Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
rules on carrying documents
20 Answers
i was involved in an accident where someone crashed into my car and it wasnt my fault. the ploice were called and i had to give my version to them. i gave them my driving licence with my details on and they cautioned me for not carrying my insurance certificate and mot certificate with me even though they checked i had insurance and mot.i was then given a producer so had to produce my documents at the police station within 3 days or a warrant would be out for my arrest.i have spoken to different people and they have all said that it is a load of rubbish that you have to carry them documents with you. has anyone else heard whether this is true or not?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sarah1987. 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.
Absolute load of tosh! In the UK you are not obliged to carry your documents with you. Indeed, most police forces will recommend you don't, because if your car gets nicked, the thieves will have the MOT etc.
Usually, unless it is an 'injury' accident, you will be given 7 days to produce at a police station of your choice. I would write a letter to the relevant chief constable and ask what the hell is going on.
Usually, unless it is an 'injury' accident, you will be given 7 days to produce at a police station of your choice. I would write a letter to the relevant chief constable and ask what the hell is going on.
Not quite absolute tosh, sddsddean. You are obliged to produce your documents when requested by a police officer which in theory means you should have them with you. However you will not be prosecuted if you produce them within 7 days at a police station or to a police constable.Agree most police forces would rather you didn't leave them in your vehicle.
sarah
I can't understand any reference to warrants being issued. This would only occur if you were fined in court and failed to pay your fine. Eventually an arrest warrant would be issued for the non-payment. Probably take 12 months plus before this happened
sarah
I can't understand any reference to warrants being issued. This would only occur if you were fined in court and failed to pay your fine. Eventually an arrest warrant would be issued for the non-payment. Probably take 12 months plus before this happened
Section 137 of the RTA refers to driving instructors and the additional documents they need and not to drivers generally.
Section 165 is the section relevant to the power of constables to demand the production of insurance documents. This clearly states that a person shall not be convicted of an offence of failing to produce if the documents are produced within seven days. There is therefore not even a �theoretical� need to carry them with you. The police had no right to �caution� you (either formally or informally) for not carrying them as you have no obligation to do so. They were clearly satisfied that you had identified yourself to them (by the production of your licence) and they should have sent you on your way with a form HORT1.
There is no power of arrest (and so no possibility of a warrant being issued) for the offence of failing to produce, or indeed for driving without insurance.
So, sarah, on balance I would suggest that the details as you have described them contain quite a bit of rubbish!
Section 165 is the section relevant to the power of constables to demand the production of insurance documents. This clearly states that a person shall not be convicted of an offence of failing to produce if the documents are produced within seven days. There is therefore not even a �theoretical� need to carry them with you. The police had no right to �caution� you (either formally or informally) for not carrying them as you have no obligation to do so. They were clearly satisfied that you had identified yourself to them (by the production of your licence) and they should have sent you on your way with a form HORT1.
There is no power of arrest (and so no possibility of a warrant being issued) for the offence of failing to produce, or indeed for driving without insurance.
So, sarah, on balance I would suggest that the details as you have described them contain quite a bit of rubbish!
New Judge
The offence is committed when the police officer requests to see the documents at the time. If they are not produced within 7 days, the summons will allege you committed the offence on that and not after the elapse of 7 days , I
therefore maintain that the law requires you to have your documents with you.
I'm not sure about the caution. Was it the police caution given to allow any replies to be used in evidence or a warning about committing an offence. The latter is normally done via a written letter for traffic offences.
The offence is committed when the police officer requests to see the documents at the time. If they are not produced within 7 days, the summons will allege you committed the offence on that and not after the elapse of 7 days , I
therefore maintain that the law requires you to have your documents with you.
I'm not sure about the caution. Was it the police caution given to allow any replies to be used in evidence or a warning about committing an offence. The latter is normally done via a written letter for traffic offences.
New Judge
Just noticed that paragraph about no possibility of a warrant being issued for driving offences. Continually ignoring summons to attend court could eventually end up with an arrest warrant being issued by the court. Offences are normally dealt with in the absence of the offender if they ignore summons but it is possible to issue arrest warrant if they so wish.
Just noticed that paragraph about no possibility of a warrant being issued for driving offences. Continually ignoring summons to attend court could eventually end up with an arrest warrant being issued by the court. Offences are normally dealt with in the absence of the offender if they ignore summons but it is possible to issue arrest warrant if they so wish.
(Two part post)
Sarah � I did not accuse you of lying. On the contrary, I agreed that what you had been told (about the threat of arrest and you being warned for not carrying your documents) was rubbish. I don�t doubt you were told it (otherwise you would not have posed the question). I�m confirming your suspicions that it was rubbish.
chompu � we�ll have to agree to differ about whether an offence is committed when stopped or after seven days.
The Road Traffic Act (S137) states:
[A driver] ... must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce [documents] for examination.
AND
A person shall not be convicted of an offence .... by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that�
(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required...
So the law does not expect drivers to carry their documents in that it clearly provides a defence for not having them. If you consider that an offence has been committed at the time of being stopped then we are talking semantics.
