Avoid A Speeding Fine

[BEGGS]

after giving false information my friend was contacted by the police to give positive information on the false details given about a driver in grenada driving her car. What is she likely to face as she cannot give any more information for she was the driver and lied in the beginning.

[Zacs-Master]

Grenada, as in the West Indies? Not sure there will be anyone on here qualified to answer. Providing they understand.

[boxtops]

This is the original story http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Question1221525.html

They'll throw the book at her.

[New Judge]

Yes it may possibly get very nasty.

It will certainly not be too difficult to establish that the details provided by your friend are false. It is quite probable that the police have already done so and are now seeing how much deeper your friend will dig the hole she has already dug for herself.

I think your friend should prepare herself to be on the wrong end of a serious charge. And all for the sake of £60 and three points.

[fredkins]

Give herself up........the right thing to do,do you not think?

[SpikeyBush]

I'm surprised we haven't had a post from a 'holier than though' member saying if you don't speed then you don't need to worry about the consequences. I got a fixed penalty from a mobile camera for doing 56 in a 50 zone which hardly makes me Ronnie Kray. Now look a bit further into the reason behind the position of the camera. It was outside an electricity substation. The most recent road death there was of some tealeaf trying to pinch an earthing rod, they got belted with an 11,000 volt shock and blown into the road where they were run over by an articulated lorry. And the lorry was not speeding as it was still accellerating after delivering to the nearby Tesco.

[BEGGS]

The back of the form states that by giving a false statement a fine of up to £5000 can be imposed. Would she be able to get away with being fined for giving a false statement?

[New Judge]

As with another matter that princemac has addressed he is completely wrong and utterly misleading.

Most importantly, what your friend has is not a “speeding ticket.” It is a request for details of the driver of a vehicle which it is alleged has been involved in an offence (usually, though not always, speeding). It is not sent to the driver, or the owner (because the authorities do not know who they might be) but to the Registered Keeper (RK) as held by the DVLA. Under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act the RK of the vehicle has to provide to the Chief Constable (or his authorised representative) details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to do so is an offence under Section 165. However, should false details be provided the CPS may decide to lay a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[New Judge]

Apologies it's Section 172. I was dealing with something to do with S165 earlier today and I still had it in my mind !!

[princemac]

Ah New Judge so its a request for information from the registered keeper,cool just ignore the request,problem solved.

[joko]

"your V5 it clearly states-THIS DOCUMENT NOT TO BE USED AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP"

this is because it is easily changeable.
it says this so people don't think the name on it is set in stone, and get conned by it.

it is not because they do not own the car at all





DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914) p. 940.


Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed

[princemac]

Joko,excellent answer,my only slight difference is with the ownership issue,i believe they do own your car so if you decide not to do as they want you to do they fine you,impound your car and at worst crush your car,even in the absence of any court case as the maxim of law is your innocent until proven guilty.The DVLA recently changed their policy so if you kept your car on your private property you still had to send a sorn in or face a £80 fine,i ignored their first letter and then they said pay within seven days and we will drop the fine to £40,still refused as that sounds alot like profiteering to me.There was an article in the Sun several years ago when some bright spark realised UK registered cars where been lifted on trucks and impounded when parked or abandoned near 10 Downing street but foreign vehicles where inspected but not removed.The Sun of course took bloody foreigners angle but I would suggest the UK reg. cars where removed because the DVLA have ownership rights to those cars and not the foreign ones.As to the defention of driver,i believe the lastest Blacks Law dictionary has changed the meaning again ever so slightly.Great post.

[boxtops]

princemac, this person gave false statements to the police, there is another thread about this same thing too.

[factor-fiction]

Sorry, prinecmac but I don't understand any of your many responses to questions about motoring matters and your contention that there is a difference between drivers and operators. Have you got a link to convince me it isn't nonsense?

[ichkeria]

Ref the spikeybush comment, I don't think the issue is about speeding but whether, having been caught, you should try to wriggle out of it by claiming the offence was committed by someone else.
Not sure even the Huhne case is relevant either because that case was compounded by one of those involved, ridiculously stupidly, trying to drop her accomplice in it by claiming that they alone had broken the law.
I think the lesson is, no matter where the incident occureed and regardless of the circumstances, don't pretend it was someone else ...

[woofgang]

will someone please find princemac's pills and give him a dose?

[princemac]

Factor fiction,am still trying to interview a guy I who last year was caught with no insurance,when questioned he freely admitted he has no insurance,tax,liecence and mot.To cut along story short he won his court case on the grounds that the common law right to travel wasn't repealed under the Road and Traffic act.I want to investigate these claims myself to my fullest ability but due to my business/family time is limited.

[boxtops]

Princemac, once again you are stating that common law overrides the law of the land. It doesn't. You may be convinced it does, but you say yourself that you have no legal training, and if people listen to you they are on very dodgy ground, IMO.

[Barmaid]

Princemac you are talking nonsense, please shut up.