Points on your driving licence...?

[mahala]

That doesn't alter the fact that the RIGHT to silence has been taken away. You may be well advised to do as suggested and say nothing before speaking to counsel, but the right to silence was removed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. There was a huge contoversy at the time, but the media focused mainly on how it would curtail the raves popular at the time.

 

For more information on this, you may like to read Liberty's information on the loss of the right to silence.

[seylectric]

Correct. I now have three points on my licence and a £190 fine because I failed to name the driver of my car when it was caught speeding on a speed camera.

 

The alleged offence was July last year, I didn't get a ticket, reminder or anything. In January a summons was issued to me for failing to name the driver, but it wasn't sent to me until June.

 

I set off to the court hearing last month but for other reasons never got there. So they were convicting me for failing to name the driver for an offence I know nothing about which happened a year ago. I was obviously found guilty in my absence but would probably have lost anyway because I couldn't name the driver from that long ago if I had wanted to. What really riles me is that I can't for the life of me see why "failing to name" is a motoring offence and carries penalty points.

[JonCris]

Correct. I now have three points on my licence and a £190 fine because I failed to name the driver of my car when it was caught speeding on a speed camera.

 

The alleged offence was July last year, I didn't get a ticket, reminder or anything. In January a summons was issued to me for failing to name the driver, but it wasn't sent to me until June.

 

I set off to the court hearing last month but for other reasons never got there. So they were convicting me for failing to name the driver for an offence I know nothing about which happened a year ago. I was obviously found guilty in my absence but would probably have lost anyway because I couldn't name the driver from that long ago if I had wanted to. What really riles me is that I can't for the life of me see why "failing to name" is a motoring offence and carries penalty points.

 

Wrong

You where convicted not because of your loss to "right of silence" but because you failed to attend court & put forward your "Hamilton" defence. In the absence of such the court had no option but to convict you.

 

On the basis of the communications you mention you must at some time have been cautioned otherwise the timeline may have given you grounds to have the case dismissed as "out of time"

[seylectric]

That's what I said:

 

So they were convicting me for failing to name the driver for an offence I know nothing about which happened a year ago. I was obviously found guilty in my absence but would probably have lost anyway because I couldn't name the driver

 

The point is I was still found guilty of failing to name the driver regardless of the fact that I wasn't there to defend myself, basically having been unable to prove my innocence. I have a fine and three points for a ludicrous offence; it's the system which is all wrong.

 

I never received any caution, the first I knew of either the speeding or the failing to name offences were when I received the summons to appear which as I mentioned was almost one year after the date of the original speeding offence.

[JonCris]

That's what I said:

 

 

 

The point is I was still found guilty of failing to name the driver regardless of the fact that I wasn't there to defend myself, basically having been unable to prove my innocence. I have a fine and three points for a ludicrous offence; it's the system which is all wrong.

 

I never received any caution, the first I knew of either the speeding or the failing to name offences were when I received the summons to appear which as I mentioned was almost one year after the date of the original speeding offence.

 

You where found guilty of the offence because the court had no choice. Had you attended you could have, if genuine, claimed the "Hamilton" defence.

 

If you continued to live at the same address or notified the DVLA as soon as you moved as there are strict timetables the lack of communication over such a period would almost certainly have gone in your favour but you have to be there to challenge the prosecution

 

As much as the CPS would like it failing to name the driver does NOT lead to an automatic conviction. Not if you can't remember usually because of the passage of time. If you received the original NIP within 14 days then claiming you can't remember is gonna look a bit dodgey. Nevertheless prosecutions have failed where 2 people have been in the car but neither can remember who was driving at the time of the offence. Thats why there's all this talk of installing rear facing cameras which will photograph the driver face on

[DRIVERS]

The case should never have got to court. as far as i am aware the police have to notify registered owner of vehicle within 17 days of offence or it ias void, and if they claim they first notified the owner in jan, 6 months later they wudnt have a chance in hell.

[JonCris]

The case should never have got to court. as far as i am aware the police have to notify registered owner of vehicle within 17 days of offence or it ias void, and if they claim they first notified the owner in jan, 6 months later they wudnt have a chance in hell.

 

Correct but it's 14 days not 17 unless of course the driver moves & the DVLA details are wrong. The courts will allow for a little slippage past the 14 days for receipt of the NIP provided it was posted within the 14 days & by that I don't mean the very last day. That's why it's very important that the envelope & its' post mark are available should you wish to go down this road & have the matter struck out

 

All things being equal then prosecution must be dealt with within 6 months of the alledged offence. Again that depends on whether or not the police have had difficulty in finding you

[DRIVERS]

yes i am aware of the 14 days, but the reason i mentioned the 14 days is because as far as i am aware the courts will as you say give them typically upto 3 extra days when they are having difficulut tracing driver or there has been a recent change

[meagain]

You where found guilty of the offence because the court had no choice. Had you attended you could have, if genuine, claimed the "Hamilton" defence.

 

So, what happened to presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt?

