Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: S172 Single Justice Procedure Notice - Speeding and Failure to Identify Driver
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
gp123
Hi All,

I received a speeding ticket back in May and could not identify the driver definitively as I was completing the Three Peaks challenge with two friends and therefore we were swapping drivers regularly and none of us are certain who it was driving at the time of the offence but on the balance of probability having reviewed the timeline, we’re 75% sure of who it probably was.

We have fully accepted that we are responsible for the speeding ticket and the individual who we think it might be is happy to take the points/fine but I understood the law was that you should only state the driver if you’re 100% certain of who was responsible. I’ve explained this to the police and they advised me to put this in writing, which I have.

I’ve subsequently been served a Single Justice Procedure Notice that I’ve received for a S172 offence and I have 21 days to respond. I was really hoping that someone with some legal knowledge would be able to give some answers on the following points:

1. We had hired a car in my name, but my two friends were both named drivers as well. Will they also receive ‘SJPN’ or as the hirer, am I solely responsible and therefore it is only me that will end up getting fined/penalty points?

2. I’m not sure whether to plead guilty or not guilty, as I’m confident that it was not me driving the car and I’ve tried to be totally transparent with the police so I’ve not willingly withheld the driver’s identity – I just honestly can’t be 100% certain who it was even if I have a good inclination.

3. I don’t want to get points on my licence and/or pay a huge fine so on the balance of probabilities, if my friend is most likely to be responsible and willing to accept it, can I ask the court to accept him as the responsible party? If so, how would I go about taking this action please?

4. My friend who we think is most likely responsible is prepared to plead guilty and accept the consequences however he is currently living in New Zealand and therefore returning to the UK for a court case is not an easy option. Is there any chance that he will be called to court?

5. At this stage, is there any way to avoid this going to court now or is my only option to appear in court and explain the situation and hope that they sympathise with the circumstances and/or accept that on the balance of probabilities, my friend is the most likely driver?


peterguk
QUOTE (gp123 @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 14:21) *
my two friends were both named drivers as well. Will they also receive ‘SJPN’ or as the hirer, am I solely responsible and therefore it is only me that will end up getting fined/penalty points?


Did you name them as possible drivers?
AntonyMMM
Telling the police that you're 75% sure and the person is willing to take the points is not enough to satisfy the legal requirement. As already asked - did you at least give names and addresses for the other possible drivers ?

If you plead guilty you will get 6 points, a large fine and raised insurance premiums for the next few years.

The way to have dealt with this was to sit down with the other possible drivers, agree who it was and then unequivocally name them, but too late for that now. Deliberately naming the wrong driver would not be OK but the pragmatic approach in such cases is to just name the most likely driver, with no ifs/buts/maybes or % probability mentioned. Had you been the driver, then you could attend court and do a plea bargain where you plead guilty to a charge of speeding, and they will drop the (much more serious) s172 offence. But with the driver being unavailable, that can't really happen.

You option now is to plead not guilty - and defend the case in court. You will have to show why "you did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was". Courts can be sceptical and the bar they set for this is very high, so you may not succeed. Being able to show you co-operated fully and gave all the information you could possibly give will help a lot, but the costs of losing, in addition to the fine, will be substantial.

The case will be held in the court local to the offence, not where you live.
southpaw82
QUOTE (gp123 @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 14:21) *
I was really hoping that someone with some legal knowledge would be able to give some answers on the following points:


Ok. For future reference though it's usually better and easier to seek legal advice before there's a problem.

QUOTE
1. We had hired a car in my name, but my two friends were both named drivers as well. Will they also receive ‘SJPN’ or as the hirer, am I solely responsible and therefore it is only me that will end up getting fined/penalty points?


It's very likely that you'll be the only one facing criminal charges.

QUOTE
2. I’m not sure whether to plead guilty or not guilty, as I’m confident that it was not me driving the car and I’ve tried to be totally transparent with the police so I’ve not willingly withheld the driver’s identity – I just honestly can’t be 100% certain who it was even if I have a good inclination.


