Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Intended prosecution for failing to identify driver

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #1449222

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

Posted by: AntonyMMM Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:16
Post #1449249

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
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.


Then you plead not guilty and defend the charge in court. With hindsight what you should have done is reply naming your partner - they were the one who had the car and that would have fully satisfied your legal obligation. Your partner would then have received a s172 notice in their name and they would then nominate the friend.

It is for the court to decide whether your actions did meet the requirements of s172, but your case is potentially strong. The suggestion would be that this un-contactable person has been invented to avoid the speeding charge, so your partner will have to be in court to give the evidence about this other person who took the car - you can't as you have no direct knowledge about what happened and who was driving.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:21
Post #1449251

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
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.

The request was sent to you but your partner signed it?

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:33
Post #1449257

We've seen that scenario a few times

Failing to follow the exact instructions has a habit of ending badly

For all the police know, the situation is the same as the Fiona Onasanya case - the Labour MP who left her brother to fill in the form, naming a person that couldn't be traced

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29
Post #1449274

Should have just named your partner as keeper?

Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:59
Post #1449299

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29) *
Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.

There is no suggestion the car was tocked, just lent to someone who's full details are not known to the RK. Did the police ever send a s172 to the partner who had first borrowed the car?

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:09
Post #1449300

I am the registered keeper so document came to me: I filled in form and inserted details of person that was driving as provided by my partner. partner added a signed separated statement/cover letter outlining what had happened.

The document states I shouldn't allow anyone to complete so I completed it given the info I had been provided to me



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 14:29) *
Was the car reported as TWOC, if not the account doesn’t ring true.

There is no suggestion the car was tocked, just lent to someone who's full details are not known to the RK. Did the police ever send a s172 to the partner who had first borrowed the car?



no police didn't contact them although details were provided in signed statement which I submitted when completing NIP

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:33) *
We've seen that scenario a few times

Failing to follow the exact instructions has a habit of ending badly

For all the police know, the situation is the same as the Fiona Onasanya case - the Labour MP who left her brother to fill in the form, naming a person that couldn't be traced

I filled in form and partner added a signed statement of what transpired

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
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.

The request was sent to you but your partner signed it?



I filled and signed NIP. partner added a signed statement/cover letter explaining what had happened. I filled in details provided by partner of person driving car at time of offence.

QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11) *
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.


Then you plead not guilty and defend the charge in court. With hindsight what you should have done is reply naming your partner - they were the one who had the car and that would have fully satisfied your legal obligation. Your partner would then have received a s172 notice in their name and they would then nominate the friend.

It is for the court to decide whether your actions did meet the requirements of s172, but your case is potentially strong. The suggestion would be that this un-contactable person has been invented to avoid the speeding charge, so your partner will have to be in court to give the evidence about this other person who took the car - you can't as you have no direct knowledge about what happened and who was driving.


I should have but because the document isn't precise it made things slightly complicated in my mind. the request was for who was driving at time of offence.

I discussed with partner (who had the car) and he gave me details of driver at the time....I thought that satisfied what was being asked of me. I think I will contest this matter

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:37
Post #1449320

Ok, so they say the prosecution is proceeding because 'full' details weren't provided. i.e. dob and d/l number?

I presume they sent a NIP to the provided details and got no response...

Did the form invite an e-mail response?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post #1449323

I think you should contest. The requirement under s172 is that "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required", based on what you have said, the police should have issued a s172 notice to your partner, as that was the obvious next investigatory step. After all, the police can use s172 to compel your partner to provide information, you can't compel anyone to do anything. It sounds to me like you gave what information you could reasonably be expected to give.

The police will want to present evidence by written statement, this will typically be a statement from a person in the back-office which deals with the paperwork. You would need to serve notice that you object to their evidence being given by means of a witness statement, so they will be required to come and give evidence in person. You can then cross-examine them on whether the information you provided could have lead to the identification of the driver, so as to paint a picture that maybe the police could have identified the driver if they had sent a s172 to your partner, and the only reason this didn't happen is because the police didn't bother sending him such a notice.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14
Post #1449583

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:37) *
Ok, so they say the prosecution is proceeding because 'full' details weren't provided. i.e. dob and d/l number?

