Paragraph 4 (Unsure of Driver) Defence |
Paragraph 4 (Unsure of Driver) Defence |
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 - 13:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,714 Joined: 3 Sep 2003 From: ex-Scotland Member No.: 298 |
**NOTE** - Section 172 now carries a 6-point penalty, as opposed to 3. This raises the stakes against anyone running this defence. Please be aware of this before deciding on any course of action.
Hi All, It is becoming obvious that a lot of the questions being asked on this forum relate to "unsure who was driving at the time". It is with this in mind that anyone who has this predicament should read on..... If you have received an NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) through the post and are unsure as to the driver at that time then you (the registered keeper) have a legal obligation to provide the details of the driver at that time. QUOTE Road Traffic Act 1988; section 172(2(a))] (a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police QUESTION A REGISTERED KEEPER MIGHT ASK: "That seems really unfair, it could have been any number of people on that given day as it is not just me that can (or is insured to) drive my car". However............ QUOTE (4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. This is taken from Section 172 (paragraph 4) and is basically a line of defence if you were genuinely unsure as to who was driving on the day. Basically, you have to prove "reasonable diligence" in trying to ascertain the identity of the driver. "What is reasonable diligence" I hear you ask and what do I have to do to fulfill this requirement? Well ultimately it is a matter for the courts, although a great many do not reach that stage. Seeking evidence is paramount here. Writing to the ticket office in question and asking for photographic ID will usually be no problem although some forces are a bit sticky about this. Remember that there is no legal requirement for the ticket office to do this, although you will find that most will be helpful. QUOTE Date Address of Camera Office Dear Sir/Madam NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION NO : ********With reference to the above notice number, I would be grateful if you could supply me with any photographic evidence of the alleged offence so that I may identify the driver. On the day specified, there was more than one driver of the vehicle and unfortunately we are unable to come to any definitive conclusions as to who the driver was. I look forward to receiving the photographs at your earliest convenience and should there be any problem with this I would appreciate your prompt response. Yours You could also check your credit/debit/bank statements to see if you purchased any fuel at/about that time. You could request maps/map references to "back track" your movements if you are unsure as to where the camera was. The trick is to be as diligent as possible. In a lot of cases, you will find that when any photographic ID does arrive at your address it will be a rear view of the car and is unlikely to give any clues as to who was actually driving. If the ID you receive is from a Truvelo or such like and is forward facing then the chance of positive ID is greatly increased. In light of recent (March 2004) correspondence, it appears that there is nothing to stop the police using photographic evidence in court to identify you as the driver should ambiguity exist. Any honest citizen that can identify themselves as the driver would do so after being satisfied that this was indeed themselves driving. If the photographic ID was ambiguous or unclear then there are good grounds to NOT sign the NIP, then a friendly covering letter such as the one written below would be sent.... QUOTE Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - ******* Dear I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, I can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following: · Name and address of driver number 1; and · Name and address of driver number 2, etc. Each of the drivers listed above have seen the photographic evidence but none of them are able to be clear as to who it actually is. I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was. So other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters, and having provided the details of the individuals above, there is nothing else I can do. I very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court. Yours sincerely, One of two things will happen at this juncture : (i) You will be hounded (bluff and bluster letters) to provide the identity of the driver (ii) The case will be dropped, as happened in my case. It would be difficult to see how any reasonable magistrate could reasonably convict a registered keeper after this chain of events. Short of keeping a log book to note the specific times and dates of each journey and who made them (which is not a legal requirement), then it is virtually impossible for the keeper to know who was driving. Much less the magistrate. For a cracking account of how to defend oneself in court (and for further methods of being 'diligent'), read this excellent post by welshy. Result: not guilty. This post has been edited by nemo: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 - 22:04 -------------------- Regards,
ff Benefitted from PePiPoo? Useful Info: 1 Read This First 2. 14-day Rule; 3. 6-month Rule. 4. NIP Wizard. 5. Success Stories. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 - 10:13
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Member No.: 1,531 |
i dont mind taking the half a day off work and viewing a photograph, the fact i also took the half day to visit the opticians as well is part of this reason. But at the end of the day im am trying to the best of my ability to find out who is driving the car me or my wife.
I have receipt for the new cat for my wifes car which was sent down to me the day before my car was snapped, thus proving my claim the wifes car was unusable at the time, i have checked bank statements and diaries etc but alas i have still been unable to identify the driver so now the photograph is my last hope of doing so. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:24 |