ChatterBank1 min ago
Speeding Ticket Internation Driver
9 Answers
Hi I have just received a lovely NIP in the post today, although I am 95% sure that it was not me driving at the time of the offence. I was sharing the driving with a friend from the states.
Does any one know what will happen if I reply with this answer.
Does any one know what will happen if I reply with this answer.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woods118. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You will be summonsed under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act for failing to supply the details of the driver.
If you plead not guilty to this offence a trial will be heard in the Magistrates� court. The onus will be upon you to show that you were unable to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged speeding offence because of the reason you state.
This type of defence is sometimes successful, but more often are not. The magistrates will want to be absolutely sure that you had no way of determining which of you was driving at the time.
If you plead not guilty to this offence a trial will be heard in the Magistrates� court. The onus will be upon you to show that you were unable to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged speeding offence because of the reason you state.
This type of defence is sometimes successful, but more often are not. The magistrates will want to be absolutely sure that you had no way of determining which of you was driving at the time.
very same thing happened to me in may,our friends from cyprus were over and used one of our cars and we got a speeding ticket in the post,after they had gone home,i filled in his name and address in cyprus,they wrote to him,he confirmed in writing and sent it back with a photcopy of his cyprus driving licence,neither he or i heard anymore after that.its a very common thing in england,up to a while a go they dident bother checking up,but nowadays as a lot of people are on the con,they are chasing them up.be truthful and tell your friends whats happening and it should be fine.
The situation you described, Norman, was different in that you nominated a driver (albeit a foreign licence holder). The prosecuting authorities often do not follow up foreign licence holders to prosecute speeding offences. However, you gave the details as required, hence no s172 prosecution for you.
The question posed this time (if I read it correctly, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) was what will happen if woods118 replies to the NIP saying that the driving was being shared and no firm recollection could be made as to who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
Accordingly I stand by my answer. The only reason a court appearance would not be necessary is if a guilty plea were to be entered by post. Perhaps you�d like to say what you think would happen in the circumstances described (not in those in which you found yourself).
I made no comment about what would happen if �..she does not fill it in�. That wasn�t the question.
On a wider note, which of the eight answers I have posted on AB so far do you consider contains the most excrement?
The question posed this time (if I read it correctly, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) was what will happen if woods118 replies to the NIP saying that the driving was being shared and no firm recollection could be made as to who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
Accordingly I stand by my answer. The only reason a court appearance would not be necessary is if a guilty plea were to be entered by post. Perhaps you�d like to say what you think would happen in the circumstances described (not in those in which you found yourself).
I made no comment about what would happen if �..she does not fill it in�. That wasn�t the question.
On a wider note, which of the eight answers I have posted on AB so far do you consider contains the most excrement?
scroll down and read from point 7, if you have sufficient time.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=49
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=49
Thanks Panic Button. What you have pointed out via �Honest John� is quite correct and extremely relevant.
Section 172 certainly does provide such a defence in these circumstances. However, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution (who will have already proved their case by showing that the required details were not provided in the time allowed) to the defendant. This burden is at the lower level of �on the balance of probabilities� (i.e. that it is more likely to be true than false). The prosecution, of course, has to have proved its case �beyond reasonable doubt� � a much higher threshold.
To succeed the defendant will have to show that he has exercised the �due diligence� mentioned in the legislation. In the circumstances described by woods118 the Court will want to see how this diligence was exercised. In particular they will want to learn how long ago the alleged offence was said to have taken place, how often the drivers changed over, whether the photograph(s) had been asked for and examined, and anything else they deem relevant in the circumstances.
All of this can only be done in Court by means of a trial following a �Not Guilty� plea. The Fixed Penalty Office will not entertain such investigations and will simply issue a summons under s172 when the time allowed for providing the driver�s details has elapsed.
Running this defence has become more popular since the �celebrity couple� Neil and Christine Hamilton successfully used it in November 2003. However, it is not that easy to succeed without legal representation.
I hope that this has managed to persuade Norman that my original answer (by which I still stand, and which I think said the same thing in fewer words) was not fished out of the toilet. However, I doubt it!
Section 172 certainly does provide such a defence in these circumstances. However, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution (who will have already proved their case by showing that the required details were not provided in the time allowed) to the defendant. This burden is at the lower level of �on the balance of probabilities� (i.e. that it is more likely to be true than false). The prosecution, of course, has to have proved its case �beyond reasonable doubt� � a much higher threshold.
To succeed the defendant will have to show that he has exercised the �due diligence� mentioned in the legislation. In the circumstances described by woods118 the Court will want to see how this diligence was exercised. In particular they will want to learn how long ago the alleged offence was said to have taken place, how often the drivers changed over, whether the photograph(s) had been asked for and examined, and anything else they deem relevant in the circumstances.
All of this can only be done in Court by means of a trial following a �Not Guilty� plea. The Fixed Penalty Office will not entertain such investigations and will simply issue a summons under s172 when the time allowed for providing the driver�s details has elapsed.
Running this defence has become more popular since the �celebrity couple� Neil and Christine Hamilton successfully used it in November 2003. However, it is not that easy to succeed without legal representation.
I hope that this has managed to persuade Norman that my original answer (by which I still stand, and which I think said the same thing in fewer words) was not fished out of the toilet. However, I doubt it!
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.