I presume they sent a NIP to the provided details and got no response...

Did the form invite an e-mail response?


I assume so. After the initial NIP, they sent another NIP to me once again indicating they couldn't reach the named driver at the time and asked for the info once agina. I provided what information I had (from my partner) who had car on the day with my partner adding a signed cover letter once more.


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:41) *
I think you should contest. The requirement under s172 is that "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required", based on what you have said, the police should have issued a s172 notice to your partner, as that was the obvious next investigatory step. After all, the police can use s172 to compel your partner to provide information, you can't compel anyone to do anything. It sounds to me like you gave what information you could reasonably be expected to give.

The police will want to present evidence by written statement, this will typically be a statement from a person in the back-office which deals with the paperwork. You would need to serve notice that you object to their evidence being given by means of a witness statement, so they will be required to come and give evidence in person. You can then cross-examine them on whether the information you provided could have lead to the identification of the driver, so as to paint a picture that maybe the police could have identified the driver if they had sent a s172 to your partner, and the only reason this didn't happen is because the police didn't bother sending him such a notice.



these are my exact thoughts! My partner provided his name and address on signed cover letter confirming that the information on the NIP was provided by them and how the situation arose.

My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 09:02
Post #1449590

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14) *
My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.

You are right. Although you will be able to take your baby into the court building you will not be permitted to take him/her into the courtroom. You really need to arrange for a sitter as you may be hanging around for a while and most courtrooms are not the most conducive of places. You should be given reasonable notice of your date.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:30
Post #1449623

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 09:02) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 08:14) *
My only issue is the court date. I have a small baby and I am not sure what the protocol is... I don't want to take my baby there.

You are right. Although you will be able to take your baby into the court building you will not be permitted to take him/her into the courtroom. You really need to arrange for a sitter as you may be hanging around for a while and most courtrooms are not the most conducive of places. You should be given reasonable notice of your date.


I will keep this thread open and update all on proceedings. many thanks

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46
Post #1449696

What's the latest document you have received?

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54
Post #1449734

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:08
Post #1449740

And their stance says?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:48
Post #1449762

That letter sounds like a single justice procedure notice.......

Posted by: Mr Rusty Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:54
Post #1449847

Isn't there a distinction in the quality/scope of information required between registered keeper, keeper and driver? In this case you as registered keeper know who the keeper is but are requested to name the driver which you have done? I'm not sure the form asks you to name the keeper, so why should you have named your partner?

Anyone? - Is there a defense here? as neither the keeper or driver is the information required limited to only that information in your power to give? I can't remember the court case that focused on this in the past.

Maybe I'm totally up the wrong tree here - just a thought..

edit - found it - Mohindra

"It is important to note that the obligation imposed by section 172(2) differs if the addressee of the requirement is not one who is keeping the vehicle. Under section 172(2)(a) it is an obligation to give the information required. Under section 172(b), if the person addressed is not the keeper, it is an obligation to give any information which it is in that person's power to give and which may lead to the identification of the driver."

Posted by: NewJudge Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35
Post #1449866

QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:54) *
Isn't there a distinction in the quality/scope of information required between registered keeper, keeper and driver? In this case you as registered keeper know who the keeper is but are requested to name the driver which you have done? I'm not sure the form asks you to name the keeper, so why should you have named your partner?

The legislation does not mention the Registered Keeper (as far as the information required goes). It only differentiates between “the person keeping the vehicle” and “any other person”. Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle” he has the lower obligation to provide “…any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver”. He knew who was keeping the vehicle and he knew who was driving. He provided all he knew about those two parties. It is not reasonable for him to be expected to know the DOB and DL number of somebody to whom his ex-partner lent the vehicle and he gave all the information he had. It is not his responsibility to conduct enquiries on behalf of the police and I would suggest the police should have issued a S172 request to the person they were told was keeping the vehicle.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:33
Post #1449877

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)

I agree with NewJudge, the police cannot expect you to carry out an investigation on their behalf, you gave the information that was available to you. It sounds like you have an SJPN, if you upload a redacted copy we can confirm. If it is an SJPN, and assuming you want to fight it, you need to plead not guilty. I would also enclose, together with the form, a formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 01:47
Post #1450035

There is certainly an argument the OP was not the keeper at the time, in which case they only had to give information in their power to give, as long as it made it clear the partner was the person keeping the vehicle at the time and that name and address was provided then I think there is the makings of a sound defence.

