Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: unsure of driver identity
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Jackygee
I recently read a case from a lady called Elise on the forum with interest because I felt it was very similar to ours and would appreciate some feedback from anyone with similar experience or knowledge.

Just before Christmas last year my partner received an NIP. We didn't send it back at that point but asked the police if they could provide us with further photographic evidence to help identify the driver as my partner shares his van with his colleague who he has worked with every day for the last 27 years. They take turns to drive during the course of the day.

Anyway the evidence came back as clear as mud! Two shots showing the back of the van and a hell of a lot of traffic surrounding. So, a) he was not sure who was driving that day and b) with the amount of cars in the photo they must have all been speeding!

We wrote back and asked if they had any further evidence as we could not remember who was driving on that day and at that particular time. They just didn't seem to reply to our letters but just insisted we identify the driver. Eventually they told us that because we had failed to identify the driver that they were going to set up a file against my partner for failing to give the required information, usual thing.

We didn't hear from them for a while then eventually we got a letter (about 3 days before the Pre-Review Trial because we had moved and it had gone to our previous address). I contacted a solicitor who I found on a website, he is local to us and is notorious for fighting speed camera tickets. However, because we are a bit broke at the moment I cannot keep ringing him and I am obviously concerned. We wrote back to cancel that particular PRT just in time and this solicitor advised us to write to the CPS explaining the situation again, which I did. However a new PRT was set and the solicitor had a feeling that due to our diligence in staying in touch with them and being helpful that they may throw it out. They haven't!!! They have set a court date of the 15th September 2006. I feel sick to my stomach everytime I think about it as I am so angry. I feel he is being treated like a dreadful criminal and he is far from that! ninja.gif

My partner is a very very honest man. I cannot believe this is happening to him when just recently I heard a friend of ours was caught blatantly doing 100mph on camera. He got a telling off when he sent his NIP back unsigned but they did a deal based on giving him just 3 points and the usual £60 fine! He decided to take this and sent off the form, signed this time and they wrote back saying they were dropping the case!!! How can that be? My partner has been helpful all the way and gave the details of his work partner too and yet they still want him in court. They have now changed this from a speeding fine to "Witholding information" surely that is moving the goal post??

I would really appreciate anyone's comments I am feeling really fed up and am usually such a positive person!!! I think it's because I can't be the one to stand up in court and that frustrates me - it's not me on trial. Help!!!!!!!! icon_hang.gif Yours Jackygee
crystal
Hi,

You will have show due dilligence that you tried to identify the driver. Firstly you need a list of who it could be then each should check phone records, bank staments (see if you were buying things) work records etc to prove / disprove if they were driving.
Now it is possible there were no calls around the time of the incident for any of the drivers so its inconclusie but take a copy of the record to the court to show you tried.
Get a letter (if you can) from the other possibles stating they may have been the driver but cannot remember (if they can you should name that driver).

So you need to create a paper trail showing you have tried to idenify the driver and failed. If you have done this then you will not gulity.
Regards
Crystal
Missdaisy
QUOTE
We wrote back and asked if they had any further evidence as we could not remember who was driving on that day and at that particular time.


Did you by any chance get proof of posting? And have you kept copies of what you sent to them and what they sent back to you? You need to try to create a paper trail to show you have tried to work with them on this one.

If you have kept the photos that will help to say that you tried to id through the normal methods.

If you are going the due diligence route - which as you do not know who was driving you have no choice - then I would do as Crystal says - any records of all will show that you have tried - bank records, any office journals or diaries that were in use, telephone bills all go to show that you have tried.

This can be a tough defence to go for as many people try it simply to attempt to get off so that is how they will treat you - you need to be ready for that and show you have done everything within your power to find out.

You say the offence was before christmas - do you know what date they laid papers at the court by any chance? They have six months plus 28 days from the date of issue of the first nip to do this just wondered if this is worth asking the question - a call to the magistrates should be able to get you that information on the the basis that you are just trying to get your facts straight..............once you know let us know we need the date of the offence, the date of the nip and the date of the papers laid.

If you can scan the summons onto this thread (remove all identifying details first) so the forum can have a look and give you advice.