Unfortunately your understanding of the law was incorrect (in practice). Naming the most likely driver is often the easiest way to deal with these matters. It's difficult to advice whether you have a defence yet, as we have insufficient details.

QUOTE
3. I don’t want to get points on my licence and/or pay a huge fine so on the balance of probabilities, if my friend is most likely to be responsible and willing to accept it, can I ask the court to accept him as the responsible party? If so, how would I go about taking this action please?


No, that ship has sailed.

QUOTE
4. My friend who we think is most likely responsible is prepared to plead guilty and accept the consequences however he is currently living in New Zealand and therefore returning to the UK for a court case is not an easy option. Is there any chance that he will be called to court?


Probably not relevant.

QUOTE
5. At this stage, is there any way to avoid this going to court now or is my only option to appear in court and explain the situation and hope that they sympathise with the circumstances and/or accept that on the balance of probabilities, my friend is the most likely driver?


You're almost certainly going to have to appear in court.

QUOTE
6. If I’m called to court and the offence took place in Cumbria then will I likely be called to a court near there or will the case be scheduled near my place of residence which is in London?


Cumbria.

Did you name the other possible drivers?
gp123
Hi All,

Thank you for all your replies. On the first note, I can confirm that I've co-operated with Cumbria Police at every turn and have provided the details of both of the other drivers. In addition; I requested both of the other drivers to write to Cumbria Police confirming that we accepted the charge but could not definitively confirm who was driving at the time.

In terms of my defence, I've requested pictures which did not help us identify the driver and we were swapping drivers on a regular basis due to the Three Peaks challenge - I can evidence that we were taking part in this. I've also produced a document showing that we've attempted to look at phone records and the distance of the offence from the 'setoff' point (Scafell Pike) to see if that would help ascertain who was driving as we were swapping every hour or so.

In hindsight, I note that naming the driver who we expected was most likely to have committed the offence would have the best port of call, but I was concerned that effectively that would also be lying as we could not be certain. To some extent, it feels that you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't in this case but I recognize the point that you've all raised.

So if I got a signed statement from the driver we expected committed the offence then could I use that at this stage or without him attending, will that not be possible?

Would there be any way that I could request the case to be heard nearer London as otherwise it's a 6-7 hour journey for me either way? I appreciate the courts are not always flexible to these sort of issues but is there anything that could be done? Failing that, is there any way that I could settle this out of court?

Thank you again for all of your help!
peterguk
QUOTE (gp123 @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 17:50) *
So if I got a signed statement from the driver we expected committed the offence then could I use that at this stage or without him attending, will that not be possible?


As SP stated above, no. Too late. The offence was committed 28 days after service of S.172.

QUOTE (gp123 @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 17:50) *
Would there be any way that I could request the case to be heard nearer London as otherwise it's a 6-7 hour journey for me either way? I appreciate the courts are not always flexible to these sort of issues but is there anything that could be done? Failing that, is there any way that I could settle this out of court?


No on all counts. Trial will be close to where offence was committed.
Jlc
Would providing the driver identity now potentially compromise a reasonable diligence defence? (On the basis the driver could be identified). It begs the question why the driver couldn't be identified in the original timeframe.

There's no out of court settlement -other than a guilty plea for 6 points.
gp123
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 18:46) *
Would providing the driver identity now potentially compromise a reasonable diligence defence? (On the basis the driver could be identified). It begs the question why the driver couldn't be identified in the original timeframe.

There's no out of court settlement -other than a guilty plea for 6 points.


That’s a concern of mine as I don’t want to think we lied originally. Based on the leg of the journey that we were on, we have an inclination of who is most likely to have been driving but it’s far from a 100% definitive answer but at this stage, I wondered if that would be beneficial to the case or hinder the case further?
southpaw82
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 18:46) *
Would providing the driver identity now potentially compromise a reasonable diligence defence? (On the basis the driver could be identified). It begs the question why the driver couldn't be identified in the original timeframe.