It’s that which I see as an issue, as the first post states the police believe that that wasn’t provided (and the comment about them only asking for driver details seems to support that), a letter from that person doesn’t help if that information isn’t provided in my opinion making the case more marginal than the two posts above suggest. It certainly comes into the category of information in the power to give that may help identify the driver.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:49
Post #1450070

But, provided it is accepted he was not the person keeping the vehicle, he only has to provide “…any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver”. He provided all the information he had. Not only did he provide sufficient information which may lead to identification of the driver, he actually provided that identification. There is no obligation for him to make enquiries (and in any case those he enquired of could simply refuse to answer any of his questions). I don't see what more he could have done. The police may suspect he was pulling a flanker but they had a simple remedy available to them to test their suspicions.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54
Post #1450075

Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver" especially given that an S172 request to a non keeper doesn't place a diligence requirement on the keeper. I'm not saying a court will view it like that, but I think it's far from certain that they won't.

I think this is synonymous with Flegg not giving details of other possible drivers (well riders)......

Posted by: Mr Rusty Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:04
Post #1450079



QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:13
Post #1450082

QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:04) *
QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided

We can only guess right now, however the Police have said not (See post #1), we don't know if the partners name and address were given (or in the case of address made at least obvious) although the OP's comment implies not.
QUOTE
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.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:35
Post #1450137

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:08) *
And their stance says?


SJPN - intention to prosecute

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:13) *
QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:04) *
QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided

We can only guess right now, however the Police have said not (See post #1), we don't know if the partners name and address were given (or in the case of address made at least obvious) although the OP's comment implies not.
QUOTE
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.



hi all,

So I am the registered keeper of car (car in my name), Partner is insured to drive car and often does.

NIP arrived and I informed partner and said I was putting details on form - he supplied details of person that was driving at the time of offence - claimed innocence. details of driver provided with signed declaration from him stating he had car but another drove at time

I believed this satisfied what was being asked of me - dob and dl number are things partner didn't know so I didn't fill in.

2nd NIP arrived because they were unable to trace driver - similar response as before to police (with signed statement/cover letter from partner and he even told them how the incident happened)

I chose this course of action as Police mentioned in letter I was supposed to know who was had car and the person that had car (partner) elected to provide details of person that was driving at time and sign letter to that effect.

what else could I have done in the scenario? asserting that my partner was driving at time would be untrue/inaccurate because 1. I didn't know for sure 2. I was informed that they weren't driving 3. provided details of person driving.


Posted by: AntonyMMM Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:45
Post #1450147

What you should have done...

Nominate your partner - giving their details, and signing the form. The car was in their possession and you have no direct knowledge of anything else.
Your partner would then have received a s172 form on which THEY would then nominate this other person.

However, it is clear you did provide information on who you had been told was driving, so it is for the court to decide whether what you provided did comply with the law. The police/CPS seem to feel otherwise.

As mentioned before - police/courts can be quite sceptical about mysterious third parties who are claimed to have been driving when faced with a speeding charge and who then turn out to be abroad or otherwise un-contactable( as MP Fiona Onasanya has recently discovered), so your defence will depend on your credibility, and particularly that of your partner, when you give evidence.

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 13:49
Post #1450203

QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:45) *
What you should have done...

Nominate your partner - giving their details, and signing the form. The car was in their possession and you have no direct knowledge of anything else.
Your partner would then have received a s172 form on which THEY would then nominate this other person.

How could they have honestly completed the form simply naming their partner as the driver, when they had explicitly been told that their partner wasn't the driver and who was? Some of the comments on here are verging on the fanciful.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:26
Post #1450236

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54) *
Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver..."