And finally try not to worry lots of people are as outraged as you and also have to represent themselves - the forum is a great source of advice and comfort at these times. smile.gif
Blackbird
This may well be a case where a court appearance is beneficial (not often I get to type that!) Have a read of the success stories and see how often the 'unsure of driver' defence wins the day (when genuine). There is IMO no coincidence here since it is the only defence laid out in the Road Traffic Act for this 'offence'. The Courts understand and accept it.
QUOTE
...his colleague who he has worked with every day for the last 27 years
I presume the colleague would be prepared to attend court as well, that way, along with the 'paperwork trail' already mentioned a very convincing case can be made. I have sat in cases (and helped) where this defence has worked correctly and what's more, although intimidating, if the defendant and other possible drivers appear 'genuine' the CPS do not get stuck in.

Regards
Jackygee
Thanks to everyone who replied so far!

I do have the original photos of the back of the van! They are lodged with the Solicitor who is representing us on the day and who we have already paid for this appearance. He also has copies of all the letters we wrote to them trying to ask if they have any further evidence. He has told me not to worry and to look upon it as an adventure and I am sure that is fine for him as he is doing this sort of thing every day but I am worried. I don't like to keep bothering him as we cannot afford any more at this time but I am not exactly sure what route he is planning on taking once in court.


We kept in constant contact with them throughout. Would this be considered a paper trail? We did not shirk our responsibility it is just a case of not remembering, which by the way as we all know is called "human error". (See quote of the day below!)

My partner and his colleague work together and drive everywhere together so it is not a case of one was at a bank or somewhere else on that day it's simply a matter of, if one was tidying up from the last job and putting tools into the back of the van the other would jump in at the wheel ready to get to the next job. Its not a case of where the vehicle belongs to a company and the office would log who was driving that vehicle on what day and at what time. Its a case of two self employed manual workers just trying to get a living.

I read a recent email on the forum from a lady called Elise. She made a last ditch attempt to write to the cps prior to trial date to explain about her papertrail and they decided not to persue the case at the death. I am wondering if it would be worth having a go in light of Section 4 of the RTA 172 subsection 4 quote "as the registered keeper have commited no offence if you don't name a driver because you don't know and cannot establish who it was" quoting that this could be a waste of court's time?

I have also been told we can ask for the calibration certificate as we think it was taken with a hand held in a car travelling behind and that we can also ask for the officers training report but I don't know if that really concerns us now that they have changed the charge to Withholding information?

I can try to post the original NIP on the site but it is very feint.

Anyone else can help?

Why are all of us angry Brits not getting together like the French do? Love or hate em we all admire their unity when they get angry with their government! Why do we Brits all sit back and just take this on the chin? About a year ago I spoke to a chap from Vancouver who said that the whole city got together as a collective when it became apparent that the government there was considering speed cameras throughout the city and surrounding areas. Together they took it to the court of Human Rights and were successful at stopping the installation! I haven't checked out his facts on that one but it would be interesting to find out how true that is! Does anyone know?

Regards Jacky
My thought for the day: We are all so quick to forgive computers when they lose their memory but humans are not allowed this consideration wacko.gif
Jackygee
By the way just in answer to Blackbird and Crystal:

Yes, his colleague is willing to go to court and we have already furnished them with his name, address, dr. licence no. and date of birth. However our solicitor has said it may be of no gain to us for him to be there and that they probably wouldn't call him as a witness. Should we get him to put it in writing anyway and take that with?

Also I don't understand the phonebill bit? Is that a copy of the mobile phone bill or home bill showing that there were/were not any calls made or answered on that date at that time. If there was a mobile call whoever was the passenger would have answered it so we would still be none the wiser because whoever was the caller on that date (8.12.05) would never remember who they spoke to now anyway?
eeeeeeeeeek ~ what to do????? ohmy.gif

What a to do eh? It would probably easier to become a hoody and drive around like a devil possessed without any docs, tax or insurance like the idiots that pulled across the front of me on 125's last night. That would be too much for the police to deal with! Oh and by the way where were the police when that happened considering the police station was only around the corner! Doesn't it just make you want to.................. angry.gif
crystal
Hi

I take it they share the mobile then ? But if it showed a call to you then you could say my parter was not driving ?
It may not prove anything about the driver it does prove you tried to see if it would help

Its about making the magistrates belive you have done everyting you can to identify the driver but can't

As far as getting the other driver the CPS might not call him but you could to back your case up. It depends on the solictor really If he does not mind maybe get him to go along. If you dont take him I would defintly get a written statement.