I don't think it would be particularly helpful. The defence is that the defendant did not know and could not be exercising reasonable diligence find out who the driver was. The OP has the makings of a reasonable diligence defence. Any admission that he was "75% sure" who the driver was, or that they now accept it was them driving (particularly if they're conveniently out of the country) isn't helpful.
Churchmouse
What offense(s) have you been charged with? Unless the police believed your story, they ordinarily would have dual-charged you with the s172 as well as the underlying speeding offense.

--Churchmouse
NewJudge
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 23:29) *
What offense(s) have you been charged with? Unless the police believed your story, they ordinarily would have dual-charged you with the s172 as well as the underlying speeding offense.

--Churchmouse


Speeding and S172 (Question title).


You face two allegations: speeding and failing to provide the driver’s details.

If you were not driving you cannot be convicted of speeding. However, the second charge is more serious (it carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years). Presumably the hire company received the first request for driver’s details and nominated you (as the hirer). Now your problems begin.

If you were driving there is a tried and tested method which involves doing a deal with the prosecution. You would plead not guilty to both charges. The matter will be taken out of the SJ procedure and listed in the normal Magistrates’ Court (in Cumbria). You can attend the hearing, seek out the prosecutor and offer to plead guilty to the speeding matter if the “Fail to Furnish” charge is dropped. This is almost always accepted. However, if you were not driving you will have to defend the “Fail to Furnish” charge. (The speeding matter will be dropped as there is no evidence as to who was driving). There is a statutory defence to the charge which says this:

“A person shall not be guilty of an offence….if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.”

As has been said, unfortunately you are not in a strong position to take advantage of this defence because, having exercised your reasonable diligence you have (almost certainly) discovered who was driving. The trouble is you’ve exercised your diligence a little too late.
However you deal with this a trip to court up North will be necessary. You cannot do the “deal” or defend the FtF allegation without attending. If you defend the FtF matter I think you should concentrate on what you did in terms of “diligence” before you replied saying you could not be sure who the driver was. If you mention your recent success in discovering who was driving your defence may well sink because the court will consider that you could have achieved that end somewhat earlier and in time to avoid committing the offence.
Logician
Your defence case is not strong and somewhat undermined by the fact that you now know who was driving. If you are found guilty after pleading not guilty the guideline for costs is £620, you will receive 6 points, a fine of 150% of your net weekly income plus a surcharge of 10% of that (minimum £40).

You should consider pleading guilty to the s.172 and not guilty to the speeding, provided you do not already have 6 or more points. That will still bring 6 points but will avoid having to travel up to Cumbria as you can plead guilty by post, the costs will be £85 and the fine will be discounted by 33%.
gp123
Thanks for all of your support on this. Honestly I just want to be clear though, I’ve not definitively identified who was driving however based on all evidence, I could probably give an idea of who I think it probably was but it would be an educated guess rather than a clear identification. Obviously in hindsight, it sounds like that would have been enough and should have been the action that I took but I naively thought that I had to be 100% certain of the driver otherwise I should take the action I have.
The Rookie
Maybe, but you would be carrying the can for the offence YOU did commit, not the one someone else committed which is a separate offence.

You have a potential defence of claiming to not have been the keeper of the car at the time in question, but having hired it in your name that would almost certainly be a very uphill battle, if you claimed you were not the keeper the prosecution would have to prove on balance of probabilities that you were, being the person named on the hire agreement would strongly count against you and you would need something compelling to counter that.

The Keeper has to perform reasonable diligence in order to identify the driver (or to the actual wording show they couldn't identify the driver despite exercising RD), a person other than the keeper only has to provide information in their power to give.
IanJohnsonWS14
The problem with defending a NG plea is that you have to demonstrate that you did what you could and still could not identify the driver.

Your posts in this thread indicate that you could have identified the driver if you had tried.