But I understood (though may be wrong) that the police had the keeper's details. If the OP has provided all the information he has surely that discharges his responsibility (especially if that information seems more than sufficient for the driver to be traced). The police came back with a request for the driver's DoB and DL number, information which the OP did not have and was not in a position to obtain. Only then did they decide to prosecute the OP. His "nomination" of the driver was only from third party information as he was not in a position to identify the driver.

Perhaps the OP could say whether or not the police were provided with the details of the person keeping the vehicle.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30
Post #1450242

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:26) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54) *
Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver..."

But I understood (though may be wrong) that the police had the keeper's details. If the OP has provided all the information he has surely that discharges his responsibility (especially if that information seems more than sufficient for the driver to be traced). The police came back with a request for the driver's DoB and DL number, information which the OP did not have and was not in a position to obtain. Only then did they decide to prosecute the OP. His "nomination" of the driver was only from third party information as he was not in a position to identify the driver.

Perhaps the OP could say whether or not the police were provided with the details of the person keeping the vehicle.


in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:48
Post #1450250

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30) *
in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document

So not actually "provided" by you, but sent together with your response? My own view is that the police had all the information that you could give them to enable the driver to be identified. If the police wanted a driver nomination from your partner they could have sent a S172 request. I think it would be a harsh court that decides you failed in your duty because the information concerning the keeper was not "provided" by you. If they wanted a statement or letter from you providing what they already knew they should have asked and they didn't. Others, of course, may have a different view so watch this space.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:54
Post #1450255

OK, that does change things and I think as non keeper you have a good case.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59
Post #1450260

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:33) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)

I agree with NewJudge, the police cannot expect you to carry out an investigation on their behalf, you gave the information that was available to you. It sounds like you have an SJPN, if you upload a redacted copy we can confirm. If it is an SJPN, and assuming you want to fight it, you need to plead not guilty. I would also enclose, together with the form, a formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case.


How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09
Post #1450270

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-08.pdf

But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post #1450284

If you have a SJPN all you need to do in response to that is to reply by saying you will plead Not Guilty. The matter will then be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. You can include your request for IDPC as outlined by cp, above. At your first hearing you will be asked to formally enter and also state the basis of your Not Guilty plea.Your trial will be listed for a later date. Make sure you ask for the attendance of the ticket office employee as suggested by cp in an earlier post.

One thing that has occurred to me is that you have not really explained how you were not the "person keeping the vehicle" at the relevant time. As I'm sure you realise, your defence rests on that being so (as it lessens burden to provide information and the action you had to take when asked for it). It may be worth thinking about how you intend to demonstrate that to the court if it is challenged.

Posted by: Logician Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:28
Post #1450339

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:48) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30) *
in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document
So not actually "provided" by you, but sent together with your response? My own view is that the police had all the information that you could give them to enable the driver to be identified. If the police wanted a driver nomination from your partner they could have sent a S172 request. I think it would be a harsh court that decides you failed in your duty because the information concerning the keeper was not "provided" by you. If they wanted a statement or letter from you providing what they already knew they should have asked and they didn't. Others, of course, may have a different view so watch this space.


Although the offence is always called 'failing to provide...' the actual legislation uses the word 'give' but either way I think that by enclosing with his reply a signed letter from the driver identifying himself as such, the OP has fulfilled his obligation under the Act.


Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:00
Post #1450365

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-08.pdf
Many thanks! I will be posting the documents on Monday by special delivery and i will be sure to post their response.
But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.


Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:59
Post #1451094

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:41) *
If you have a SJPN all you need to do in response to that is to reply by saying you will plead Not Guilty. The matter will then be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. You can include your request for IDPC as outlined by cp, above. At your first hearing you will be asked to formally enter and also state the basis of your Not Guilty plea.Your trial will be listed for a later date. Make sure you ask for the attendance of the ticket office employee as suggested by cp in an earlier post.

One thing that has occurred to me is that you have not really explained how you were not the "person keeping the vehicle" at the relevant time. As I'm sure you realise, your defence rests on that being so (as it lessens burden to provide information and the action you had to take when asked for it). It may be worth thinking about how you intend to demonstrate that to the court if it is challenged.



thank you. I intend to get witness statements from relatives/neighbours and also download my entire phone location log and exhibit that to prove I was not driving the car at the time. I will also ask my neighbour ,who has CCTV on his premises. if he can get footage from the day in question.