Sarah � I did not accuse you of lying. On the contrary, I agreed that what you had been told (about the threat of arrest and you being warned for not carrying your documents) was rubbish. I don�t doubt you were told it (otherwise you would not have posed the question). I�m confirming your suspicions that it was rubbish.
chompu � we�ll have to agree to differ about whether an offence is committed when stopped or after seven days.
The Road Traffic Act (S137) states:
[A driver] ... must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce [documents] for examination.
AND
A person shall not be convicted of an offence .... by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that�
(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required...
So the law does not expect drivers to carry their documents in that it clearly provides a defence for not having them. If you consider that an offence has been committed at the time of being stopped then we are talking semantics.
(Part Two)
Furthermore, failing to produce documents (and most other driving offences) is processed under summons only. Whilst magistrates have the power to order anybody they choose to appear before them, they have to have reasons for doing so. Their legal advisor would counsel strongly against issuing an arrest warrant for non-arrestable driving matters and would urge them instead to deal in the defendant�s absence (after having warned him by post that they would do so).
Sarah said that she had been warned that an arrest warrant would be issued if she failed to produce within 3 days and this clearly is rubbish.
Furthermore, failing to produce documents (and most other driving offences) is processed under summons only. Whilst magistrates have the power to order anybody they choose to appear before them, they have to have reasons for doing so. Their legal advisor would counsel strongly against issuing an arrest warrant for non-arrestable driving matters and would urge them instead to deal in the defendant�s absence (after having warned him by post that they would do so).
Sarah said that she had been warned that an arrest warrant would be issued if she failed to produce within 3 days and this clearly is rubbish.
New Judge
I hereby refuse to beg to differ. The offence takes place when you are stopped. Not seven days later or any other time. I should know I filed enough reports on this during my 30 years as a police officer.
My last 2 years service was spent in the Criminal Justice Unit. One task which we did on a rota basis was to take a pile of files to the magistrates court for offences where people had failed many times to respond to summons. It would be myself, magistrate and clerk in the court. On oath I would give a summary of the attempts to get offender to court and the magistrate would make a decision. Guess what? They sometimes issued a warrant for arrest for driving offences.
I hereby refuse to beg to differ. The offence takes place when you are stopped. Not seven days later or any other time. I should know I filed enough reports on this during my 30 years as a police officer.
My last 2 years service was spent in the Criminal Justice Unit. One task which we did on a rota basis was to take a pile of files to the magistrates court for offences where people had failed many times to respond to summons. It would be myself, magistrate and clerk in the court. On oath I would give a summary of the attempts to get offender to court and the magistrate would make a decision. Guess what? They sometimes issued a warrant for arrest for driving offences.
As I accepted in my earlier post, chompu, magistrates do have the powers you describe. I imagine it is exercised extremely rarely and with good reason, even when you are providing the information. There generally is no need to waste police resources arresting people for driving offences when the sentences open to the court do not require that they attend. However, I accept that magistrates do like, occasionally, to "see" a defendant before sentencing.
As for the other matter, I�ll no longer differ when you provide details of a driver who did not have his documents with him when stopped, and was subsequently successfully prosecuted for failing to produce, even though he had produced satisfactory documents within seven days.
I don�t believe that magistrates, even in the court with which you were involved, would convict such a defendant, and further, I don�t believe any such charge would ever be brought.
I was trying to provide sarah with a sensible answer based upon a sensible interpretation of the law. It's nice to see some pedantry from time to time, though!
As for the other matter, I�ll no longer differ when you provide details of a driver who did not have his documents with him when stopped, and was subsequently successfully prosecuted for failing to produce, even though he had produced satisfactory documents within seven days.
I don�t believe that magistrates, even in the court with which you were involved, would convict such a defendant, and further, I don�t believe any such charge would ever be brought.
I was trying to provide sarah with a sensible answer based upon a sensible interpretation of the law. It's nice to see some pedantry from time to time, though!
I forgot to mention, CORBYLOON, you are quite correct. For a defence to be necessary there has to be an accusation.
In the circumstances imagined by chompu there never would be one because an unambiguous defence is enshrined in the very Act under which any prosecution would be brought.
There are occasions when the law does not quite say what it means but I believe, although strangely worded, this section of the RTA leaves no doubt that there is no requirement for drivers to carry documents and no prosecution would ever succeed in these circumstances.
chompu may like to believe that an offence has been commited as soon as you are stopped with no documents, but not even CPS lawyers have that much time to waste!
In the circumstances imagined by chompu there never would be one because an unambiguous defence is enshrined in the very Act under which any prosecution would be brought.
There are occasions when the law does not quite say what it means but I believe, although strangely worded, this section of the RTA leaves no doubt that there is no requirement for drivers to carry documents and no prosecution would ever succeed in these circumstances.
chompu may like to believe that an offence has been commited as soon as you are stopped with no documents, but not even CPS lawyers have that much time to waste!
New Judge
Chompu does not like to believe an offence is committed if you fail to produce your documents when stopped. He knows that is when the offence occurs.