And yes it does make me cross
Regards
Crystal
Missdaisy
I makes me cross to - I guess thats why we are all here! The gathering of things like diaries, phone bill etc are to show the magistrates that you have tried - they are unlikely to show anything but it shows that you have done all you can. In the days of handfree and blue tooth it really doesn't prove anything but it shows the effort that you have gone to to try to establish.

I would ask his partner to be there just in case.

And I would try writing one last time to show them that you have tried - illustrating all that you have done to try to find out. They may see sense and realise that if two people go to court and say we don't know who was driving and it an offence to say we were driving when we weren't - the likelyhood of conviction is very small (the magistrates are not psychic afterall) and this is a complete waste of everyones time.
CrossFox
The best thing to remember, is that it is up to the prosecution to PROVE their case and not for you to prove your defence.

If you have identified the 2 possible drivers, who have worked and shared driving for the last 27 years, then you have complied as best you can, again it is up to the prosecution to prove their case.

Many posters talk about papertrails and such, this is a good idea if we are talking about a husband and wife, for example, who share a car, but inevitably one almost always does most of the driving and the magistrates believe that this is a ploy to avoid prosecution.
In your case, if the details are correct, it would be highly plausible for 2 people who regularly share the driving of a vehicle, not to remember who was driving at a particular time.

If you honestly do not know who was driving, then the CPS can go piss in the wind as they cannot prosecute the wrong person, end of story.

If the magistrates believe that this is a ploy, they are basically calling you a liar, without anything to substantiate this belief.

The reason that so many criminals escape courts "scot free", is because proving things can be extremely difficult and you do not have to prove a damn thing, the CPS does.
andypandy
There is a legitimate legal defence in the RTA1988, see S172 4

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".

Have you read this thread

Also see Case files and how many members have had subsection 4 success.

Your solicitor should know this inside out and with a paper trail the Cps might drop the case on the day, alot are, once they see you are taking it seriously.
Blackbird
QUOTE (jackiegee re the other possible driver)
However our solicitor has said it may be of no gain to us for him to be there and that they probably wouldn't call him as a witness
........far be it from me to disagree with a professional, but I will rolleyes.gif

Attedance of the other possible driver
1. Proves to the Court that the person exists (accept full details have been supplied but these will probably not be highlighted in the Court).
2. Proves the other person knows of the allegation and like the defendant takes the matter seriously.

I agree that 'the other possible driver' might not be called as a witness, however in the cases that I have attended the Magistrates have asked 'the other possible driver' questions (not formally called as a witness) This shows to the Court that the driver cannot be identified and adds further credability to the defence.

I would ask one question, what is there to loose in taking part of the defence of reasonable dilligence with you on the day?
Jackygee
Would love one more piece of advice before I make decision read a newcomers success story tonight about getting his dad off a S172. by concocting an incredible letter.

His letter seemed pretty good and I wonder if I should have a go at writing something similar what would Blackbird or Crystal or Chris or even Mika think to this. He has written it well its just the last bit that doesn't apply to me so I would have to change that somehow.

Trouble is I wonder if we would get our money back from the solicitor if it got dropped by my own doing! And is it too late court date 15th September and who do I write to? The CPS?

Jackygee
pembrokestephen
QUOTE (Jackygee @ Tue, 22 Aug 2006 - 14:12) *
I recently read a case from a lady called Elise on the forum with interest because I felt it was very similar to ours and would appreciate some feedback from anyone with similar experience or knowledge.

Just before Christmas last year my partner received an NIP. We didn't send it back at that point but asked the police if they could provide us with further photographic evidence to help identify the driver as my partner shares his van with his colleague who he has worked with every day for the last 27 years. They take turns to drive during the course of the day.

Jacky, your case has similarities to the situation in which I found myself.