Posted by: peterguk Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:15
Post #1451097

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:59) *
I was not driving the car at the time.


That is not the same as being the keeper at the time.

The driver, keeper and RK can all be different individuals.

Who do you believe was the keeper at the time of the offence?

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:31
Post #1451107

Proving you weren't driving isn't necessarily a defence to a s172 charge.

The keeper has an obligation to use reasonable diligence to identify the driver. Anyone else has a lower obligation to provide any details that may lead to the identification of the driver.

Either way, you provided driver details it seems. (To satisfy the more onerous requirement)

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:32
Post #1451108

Exactly, you need to focus on why you were not the keeper, not that you weren't driving (which doesn't appear to be in dispute), note it's very hard to challenge someones assertion they were not the keeper, after all who would they get as witness?


Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 14:45
Post #1451235

QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:15) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:59) *
I was not driving the car at the time.


That is not the same as being the keeper at the time.

The driver, keeper and RK can all be different individuals.

Who do you believe was the keeper at the time of the offence?


driver: person nominated on NIP
RK: me
Keeper at time of offence: Partner

I believe my partners' account. He signed a statement to that fact too

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:27
Post #1451582

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:32) *
Exactly, you need to focus on why you were not the keeper, not that you weren't driving (which doesn't appear to be in dispute), note it's very hard to challenge someones assertion they were not the keeper, after all who would they get as witness?


I don't know if there is confusion due to the use of some of the terms.
My partner has already confirmed he had the car on the day (I assume this makes him the keeper on day)

Although the car is in my name - We both use the car. We don't need 2 cars. The car is used and insured by both parties and we both use the car, pay for it etc. Is that an issue?

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:31
Post #1451585

If you are the RK, and the car is kept at your house where you live, you you (part) finance it and drive it, it could be arguable you are the keeper.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:34
Post #1451587

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:27) *
My partner has already confirmed he had the car on the day (I assume this makes him the keeper on day)

Not necessarily. That would be a somewhat flexible use of the term “keeper”. Without looking for any cases on the issue, to me it implies some degree of control over who uses the vehicle, is responsible for its maintenance and insurance, etc. I don’t think it’s as loose as “keeper - whoever has the keys”.

Posted by: royalmarineguy123 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:37
Post #1451589

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-08.pdf

But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.


Pardon my naivete
I sent my plea to the court. Do I send this letter to the police or the courts? Secondly, is there a doc to request the police staff member to attend court?

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:46
Post #1451591

QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:37) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-08.pdf

But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.


Pardon my naivete
I sent my plea to the court. Do I send this letter to the police or the courts? Secondly, is there a doc to request the police staff member to attend court?

The request for the IDPC should go to the police and the CPS, it does not concern the court at this stage.

To request that the police staff attends court, you need to wait until you are served with that person's written witness statement (this would normally be after you've pleaded not guilty in open court); there is no standard form as such, you simply reply saying you object to the witness statement being read out in court and that makes the statement inadmissible. At that point the police will have no choice but to get the person in question to come and give evidence in person. The relevant court rule is CrimPR 16.4 here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-16.pdf

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12
Post #1451605

There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:17
Post #1451638

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:32
Post #1451647

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35) *
Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle”

Are we sure about that?

OP is the RK, car is kept at OP's house where OP lives, OP (part) finances it and drives it. Sounds like a court could easily find them to be the keeper.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 14:44
Post #1451683

QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:32) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35) *
Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle”

Are we sure about that?

OP is the RK, car is kept at OP's house where OP lives, OP (part) finances it and drives it. Sounds like a court could easily find them to be the keeper.

If the RK is the keeper, the question arises as to whether the OP could obtain the missing details (DL number and and d.o.b. of the driver) by using reasonable diligence. So, royalmarineguy123, did you ever make any attempt to try and obtain the missing details from the driver?