[JonCris]

yes i am aware of the 14 days, but the reason i mentioned the 14 days is because as far as i am aware the courts will as you say give them typically upto 3 extra days when they are having difficulut tracing driver or there has been a recent change

 

There is no such thing as an extra 3 days. If the recorded details are correct the NIP should be received within 14 days except in the posting circumstances I've already explained

 

If the owner has moved or purchased the vehicle without informing the DVLA (£1,000 fine) then the time doesn't start until they have been located which could be a month or more.

[JonCris]

So, what happened to presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt?

 

If your charged with ANY offence & don't attend court then you WILL be found guilty. Much the same as if you take your bank to court & don't attend on the day your claim will be set aside by the judge

[seylectric]

Ah, but there's the rub. If you don't turn up in court to defend your claim it is thrown out, nobody is found guilty of anything. If you don't turn up to defend a traffic violation you are found guilty, and that's a big difference.

 

As somebody mentioned above, it should never have even got to court. We know the procedures but it's not right. The basic facts are:

 

Alledged speeding offence: July 2005. No NIP or anything ever received.

 

Summons for not naming driver dated January 2006 but no court date until July 2006. Why the six month gap to issue the summons? Regardless of whether I was there or not I was found guilty of an offence I know nothing about. Given that I knew nothing about it they cannot possibly have any evidence against me personally, only that my car was speeding. I'm implicated only on the basis that the car is registered in my name, that doesn't prove anything. It's ridiculous!

 

I know JonCris is legally correct in what he is saying, what I am getting at is it should not be like this. Furthermore there are many documented cases where the police witness has not been able to attend and the case has been adjourned, why isn't the defendant afforded the same right?

 

Note: I have not moved house for nearly 15 years or changed my car for four.

[JonCris]

Ah, but there's the rub. If you don't turn up in court to defend your claim it is thrown out, nobody is found guilty of anything. If you don't turn up to defend a traffic violation you are found guilty, and that's a big difference.

 

As somebody mentioned above, it should never have even got to court. We know the procedures but it's not right. The basic facts are:

 

Alledged speeding offence: July 2005. No NIP or anything ever received.

 

Summons for not naming driver dated January 2006 but no court date until July 2006. Why the six month gap to issue the summons? Regardless of whether I was there or not I was found guilty of an offence I know nothing about. Given that I knew nothing about it they cannot possibly have any evidence against me personally, only that my car was speeding. I'm implicated only on the basis that the car is registered in my name, that doesn't prove anything. It's ridiculous!

 

I know JonCris is legally correct in what he is saying, what I am getting at is it should not be like this. Furthermore there are many documented cases where the police witness has not been able to attend and the case has been adjourned, why isn't the defendant afforded the same right?

 

Note: I have not moved house for nearly 15 years or changed my car for four.

 

Not turning up to defend your claim & having it thrown out IS the same YOU LOSE The only difference is it's a civil matter so no criminal sanction. However you could be punished by the court for wasting it's time by being ordered to pay costs.

 

You keep mentioning what happened pre trial but how do you expect the court to know what happened if your not there to tell them. Also if you think you have a case you could appeal

 

Cases have been adjorned because witnesses have not been able to attend but that applies to both defendant & prosecution. Had you contacted the court & given them a good reason why you couldn't attend then they probably would have granted you an adjornment either too later that day or another date. Happens all the time

[seylectric]

Something came up, a family emergency, at the last moment and I was unable to attend the hearing. It was over 20 minutes after the start time of the hearing before I was able to inform the court that I was unable to attend because of the emergency (there are more important things in life sometimes).

 

I have already begun the appeal process not least because it's my understanding that the hearing didn't actually begin until 40 minutes plus after I made the phone call so in my opinion the hearing should have been adjourned.

 

You have stated the facts very well and I don't disagree that anything you said is correct as far as the law is concerned.

 

The thing is i'm not really discussing the facts of the case but the principles of the law, which in my opinion are all wrong. Going back to the offence I was charged for, I do not believe for one minute that I should be forced to name the driver (even if I did know who it was) or be penalised for refusing to do so. AFAIK we stilll have the right to silence, but now it is prejudice against you. This goes against the basic fundamental principles of "innocent before proven guilty". You are automatically guilty of "failing to name the driver" and have to prove your innocence. That's not right.

[JonCris]

Something came up, a family emergency, at the last moment and I was unable to attend the hearing. It was over 20 minutes after the start time of the hearing before I was able to inform the court that I was unable to attend because of the emergency (there are more important things in life sometimes).

 

I have already begun the appeal process not least because it's my understanding that the hearing didn't actually begin until 40 minutes plus after I made the phone call so in my opinion the hearing should have been adjourned.

 

You have stated the facts very well and I don't disagree that anything you said is correct as far as the law is concerned.

 

The thing is i'm not really discussing the facts of the case but the principles of the law, which in my opinion are all wrong. Going back to the offence I was charged for, I do not believe for one minute that I should be forced to name the driver (even if I did know who it was) or be penalised for refusing to do so. AFAIK we stilll have the right to silence, but now it is prejudice against you. This goes against the basic fundamental principles of "innocent before proven guilty". You are automatically guilty of "failing to name the driver" and have to prove your innocence. That's not right.