Of course you will not be prosecuted if you produce within 7 days. As you rightly point out, it says this in the act. I never claimed you would be prosecuted if you produced in accordance with the act. I was pointing out that the offence occurs at the time you were stopped.I can't make it any clearer than that.
Chompu does not like to believe an offence is committed if you fail to produce your documents when stopped. He knows that is when the offence occurs.
Of course you will not be prosecuted if you produce within 7 days. As you rightly point out, it says this in the act. I never claimed you would be prosecuted if you produced in accordance with the act. I was pointing out that the offence occurs at the time you were stopped.I can't make it any clearer than that.
Here is the national policy quoted by the Chief Constable of Mersyside in reply to a Mr Lennon. Please note the words 'the offence is complete at the time of the request'
wohttp://www.merseyside.police.uk/forum/showthre ad.php?t=66&page=3rds
wohttp://www.merseyside.police.uk/forum/showthre ad.php?t=66&page=3rds
I think Chief Constable Hogan-Howe is referring to issuing a verbal �Notice of Intended Prosecution� (i.e the warning etc described) which his force is obliged to make if any prosecution is to succeed.
Since we�re now straying into purely theoretical dogma (and well away from Sarah�s original point) the matter of whether or not an offence has been committed is (at least for the moment) fortunately not for the police to decide. There is the tiresome matter of having to present evidence before a court. Only when a conviction has been secured can it safely be said that an offence was indeed committed.
No conviction would ever be recorded in the circumstances we are discussing. Whilst the police may have good enough reason to issue a warning on the grounds that they suspect an offence to have taken place (and so be covered if there was eventual non-production), it is purely that � a suspicion � until the matter is proved.
I also noticed, chompu, that in your first post you could not understand warrants being issued, and could envisage it only in the event of non-payment of fines. Are the miscreants you referred to in your post of 16/8 at 00:45 fine defaulters? If so the warrants were not issued for motoring offences, but for non-payment of fines � an entirely different matter.
Since we�re now straying into purely theoretical dogma (and well away from Sarah�s original point) the matter of whether or not an offence has been committed is (at least for the moment) fortunately not for the police to decide. There is the tiresome matter of having to present evidence before a court. Only when a conviction has been secured can it safely be said that an offence was indeed committed.
No conviction would ever be recorded in the circumstances we are discussing. Whilst the police may have good enough reason to issue a warning on the grounds that they suspect an offence to have taken place (and so be covered if there was eventual non-production), it is purely that � a suspicion � until the matter is proved.
I also noticed, chompu, that in your first post you could not understand warrants being issued, and could envisage it only in the event of non-payment of fines. Are the miscreants you referred to in your post of 16/8 at 00:45 fine defaulters? If so the warrants were not issued for motoring offences, but for non-payment of fines � an entirely different matter.
New Judge
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse. Failing to produce driving documents is NOT one of the offences that requires a notice of intended prosecution to be issued and for the life of me I can't see how you interpreted anything the Chief Constable said to have any connection to that procedure.
You then state that an offence is not an offence until conviction at court. Does the Chief Constable not refer to a suspected offence in relation to the issue of a caution.I repeat yet again, on conviction if you so want, the offence takes place at the time of the request. I agree the police are not judge and jury but there surely aren't much simpler circumstances than police officer making lawful request to see documents.
'Sorry officer I haven't got them with me' 'Alleged' offence committed. Not prosecuted because said alleged offender produces within 7 days and thus could use this as a statutory defence. CPS and prior to them, the police do not prosecute original offence because person would have this defence.Common sense really what would be the point of prosecuting knowing the person has a valid defence.
Warrants. No my reply regarding arrest warrants did not refer to non-payment warrants.
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse. Failing to produce driving documents is NOT one of the offences that requires a notice of intended prosecution to be issued and for the life of me I can't see how you interpreted anything the Chief Constable said to have any connection to that procedure.
You then state that an offence is not an offence until conviction at court. Does the Chief Constable not refer to a suspected offence in relation to the issue of a caution.I repeat yet again, on conviction if you so want, the offence takes place at the time of the request. I agree the police are not judge and jury but there surely aren't much simpler circumstances than police officer making lawful request to see documents.
'Sorry officer I haven't got them with me' 'Alleged' offence committed. Not prosecuted because said alleged offender produces within 7 days and thus could use this as a statutory defence. CPS and prior to them, the police do not prosecute original offence because person would have this defence.Common sense really what would be the point of prosecuting knowing the person has a valid defence.
Warrants. No my reply regarding arrest warrants did not refer to non-payment warrants.
I wouldn't know how to be obtuse, chompu. I was merely trying to be pragmatic. I'm glad you accept that there would be no point in prosecuting with no chance of conviction. If it keeps the peace I'll accept that an offence would be committed on the officer's request for the documents.
I think we're both as bad as each other by arguing over wording and semantics. Time we laid this to rest, I think, to put other AB-ers out of their misery!
I think we're both as bad as each other by arguing over wording and semantics. Time we laid this to rest, I think, to put other AB-ers out of their misery!
1 to 20 of 20
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.