Try not to fret - court is daunting, and it sounds scary, but remember that magistrates (and lawyers) are people too, and a lot of these people have had plenty of experience of seeing the sort of scummy tricks these camera partnerships are getting up to.

Your partner needs to tell the court what you've told us: all they are interested in is that he has exercised "due diligence" in determining who the driver of the vehicle is. If my experience is anything to go by, the prosecution may well try to bluster and make him upset, perhaps to get some kind of reaction out of him to discredit himself, so he needs to remain calm and composed, and think carefully before he answers each question, and not be afraid to challenge any of the "I put it to you" style assumptions that the prossy might throw at him.

In the final analysis, if the magistrates consider that your partner did everything he could to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time, they'll find him not guilty on the S.172 thing, and in all likelihood on the speeding thing too (since, if they don't know who's driving, there's no-one really to prosecute).

If it helps, think of it this way: by standing up and defending this in court, your partner is doing his bit in the process of making the speed camera scam just that bit less profitable. I have no idea what it costs the CPS to bring a case to court, but my solicitor demanded (and got) costs in my case, including the £300-odd of his fees from me, so I reckon The Man is out by at least a grand - that's 20 or so more fixed penalties they're going to have to rake in (less admin costs) to cover what I cost them!

Good luck.
Jackygee
I have just been searching through the forum and have come up against something that I have found quite worrying. I wrote in a few weeks ago under the header Unidentified Flying Driver. I have had some really good advice from the forum and was beginning to feel more confident and today was going to try a last ditch attempt at writing to the CPS as someone mentioned (I think it was Crystal) that the police don't always send all the correspondence to the CPS.

The piece I have come up with is where someone has posted the article regarding "The Hamiltons case back in 2003" It went on to say about a motorcyclist who did a similar thing saying he couldn't identify the driver. However he didn't succed with his case on a technicality and that was that he hadn't given the details of the possible other driver within the 28 day period.

We kept in touch with the police since the Nip which was received around the 15th December (offence date 8/12) trying to ask their advice and being "helpful" but only ever got letters back from them with the wording "you must identify the driver". We finally received a summons in July. I had written to the CPS on the 14th June on the advice of a solicitor giving them the details of the possible other driver being my partners work colleague. I never received a reply from them. I did receive a reply from the Designate Officer and thought he was part of the CPS but our solicitor has now told me he is just an officer of the court but I had sent a copy of the CPS letter to him thinking he was the officer for the CPS in charge of this case and got a reply back from him saying that we should seek legal advice due to a recent similar case of R Flegg -v- Southampton Justices and that our case is somewhat complex. I realise now that I should have written to the CPS again at that stage. They never replied to my letter of the 14th June.


Do you think this is the "technicality" they will be trying to do my partner on because we didn't give the details of the possible other driver straight away? My letters did keep asking them for their advice but as mentioned only came back with the wording "you must provide the identity of the driver". Surely if they had written saying please give us the details of the other possible driver we would have done that earlier but there was no space on the NIP for "possible other driver only registered keep or drivers identity and we didn't want to incriminate anyone because we weren't sure.

I would still like to send a last ditch attempt letter as I know others have and been successful at having their case dropped at the last minute and have been trying to find a good template letter on here to send quoting S172 RTA and subsection 4 but now I am wondering if they have this "technicality trick" up their sleeve and are saving it for the case. Please help, time is running out court case 15th September.

Much appreciated

Jackygee
andy_foster
QUOTE (Jackygee @ Fri, 1 Sep 2006 - 08:46) *
I have just been searching through the forum and have come up against something that I have found quite worrying. I wrote in a few weeks ago under the header Unidentified Flying Driver.


You've started a duplicate thread!

I've now merged this thread with your original thread.

One case, one thread!