 

As you say you didn't or couldn't inform the court until after the arranged start time & the fact that you decided something else was more important (which I'm sure it was) is not something the court is going to consider.

 

As for naming the driver & whilst I have already given the circumstances where that might happen if there was no requirement at all it would so easy for the guilty to escape the law if everyone just stated "I can't name the driver" & that was the close of the matter no one would be able to be prosecuted for speeding.

 

The system is imperfect & there a great deal to critisize about the recent changes in the law. However it can't be that in all circumstances all you have to do is "say I don't know gov" to get off when YOUR car was being used at the time of the offence.

 

You have to produce some evidence of why you don't remember. Anyway from what you say you do appear to have grounds for appeal.

 

One word of warning the fact that you didn't turn up even if it did start later then intended will not go in your favour. I suggest your appeal should be on the grounds that you didn't receive a fair trial & had you been able to produce your timeline evidence the matter would have had to have been dismissed by the court. In other words why should the Crown win by default

[seylectric]

You have to produce some evidence of why you don't remember. Anyway from what you say you do appear to have grounds for appeal.

 

One word of warning the fact that you didn't turn up even if it did start later then intended will not go in your favour. I suggest your appeal should be on the grounds that you didn't receive a fair trial & had you been able to produce your timeline evidence the matter would have had to have been dismissed by the court. In other words why should the Crown win by default

 

As mentioned I'm not worried about the conviction or the appeal in any way, shape or form. I will be using all of the above and more here.

 

What I am trying to discuss here is the principle of the issue. It's not the facts of the case I disagree with but the fact that motorists are treated worse than criminals. Look at it this way: If you, as another motorist or a pedestrian saw a car speeding, it was someone you knew and the police actually knew that you knew who the driver was you would NOT be forced to come forward and give evidence. No case to answer and the motorist could not be convicted for the lack of evidence and I could not be convicted for not naming him. But in the case of your OWN car you ARE forced to name the other driver or be convicted of failing to do so.

 

THAT is the issue I'm trying to debate here, I already have the details I require for the appeal, I appreciate your efforts but it's not necessary and is not the point of my posts.

[JonCris]

& as I keep saying you don't automaticly get convicted if you don't know the name of the driver but you have to give the court something to hang their hat on. Also many such cases never reach the court because the CPS accept the argument that the owner does not know who was driving at the time. The difference between what happened to you & your fictional story is that YOUR car wasn't being used to commit the offence & unless it was stolen & withstanding that which I have already described the law has a right to expect that you would know who you allowed to drive it

[seylectric]

I know, I understand what you are saying but the fact remains that unless the vehicle owner in any similar case can "get out of it" one way or another the fact remains that he is still otherwise FORCED to either name the guilty party or be found guilty himself of failing to do so. So he his effectively guilty of one charge unless he implicates somebody else for the original speeding offence before the trail even starts, unless as I said he can get out of it in some way. That is what I believe is totally wrong and I cannot think of any other circumstance where a similar law applies.

[patdavies]

How is that relevant? Speeding is not a criminal offence...?

 

Yes it is. It is dealt with at Magistrates' Court as a summary offence.

 

It is, however, not a recordable offence.

[patdavies]

Criminal Offences (Spent Convictions)

 

Disclosure Period I think is Seven Years

 

5 years.

 

This is why insurance companies can only ask for offences in the last 5 years.

[patdavies]

There are different codes for speeding though - I have an SP50 (exceeding the limit on a motorway), speeding in a 30 zone is an SP30, obviously that doesn't differentiate between speeding past a school and speeding on a wide open road that are both 30 limits though.

 

SP50 is for speeding on a motorway

SP30 is for speeding on a road other than a motorway. The figure does not relate to the speed limit at all

[Ceiswyn]

I have 9 points on my license, all of which were received over three years ago (and pretty much all of which involved doing 35 in 30 limits with no cars or people around, but that's another rant). I've just received an NIP for, again, doing 35 in a 30.

 

That takes me up to 12 points, but not inside the 'totting' period; what can I expect to happen?

[patdavies]

I have 9 points on my license, all of which were received over three years ago (and pretty much all of which involved doing 35 in 30 limits with no cars or people around, but that's another rant). I've just received an NIP for, again, doing 35 in a 30.

 

That takes me up to 12 points, but not inside the 'totting' period; what can I expect to happen?

 

 

Nothing significant as your licence is clear for totting up. You will be able to accept the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. If you had 9 points that were still valid for 'totting' then you would be refused the CoPF and be summonsed to Court - usually for a 6 month ban, which would reset your 'totting' score to 0

[Ceiswyn]

Phew. I was quite worried about that, since trying to get to work by public transport would take two and a half hours each way!

[MrShed]

Seems like a good place to post this! I passed a speed camera yesterday which wasnt yellow, it was back to the old original grey. Is this not illegal or something now?