still to offer a proper appeal.

[king12345]

What i meant is: If there are 3 people all legally entitled to drive the car (insured and all) and they all drive to the same place of work and randomly all drive, what happens?

Can one of them take the blame to avoid trouble or not?

[unclebulgaria67]

What i meant is: If there are 3 people all legally entitled to drive the car (insured and all) and they all drive to the same place of work and randomly all drive, what happens?

Can one of them take the blame to avoid trouble or not?

 

I think it ends up with the RK being done for not identifying the driver, which they cannot get out of. But i don't have full knowledge of all the law that applies.

 

I just can't imagine that the authorities will accept there being no offence and no revenues resulting from it. Otherwise, you will get people sharing cars in this way, commitimg offences and then saying they can't remember who the driver was. The default is the RK being done.

[Guest]

heres one unfortunate eg, where it seems that the points/fine for failing to id were taken instead of id'ing the driver (no doubt to avoid the more serious poss charges)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

[king12345]

I think it ends up with the RK being done for not identifying the driver, which they cannot get out of. But i don't have full knowledge of all the law that applies.

 

I just can't imagine that the authorities will accept there being no offence and no revenues resulting from it. Otherwise, you will get people sharing cars in this way, commitimg offences and then saying they can't remember who the driver was. The default is the RK being done.

 

Maybe I have to rephrase that.

It's not a matter of getting away with it, it's a matter of taking the points when there's no absolute certainty that one was the driver at that moment.

[Raykay]

The requirement is that the driver is identified, using the words 'I'm not sure who was driving at the time, to avoid prosecution I take the points and fine' is likely to result in a conviction for failing to identify the driver.

 

If you could convince the court that you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was, you would be found not guilty.

[king12345]

The requirement is that the driver is identified, using the words 'I'm not sure who was driving at the time, to avoid prosecution I take the points and fine' is likely to result in a conviction for failing to identify the driver.

 

If you could convince the court that you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was, you would be found not guilty.

 

That sounds reasonable.

Thanks

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The RK will always be liable in the eyes of the court UNLESS the RK can id the driver. The "I dont know who was driving" never works.

You could have 200 drivers. The court wont care. Unless someone admits the offence, then the RK will get the fine.

[Old Cogger]

But of course you would have asked who was driving the vehicle on receipt of notice to keeper?? No my Lord, ?? (Your answer would be?). you sure the driver was named on your insurance documents/

[Old Cogger]

But of course you would have asked who was driving the vehicle on receipt of notice to keeper?? No my Lord, ?? (Your answer would be?). you sure the driver was named on your insurance documents/

 

May be wrong but evasiveness comes to mind//

[unclebulgaria67]

May be wrong but evasiveness comes to mind//

 

You will get genuine situations where the RK does not know who was driving. If a car is used by say 3 people within a family, all insured to drive it and they receive notice to keeper say a month after an offence, they may not know who had the car at the relevant time. The location, date and time might not reveal who was driving.

 

Perhap this issue is something for CAG to highlight. If the RK will get fined and have 6 points for not identifying the driver in these situations, that the RK should keep a diary record of when someone else is using the car. Using that record, they can then ensure the correct driver is notified.

[Raykay]

The RK will always be liable in the eyes of the court UNLESS the RK can id the driver [

 

Unless s.172 (4), Road Traffic Act 1988 applies.

[panther12]

The RK will always be liable in the eyes of the court UNLESS the RK can id the driver. The "I dont know who was driving" never works.

You could have 200 drivers. The court wont care. Unless someone admits the offence, then the RK will get the fine.

Sorry but that is utter nonsense.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry but that is utter nonsense.

 

I think they were commenting on what is happening at the moment.

 

There does seem to be evidence where the RK says they were not driving but fails to advise who was driving at the time they get done for failing to ID the driver.

 

If we accept that driving offences are not just a safety issue, but to raise revenues to cover safety enforcement, courts etc, then legislation is drafted so there is mostly always someone who is convicted of an offence and who pays a fine.

 

A bit harsh on the RK, but probably a reality of what will happen.

[Raykay]

 

There does seem to be evidence where the RK says they were not driving but fails to advise who was driving at the time they get done for failing to ID the driver

 

 

 

 

The onus is on the person keeping the vehicle (s.172, Road Traffic Act 1988), who may, or may not be the registered keeper.

 

 

Consider the situation of a leasing company being the registered keeper of a vehicle, a company leasing the vehicle and an employee being the keeper of the vehicle.

 

The leasing company receive the initial s.172 requirement, nominate the company leasing the vehicle, they in turn nominate their employee who fails to reply - it would be the employee who is prosecuted.