PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Intended prosecution for failing to identify driver, IP for failing to identify driver - even though i provided the details
royalmarineguy12...
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



here is a brief timeline

june 2018 - speeding offence detected by camera. NIP sent to address
june 2018 - email response to police providing details of driver minus details unknown (d/l number and dob)
Sep 2018 - further requirement sent to me - stating driver named by me hadn't been located.
Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner- partners friend had taken the car without partners knowledge at party both attended. partners friend admitted taking vehicle.
jan 2019 - file reviewed - decision to prosecute - because full details not provided (no dob and d/l num) of partners friend - friendship had ended (short term affair)

partner was having an affair which has no ended. no contact btn 2 parties.

I did all I could provided details of person my partner claimed to have the car at the time of offence. Partner signed it and explained the situation. Charge claims no details provided for partner (who had car on date NOT Time of offence) even though in letter they asked for driver at the time of offence which we provided. I was at home nursing baby.

now I have choice to go guilty plus fine or go to trial.

I think they are being unreasonable - under s172 of RTA - I provided details of person /partner claimed was driving - partner signed this statement as true.

shall I go to trial or are my chances slim?


thank you all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 63)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 14:12
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,624
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 13:38) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 11:39) *
But if all that is in the evidence anyway, as I stated above, then no need to call him to confirm it!

Should I inform the criminal procedure rules committee that there's no point in ever cross examining police staff, and the court rules should be amended to prevent such cross examinations taking place, on the basis that they're just a waste of time?

No, but you probably ought to do so on the basis that certain individuals are never wrong.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 07:04
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,366
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The point here is that it’s a matter of fact whether or not a second S172 was sent, why it was never sent in the offices minds I don’t think is relevant it’s for the court to determine whether they should and what impact it would have made surely.

Plus there is the old adage about not asking a question you don’t know the answer to, the tubby May give a reply that adversely impacts the defence.....

Clearly I never said they should never do it, that’s just being silly.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 07:28


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 17:59
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 07:04) *
The point here is that it’s a matter of fact whether or not a second S172 was sent, why it was never sent in the offices minds I don’t think is relevant it’s for the court to determine whether they should and what impact it would have made surely.

If I were the OP I'd want to cross examine them, I'm not going to get into a debate as to why I think that is the best strategy. The OP has our views and can make his own mind up.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 20:15
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,366
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That’s fair enough.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: Wednesday, 22nd May 2019 - 17:53
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.