Kickaha
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 08:38) *
The problem with defending a NG plea is that you have to demonstrate that you did what you could and still could not identify the driver.

Your posts in this thread indicate that you could have identified the driver if you had tried.

That is some leap you are making there.

As I read it, the OP is no clearer now than he was when he filled in the form as to the identity of the driver (and that being about 75%). What he is clearer on is that the 75% certainty was enough for him to name the driver on - he previously thought that he needed to be 100%.

I think all the OP can do is to explain everything to the magistrates and hope he gets them on a good day.

Logician
QUOTE (gp123 @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 03:56) *
Even more annoyingly, it’s frustrating that this has ended up at my door as I definitely was not speeding and was only one of three named drivers yet I’m going to have to carry the can for this!


The speeding is not the current issue, it is failing to name the driver, which you were required to do, although it sounds as though you all talked together and could not be sure who that was and were arguably equally guilty. My suggestion would be to plead guilty, as I suspect you would be found guilty and a guilty plea removes the travel costs and time, and minimises the costs and fine. Then come to an arrangement over splitting the fine and costs between you, either three ways, or since you will be left with the points which will cost you increased insurance premiums in the future, it would not be unreasonable to ask your friends to split the money between them.

southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 05:46) *
if you claimed you were not the keeper the prosecution would have to prove on balance of probabilities that you were

Beyond a reasonable doubt, surely?
gp123
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 08:20) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 08:38) *
The problem with defending a NG plea is that you have to demonstrate that you did what you could and still could not identify the driver.

Your posts in this thread indicate that you could have identified the driver if you had tried.

That is some leap you are making there.

As I read it, the OP is no clearer now than he was when he filled in the form as to the identity of the driver (and that being about 75%). What he is clearer on is that the 75% certainty was enough for him to name the driver on - he previously thought that he needed to be 100%.

I think all the OP can do is to explain everything to the magistrates and hope he gets them on a good day.


Thank you - you’ve hit the nail on the head as this is an accurate summary. I’ve tried to do everything in my power to identify the driver and have co-operated with the police at every turn so I don’t see that I should plead guilty as I really have done everything I can so I’m going to plead not guilty and hope the magistrates are sympathetic.

My question would be - should I tell the magistrates that I’m 75% certain who did it (and get a signed statement by the individual to that effect which I can show on the day) but I thought I had to be 100% certain of the driver hence I took the action I did or am I better to just explain that I’ve tried to identify the driver and show the steps I’ve taken and that I cannot conclusively confirm who was driving at the time.

I don’t want to lie either way but ironically it seems the ‘pragmatic approach’ encouraged just that so I don’t want to put myself in a worse situation by not taking the right action in court.

Thanks again for your help!
Jlc
The defence is that you did not know who was driving and could not identify the driver after using reasonable diligence after receiving the s172 request.

You need to primarily concentrate on the diligence you performed. If the bench agree that the diligence was sufficient and the driver could not be identified then you'll be acquitted. A 'plea bargain' does not seem applicable here - although, there's an argument that this could still be performed if you subsequently believe you were more than likely driving.

Many fall foul thinking that anything less than 100% is going to cause them issues - but its the deliberate naming of the wrong driver that is serious. The bar of success is quite high for these cases and your credibility will be called into question - but we have seen some successful cases but the majority anecdotally seem to fail. After all, they have to distinguish the genuine cases from those who simply believe such a response will see them discontinue ('pub talk' in some cases).

Providing the other driver details doesn't necessarily assist because of the personal diligence you were expected to perform. So what did you do? (The bench may find it hard to believe that 3 adults between them cannot recreate the events of the day, arguably not a routine journey and should be memorable - you perhaps need to counter this conception)

How long after the event was the NIP received? (It would have been to 1 or 2 other places first)

Do you know what sort of camera it was? Was a photo requested?
peterguk
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 11:33) *
How long after the event was the NIP received?