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:16
Post #1451716

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 14:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.

Why? As long as the police record of what they received is accurate it’s for a court to decide if it amounted to a correct response, surely what a camera team clerk thought isn’t relevant?

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 17:07
Post #1451738

QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:32) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35) *
Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle”

Are we sure about that?

No we're not sure about that. Hence the second paragraph in my post #34.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 17:18
Post #1451741

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:16) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 14:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.

Why? As long as the police record of what they received is accurate it’s for a court to decide if it amounted to a correct response, surely what a camera team clerk thought isn’t relevant?

Without giving too much thought to it, one calls a witness not only if you don’t agree with a fact in their statement but also because you wish to ask them questions about other things that do not appear in their statement at all.

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 17:33
Post #1451747

QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:32) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.


QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:35) *
Since the OP was not “the person keeping the vehicle”

Are we sure about that?

OP is the RK, car is kept at OP's house where OP lives, OP (part) finances it and drives it. Sounds like a court could easily find them to be the keeper.

Courts can do many things. But, if the keys and thus custody of a vehicle are given to a third person, by what rational process is the RK more likely in possession of, or more able to ascertain, the driver's identity, than the person with the custody and the keys?

--Churchmouse

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 18:06
Post #1451760

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 17:33) *
Courts can do many things. But, if the keys and thus custody of a vehicle are given to a third person, by what rational process is the RK more likely in possession of, or more able to ascertain, the driver's identity, than the person with the custody and the keys?

--Churchmouse

He'd be less likely but that's part of what the court may be called upon to decide.

As I see it the prosecution must make its case either that the OP was the "person keeping the vehicle" (and demonstrate to the court why they believe this was so) or that the OP was "any other person". Only then can the court go on to determine whether or not the relevant responsibility was discharged.

It appears from what has been written that their case is based on the former (because they seem to believe the OP had the responsibility to provide more information than if he was "any other person"). If he was keeping the vehicle I believe the diligence he was required to exercise would include trying to find out the driver's DoB and DL number. If he was "any other person" I believe it would not. That's why I asked how it would be shown that he was not the person keeping the vehicle.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 21:31
Post #1451851

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:16) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 14:17) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:12) *
There is only a reason to ask the police staff to attend if you disagree with their statement. If there is nothing factual in their statement you disagree with you don't need them to attend.

There is a very good reason to cross-examine the police staff in this case, see post 18.

Why? As long as the police record of what they received is accurate it’s for a court to decide if it amounted to a correct response, surely what a camera team clerk thought isn’t relevant?

Q: Mr Police Staff, in the ordinary course of events, would a s172 request be sent to the person named by the RK, if the RK names a person other than himself?
A: Yes
Q: And in this instance, the RK had given a name and address of the person who was said to be keeping but not driving the vehicle, is that correct?
A: Yes
Q: And you also had the name and address of the person said to be driving the vehicle?
A: Yes
Q: Were section 172 notices issued to the two persons named by the RK?
A: No
Q: Why not?
A: (awkward silence)...I'm not able to answer that...
Q: Mr Police Staff, is it not the case that the registered keeper had actually supplied you with enough information to identify the driver through the use of your s172 powers, and it is actually the case that a completed and unambiguous driver nomination was not obtained solely because your office never issued a s172 request to any of the individuals named by the RK?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 11:39
Post #1452003

But if all that is in the evidence anyway, as I stated above, then no need to call him to confirm it!

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 11:44
Post #1452006

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!

So are you saying that what they failed to do is in their witness statement?

Posted by: gilan02 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 12:39
Post #1452043

Does not post #25 suggest they tried to iossue an S172 to the driver? Also post #1 says the response was via email.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 13:38
Post #1452076

QUOTE (gilan02 @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 12:39) *
Does not post #25 suggest they tried to iossue an S172 to the driver? Also post #1 says the response was via email.

I understood it to mean the 2nd NIP was addressed to the OP, not the driver or the OP's partner.

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?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 14:12
Post #1452101

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.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 07:04
Post #1452344

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 17:59
Post #1452532

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.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 20:15
Post #1452620

That’s fair enough.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)