help

[bobis]

high, could anyone help wiyh this, my daughters friend asked to use her car she did allow him to use it but before he did she asked if he had insurance, he told her he had third party cover,he was stopped a few hundred yards down the road and has to produce his details to the police, the police informed my daughter he had been stopped and that if he has no insurance to cover him she will be charged her friend still has not produced the docs as yet although he has 7 days to do so,whats worring my daughter is if he does not have insurance what could she expect the courts to give her as this is the first year she has been driving , any help would be gratefull as she is worried she will lose her licence if her friend does not have the insurance he says he has, thanks john.

[Loosehead]

She should state that the "friend" said he had insurance and if he is a friend he will confirm that. She has not committed an offence, stick to the truth,, the police have nothing to charge her with. The offences where all committed by her "friend" . What are they proposing to charge her with? The only possible thing is abeting and they'll never make that stick expecially if the "friend" confirms the situation. He's getting prosecuted anyway so he has nothing to gain from not verifying her story.. The police are just, as usual, going after the soft target, any half decent brief will blow it out of the water. Good luck

[Toureman]

There is an alternative to Loosheads answer, though he has given a good answer.

If the "friend" is not a "friend" then you could say she did not have permission to use your car but she took it without your knowledge, the police would then charge her for taking without consent and she would face any charges and you would be in the clear. Perhaps you can advise your friend of this.

If you do not want to do this then follow Loosehead's advice.

[kempie]

I do hope that the situation works out alright for your daughter, however I must point out that Loosehead is not correct in stating that the possible charge would be abetting the friend's offence.

A 2005 amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 now lists the specific offences of "causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle" for which the Registered Keeper of the vehicle is wholly liable.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.html#09

[gouldc]

Allowing a vehicle to be used uninsured carries an IN12 conviction - this can be endorsed with 6 points, so it's possible a new driver can lose their licence.

Unfortunately, the defence that the friend told her he/she had insurance will not be deemed a satisfactory defence, and your daughter should have requested to see the insurance certificate.

It's not a nice situation, but the police won't accept ignorance as a valid excuse for not prosecuting in the majority of cases.

If the friend says he/she never told your daughter this, you have one word against the other, and I would suspect (based o ncases I've seen) that they will both be liable for prosecution.

[bobis]

hi, many thanks to you all for the answers and advice to my question, its really good being able to put a question on this site and get so many replies in such a short period of time,keep it up you are all doing a great job, all the best john.

[Loosehead]

Ok Kempie pick holes, I used one word "abet" to replace your entire paragraph, note it as a small "a" it was to avoid going into the actual offence. abet is just a word it has no definition in law. The IN12 offence discribed by gouldc is essentially aiding and abeting the offence.

Anyway Bobis the case pivots on whether your daughter thought he had insurance and she did. It would help though if her "friend" also told the police that he convinced her that he had.

[bobis]

hi loosehead, many thanks for that, at the time my daughters friend told her in front of the police that he was covered by third party so at least they know that she at least asked him before he was allowed the car, my only concern is that her friend seems to be taking his time in producing his docs and knowing that my daughter is going out of her mind in case he has been lying to her, but then again she should have phyisicaly checked his docs before letting him have the car, but thanks again for the reply, all the best john.

[gouldc]

IN12 is aiding and abetting, but IN14 is causing or permitting - either may be applicable, but if the polcie are aware that he has advised he had insurance, I wouldn't have thought this to be a problem

[kempie]

Loosehead - I wasn't picking holes but rather pointing out that an entirely different offence exists to the one which is covered by 'abet'.

As for abet having no definition in law - it forms the basis of legislation governing complicity in criminal offences (s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by s65(4) Criminal Law Act 1977) which states:

'Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.'

...and that in AG's Reference (No 1 of 1975) (1975) QB 773, Lord Chief Justice Widgery stated that the words in s8 should be given their ordinary meaning.

'The natural meaning of "to abet" is "to incite, instigate or encourage" and this can only be committed by an accessory who is present when the crime is committed. This does imply either an express or implied agreement between the parties although there is no need to prove any causative link between what the abettor did and the committion of the offence.'

[kilo 1 9]

The only appropriate offence here would be permitting (the friend) to drive without insurance. (She could not be said to have "caused" him to drive as she has no power of compulsion over him.

However, you cannot in law be considered able to permit something you have no knowledge of, so if she had no reason to believe he was uninsured at the time, I would argue that there is no case against her to answer.