And how close to either the start or finsih of the journey was the car caught speeding?
Jlc
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 11:51) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 11:33) *
How long after the event was the NIP received?


And how close to either the start or finsih of the journey was the car caught speeding?

...and looking back we haven't had the speed/limit?

80 in a 30 might be more memorable than 68 in a 60...
NewJudge
QUOTE (gp123 @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 11:19) *
My question would be - should I tell the magistrates that I’m 75% certain who did it (and get a signed statement by the individual to that effect which I can show on the day) but I thought I had to be 100% certain of the driver hence I took the action I did or am I better to just explain that I’ve tried to identify the driver and show the steps I’ve taken and that I cannot conclusively confirm who was driving at the time.

I don’t want to lie either way but ironically it seems the ‘pragmatic approach’ encouraged just that so I don’t want to put myself in a worse situation by not taking the right action in court.

Thanks again for your help!


The allegation against you is that, within the 28 days you were allowed, you failed to provide the details of the person who was driving (and bear in mind that providing a list of three possibles will not do). In my view you should concentrate only on that period and what you did to try to establish which of you was driving. What happened subsequently is of no relevance and in fact, as I mentioned earlier, may well harm your defence because the court will ask itself why you could not have got as far as you now have and reached the conclusions you have drawn during the 28 days. I understand that you now realise that to name the person most likely to have been driving (whilst not 100% certain) is acceptable and that you did not know that before you made your reply. However, the court will not really be concerned with that. All it can concern itself with is whether or not the "diligence" you exercised during the 28 days was sufficient to convince them that you did all you practically could but still could not identify the driver.

I believe you face an uphill struggle but the time lapse between the speeding incident and the time the request landed on your doormat may be of help if it is considerable. To clarify your choices, a guilty plea will see six points, a fine of a week's net income (which includes the reduction for a guilty plea), a surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30, max £170), £85 costs and no trip to Cumbria. A Not Guilty plea but one which ends in failure will see the same six points, a fine of a week and a half's net income, the same 10% surcharge but costs of anything between £400 and £620. It will also involve at least one trip to Cumbria. Your trial will not be heard on the day of the first hearing and you might be able to negotiate an absence from that hearing by contacting the court in advance. However you will have to attend for your trial and you should also bear in mind that Section 172 trials (your offence is commonly known as such after the section of the Road Traffic Act which describes it) are often postponed. They are usually listed, at least for the first time, alongside other trials which may take priority. So you could travel to Cumbria only to be kept hanging around for most of the day, finally to be told you must return a few weeks later.
gp123
Thank you all. In terms of background on the actual offence:

- The Notice of Intended Prosecution was first sent to the vehicle owner on the 16th May and then to myself on the 22nd May.
- The car was travelling 69mph in a 60mph zone.
- I requested pictures but they were only of the rearer of the vehicle and as it was dark, that made it even more difficult to identify anyone in the car at the time.
- I've co-operated with the police at every turn and both of the other drivers have provided statements saying that are also not 100% sure who was driving.

In terms of background of the actual trip:

- We were taking part in a 'Three Peaks' challenge which for those unaware, involves climbing Ben Nevis in Scotland, Scafell Pike in England and Snowdon in Wales.
- There was three of us taking part in this challenge, and we were alternating drivers on a regular basis so that no-one got too tired while driving.
- For reference, we set off for the challenge from London on 12/05/2017 at approximately 6pm and the offence took place at 13/05/2017 at approximately 12am so nearly 30 hours later. During this period, we had swapped drivers on a regular basis to get sleep but it had been a continous drive without breaks, with the exception climbing Ben Nevis (Approx 5 hours) and Scafell Pike (Approx 3 hours).
- We are originally from the South-West of England so none of us knew any of the areas where we were driving and this particular stretch of road was just one of many roads that we travelled through as part of this challenge.
- We set off from Scaffell Pike at approximately 10.30pm and therefore we had been driving for just over an hour when the offence occured. At this stage of the challenge, we were swapping drivers every 60-90 minutes. We swapped drivers probably at least 20 times between 6pm on Friday and 12pm on Sunday and all were in unfamilar locations so as I understand why we should have known who was driving but it all blurs into one, especially by this time when we were very tired.
- In terms of the rationale for why we think 'x' is most likely to be responsible, it's based on the fact that I didn't feel great after the Scafell Pike climb and therefore was passenger for first 10-15 minutes and then took the backseat and feel asleep. I sent a message to a family member at 00.38 so I'm confident that it was not me, which leaves two of my friends. I'm certain that 'x' was driving when we left Scafell Pike which based on the timeline makes him the most likely person - he has stated he thinks it was more likely to be him than any of us however we're not sure when 'x' swapped with my other friend as based on the normal pattern, we were swapping every hour which calls into question whether they had already swapped by when the offence occured.

