PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Naming drivers question
Gan
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:55
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24) *
This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?

So what you are saying they both knew they were over the limit before AND after the locus of the alleged offence.... But surely that still leaves the question of who was driving AT the locus and only the two drivers can decide that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:55) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24) *
This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?

So what you are saying they both knew they were over the limit before AND after the locus of the alleged offence.... But surely that still leaves the question of who was driving AT the locus and only the two drivers can decide that.


locus can run to several miles on Mways, so they both could be driving at the specified place


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:25
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



That's precisely what I have in mind
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:38
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,816
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



So how & for what reason did they change drivers on that stretch of m'may, assuming no pit stop at M'Way services?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:21) *
locus can run to several miles on Mways, so they both could be driving at the specified place

Eh... How does that work then ??? Unless you mean a stretch with average speed cameras.

This post has been edited by StuartBu: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:21
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24) *
This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?


You would potentially have a strong vague locus argument. Whilst the requirement to specify the location is to enable the accused to recall/identify the incident in question, rather than to enable the recipient of the s. 172 requirement, which is only incorporated into the NIP as a matter of convenience, the inability to identify who was driving when the offence was alleged to have been committed would seem to reinforce the fact that it was not sufficiently precise to enable the accused to identify the incident in question.

I would be more than a tad concerned about 2 people confessing to separate offences which have been described in a possibly valid NIP though. If the NIP was valid and the evidence of speeding from the confession was sufficient, then they could potentially both be convicted on their own evidence. S. 172 does not allow for more than the single question of who was driving, but if the confession to exceeding the speed limit was found to be voluntary (as opposed to compliance with a requirement to provide any information in his power to give that might lead to the identification of the driver), it would seem to be admissible under PACE.

Perhaps the question ought to be "What would happen if two drivers both drove within the locus described by the NIP on that occasion and swapped over within that locus, and were both named?"

The answer would seem to depend somewhat on how the speed was recorded.

If it was recorded by an average speed camera system, and the drivers changed over during the measurement, there is no evidence from the device that any specified driver exceeded the speed limit. However, unless the locus described was particularly long, in order for the average speed between the 2 points to be above the threshold despite the time taken to stop, swap drivers and build speed back up, whichever driver was speeding would presumably have to have been doing so by a substantial and noticeable margin. If the other driver was compelled to give evidence, although his evidence would presumably merely be an opinion, arguably the evidence from the device could be used as well, although that would be quite messy.

If the speed was recorded instantaneously, if the drivers were able to identify exactly where they swapped the prosecution could almost certainly specify where the offence was committed (or detected) with sufficient detail to determine who was driving.

I would also expect a bench to be somewhat suspicious of claims that 2 drivers swapped conveniently near to the locus of the alleged offence - unless of course it was a conspiracy.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jewels2009
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,869



This threads already explaining why its not so difficult irrespective of time to work out whose driving at a given locus/poin
Last nights tv,newspapers, texts phones, children of course couldn't work it, adults no, its within reasonable expectations.

This post has been edited by jewels2009: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:47
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:24) *
This is prompted by a current thread involving two possible drivers who changed places close to the location

What happens if both drivers are named, making clear that it's not as alternatives but because they both exceeded the speed limit there and don't know which one was caught ?

It is a simple question of fact both cannot have been driving at the time and place of the offence unless it was an average speed camera. (Albeit I think it may be physically theoretically possible to average above the threshold and swap drivers I doubt in practice it is). So the person receiving the s172 will have failed to name the driver.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:53
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The location described on the NIP is often not the precise location where the offence was committed/detected, regardless of detection method. Therefore it is often possible to swap drivers within the locus described in the NIP/s. 172 requirement.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jewels2009
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,869



QUOTE ( @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:53) *
The location described on the NIP is often not the precise location where the offence was committed/detected, regardless of detection method. Therefore it is often possible to swap drivers within the locus described in the NIP/s. 172 requirement.

That's not a problem,since that can be determined. The driver's know where they stopped. IMO, its reasonably a given. The 172 requires a name,so as suggested by GAN up to X is Mr wick , after x is Mr spent. That names the driver, and the bibs determine the location precisely and proceed accordingly as to whom to charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:22
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:53) *
The location described on the NIP is often not the precise location where the offence was committed/detected, regardless of detection method. Therefore it is often possible to swap drivers within the locus described in the NIP/s. 172 requirement.

S172 doesn't talk about a locus. It simply requires the name of the person who committed the offence. As only 1 person can be driving at a given time you would have to name 2 possible drivers, you could not name 2 unequivocal drivers.

A vague locus for an NIP may cause the prosecution to fail. A vague locus on a s172 (with a driver swap) would fall under the reasonable diligence heading of asking for a more exact location. A refusal to clarify may be fatal to a prosecution case, but it may also be that a court would expect both possibles to be named and an explanation given for doing so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 18:00
Post #13


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:22) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:53) *
The location described on the NIP is often not the precise location where the offence was committed/detected, regardless of detection method. Therefore it is often possible to swap drivers within the locus described in the NIP/s. 172 requirement.

S172 doesn't talk about a locus. It simply requires the name of the person who committed the offence. As only 1 person can be driving at a given time you would have to name 2 possible drivers, you could not name 2 unequivocal drivers.


S. 172 RTA 1988 does not of itself require the name of the person who committed the offence. It does not even require that an offence was committed, neither can it require that the recipient state that a particular person committed the offence. It enables the Chief Officer of Police to require certain information about the driver who is alleged to have committed an offence, and requires the addressee to provide certain information if required by the Chief Officer of Police. It is the s. 172 requirement from the Chief Officer of Police which often talks about a locus.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 18:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 18:00) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 17:22) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:53) *
The location described on the NIP is often not the precise location where the offence was committed/detected, regardless of detection method. Therefore it is often possible to swap drivers within the locus described in the NIP/s. 172 requirement.

S172 doesn't talk about a locus. It simply requires the name of the person who committed the offence. As only 1 person can be driving at a given time you would have to name 2 possible drivers, you could not name 2 unequivocal drivers.


S. 172 RTA 1988 does not of itself require the name of the person who committed the offence. It does not even require that an offence was committed, neither can it require that the recipient state that a particular person committed the offence. It enables the Chief Officer of Police to require certain information about the driver who is alleged to have committed an offence, and requires the addressee to provide certain information if required by the Chief Officer of Police. It is the s. 172 requirement from the Chief Officer of Police which often talks about a locus.

Pedantic but true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here