My mistake in this was that I thought under law I had to be 100% certain that 'x' was responsible and otherwise I could be accused of naming the wrong driver which would be a more serious offence. I recognise that the pragmatic approach would have been for 'x' to take responsibility but I was trying to be honest and avoid being accused of naming the wrong driver and in doing so, I've got myself in even more of a mess!

Apart from pictures, looking at a timeline and asking the other drivers, is there anything else I can do to prove that I've taken all reasonable steps?

peterguk
So the offence happened an hour into the journey. And you change drivers every 60 to 90 minutes.

If you set off at 10.30pm, you would still have had a record of your route, and you would have changed drivers late at night, in the dark. Did you get together with a map and work out where you changed drivers? A service station? Lay by? Once you'd worked out where you changed, you probably knew who started the journey.... and we get closer to finding the driver...
Jlc
...but identifying the driver now is not going to assist. (Unless it identifies you for which you could consider the plea bargain)

69 in a 60 is not particularly memorable. It's the diligence at the time that counts for the potential defence. Phone records?

As the pictures did not identify the driver (and bear in mind they are only to identify the vehicle and the offence) then who could challenge the nomination? (Even at 75%)

Co-operating the Police isn't relevant - as the obligation to name the driver is with you and not them.

If a defence is attempted then the continual swapping of drivers forms the makings of one - assuming the bench can be satisfied the journey couldn't be recreated given the time between 3 adults.
peterguk
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 13:53) *
...but identifying the driver now is not going to assist.


I agree. But it illustrates the type of effort the mags may decide he should have gone to.
gp123
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 13:41) *
So the offence happened an hour into the journey. And you change drivers every 60 to 90 minutes.

If you set off at 10.30pm, you would still have had a record of your route, and you would have changed drivers late at night, in the dark. Did you get together with a map and work out where you changed drivers? A service station? Lay by? Once you'd worked out where you changed, you probably knew who started the journey.... and we get closer to finding the driver...


In terms of you stating that we should have a record of the route and should be able to ascertain where we changed drivers, we travelled over 1,200 miles during the space of 1-2 days so where we changed drivers was intermittent and ultimately dependent on when someone was tired and asked to switch. Normally we would just pull into the side of the road/lay-by as it was late at night at this point but none of us could pinpoint exactly when and where that was, as we were not familar with any of the roads, it was late at night, it was dark and we were already incredibly tired by this point. Considering the amount of miles we drove and the amount of times we swapped drivers, I think most reasonable people would have a hard time having recolletion of every time they swapped and where, even when referring to a map. I don't really understand how looking at a map would help prove anything, as we did not a particular strategy in terms of stopping at a certain point and didn't know the local area - it was an ad-hoc change as and when the individual driving had enough and needed a break. While it was normally 60-90 minutes, it could have been 30 minutes or 2 hours. I totally get your point and I understand the court will want to ask things like this but I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's not been possible to work out where we changed drivers and that's exactly why I took the action I did and why I'm in this mess...
Jlc
It's up to the bench on the day - we have seen some successes on such scenarios so it's not a lost cause. (Just as long as you are aware of what's involved and the potential risk)
NewJudge
Your efforts to identify the driver now are somewhat pointless - unless they lead to you being the most likely driver. If they do you can attend your hearing and offer to do the "deal" as I outlined earlier. I'm not sure if you said anywhere that you have provided information to the police along the lines that the driver was definitely not you. If you have you'd need to tread carefully if you go down that route. The upside of such a course would be that you would only face a speeding conviction which is only three points and a much smaller fine.
southpaw82
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 15:48) *
Your efforts to identify the driver now are somewhat pointless - unless they lead to you being the most likely driver. If they do you can attend your hearing and offer to do the "deal" as I outlined earlier. I'm not sure if you said anywhere that you have provided information to the police along the lines that the driver was definitely not you. If you have you'd need to tread carefully if you go down that route. The upside of such a course would be that you would only face a speeding conviction which is only three points and a much smaller fine.

From what the OP has said so far it seems pretty likely that he wasn't driving. A sudden "oh it was me" is going to be viewed as highly suspicious. I don't see any merit in mentioning it further.
gp123
Thank you all for your help and advice. I’ll keep you updated!!
gp123
Just a quick update on this - I was found NG yesterday so thanks for all of your advice. Out of interest, does anyone know if that’s the end of the matter?

I didn’t have to pay anything and we never paid the fine so I would expect have expected they’ll come after us for that or will the fine just be forgotten about? We’ve always admitted it, just couldn’t pinpoint driver, so we’re happy to pay a fine if we were asked.
666
That's a very good result.

That should be the end of the matter. They cannot charge anyone for speeding as (unless I've missed something) they have no evidence of who was driving.
BaggieBoy
We need more information, what charge(s) were pursued. Logically if no driver was named, the speeding offence could not be prosecuted and would normally be dropped. This would then leave the failing to furnish charge, which is what I assume you were found not guilty of? So what actually happened at court?

That would seem to the end of the matter under normal circumstances.
gp123
Thanks guys. I was charged with failing to provide the drivers identity and subsequently found not guilty. I’m surprised that we won’t have to pay the fine as I thought we would need to!
southpaw82
QUOTE (gp123 @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:02) *
Thanks guys. I was charged with failing to provide the drivers identity and subsequently found not guilty. I’m surprised that we won’t have to pay the fine as I thought we would need to!

You’ve not been convicted of anything so there’s no power to impose a fine on you.
NewJudge
QUOTE (gp123 @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:02) *
Thanks guys. I was charged with failing to provide the drivers identity and subsequently found not guilty. I’m surprised that we won’t have to pay the fine as I thought we would need to!

Perhaps you are wondering whether a fine for speeding can be imposed. There is no evidence to show who was driving. The purpose of the request fro driver's details, which you were unable to supply, is to gain that evidence. So no action for speeding is possible.

BTW, a good result.
gp123
Thanks guys - I really appreciate all of your advice and support. Just to confirm, they won’t go after either of the other two drivers will they? I just find it staggering that they’ll leave it there as we’ve admitted it was one of us (we just can’t remember who!) and offered to pay the fine.
southpaw82
They can’t prove who was driving. If it’s more than six months since the he speeding offence they can’t bring proceedings anyway. Not sure how many times you want to be told the same thing.
Logician
QUOTE (gp123 @ Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 11:01) *
Thanks guys - I really appreciate all of your advice and support. Just to confirm, they won’t go after either of the other two drivers will they? I just find it staggering that they’ll leave it there as we’ve admitted it was one of us (we just can’t remember who!) and offered to pay the fine.


That is the reason, I suggest, that it is so difficult to do what you have achieved, getting a not guilty verdict on a s.172 charge. One of you is guilty, but the other two are not and the court cannot impose a collective sentence, so you are free and clear.

Churchmouse
I had thought that your playing the "foreign friend" card (regardless of truth) would have been your downfall, but you must have been very convincing!

--Churchmouse
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.