QUOTE
The piece I have come up with is where someone has posted the article regarding "The Hamiltons case back in 2003" It went on to say about a motorcyclist who did a similar thing saying he couldn't identify the driver. However he didn't succed with his case on a technicality and that was that he hadn't given the details of the possible other driver within the 28 day period.
IIRC, the main point was that the magistrates didn't believe that he could not with reasonable diligence have determined the identity of the driver, which was his only defence in law.
The statute did not require the person keeping the vehicle to provide information in their power to give - only to name the driver (or demonstrate reasonable diligence).
Telling the scammers what you do know mainly assists your credibility - you have demonstrated openness and and willingness to cooperate. If you are lacking in credibility in general (as this chap presumably was), this could be fatal to your defence.
Another issue is that both the requirement under s.172(2)(a) (pkv) and (b) (any other person) are both ...when so required... - so if you were only asked for the driver's details, that's all you are required to supply.
It may be the case that the case you refer to, technically has the effect that the legislation no longer has it's clear and simple meaning as understood by English speakers everywhere, but in reality I'd be very surprised if failure to tell them what you know does anything other than affect credibility.

QUOTE
We kept in touch with the police since the Nip which was received around the 15th December (offence date 8/12) trying to ask their advice and being "helpful" but only ever got letters back from them with the wording "you must identify the driver". We finally received a summons in July. I had written to the CPS on the 14th June on the advice of a solicitor giving them the details of the possible other driver being my partners work colleague. I never received a reply from them. I did receive a reply from the Designate Officer and thought he was part of the CPS but our solicitor has now told me he is just an officer of the court but I had sent a copy of the CPS letter to him thinking he was the officer for the CPS in charge of this case and got a reply back from him saying that we should seek legal advice due to a recent similar case of R Flegg -v- Southampton Justices and that our case is somewhat complex. I realise now that I should have written to the CPS again at that stage. They never replied to my letter of the 14th June.


You received a summons in July, but wrote to the CPS in June? Is this due to the scammers washing their hands of you and informing you that it is being passed to the CPS, or is their a material irregularity in you version of events?

QUOTE
Do you think this is the "technicality" they will be trying to do my partner on because we didn't give the details of the possible other driver straight away?
Where did this the "technicality" they will be trying to do my partner on come from?

QUOTE
My letters did keep asking them for their advice but as mentioned only came back with the wording "you must provide the identity of the driver". Surely if they had written saying please give us the details of the other possible driver we would have done that earlier but there was no space on the NIP for "possible other driver only registered keep or drivers identity and we didn't want to incriminate anyone because we weren't sure.


IMHO, other than that they were clearly being kn*bs, this would tend to strengthen the "...when so required... line, if it became an issue.

QUOTE
I would still like to send a last ditch attempt letter as I know others have and been successful at having their case dropped at the last minute and have been trying to find a good template letter on here to send quoting S172 RTA and subsection 4 but now I am wondering if they have this "technicality trick" up their sleeve and are saving it for the case. Please help, time is running out court case 15th September.


A subsection (4) defence relies on credibility and very little else. If you write a letter, write one that will enhance your credibility if it goes to court and the letter is used in evidence. All involved will have a good understanding of s.172(4), so no need to go overboard when citing it, and try to avoid anything that might sound like a technicality.

A number of s.172 cases that have been dropped should never have started as teh accused had named themselves in the form of a signed statement in writing. A far higher number of subsection (4) cases seem to be dropped at court - the prosecutor sometimes performs triage - if you turn up and appear credible (and they have a lot of cases to get through), they might drop it. N.B. AFAIK it is more common for it to go to trial, so don't rely on getting it dropped.
Bluedart
Andy, I am so glad you have sorted the above out.
On reading it myself, I did not know where to start or where to finish, or even to connect it to the correct thread, in fact it was giving me a headache reading it. angry.gif I could not even see whether it was for speeding , red light or a parking ticket. I did however conclude that it had something to do with a s172.
Jackygee
Thanks Andy! Sorry it gave bluedart a headache! My fault for trying to create a new thread he had to read through all of it to get to the main new item!!!

I forgot about not strating a new thread, well rap my knuckles!!! So it looks like my partner will have to go to court?

I meant the summons was for a pre-review trial dated 27th july so I wrote to the CPS on the 14th June explaining everything I had told the police. Crystal advised that not all the letters that you send the police end up with the CPS so luckily I have kept copies but I was told because they never replied to my letter of the 14th June it is possible they never got it and was advised it might be a good idea to send copies of everything that I have written to them since January and to say that we feel we have used reasonable diligence throughout.

I thought they may re-consider the court hearing but I suppose if not like you said at least it may help my partner when he gets there.

I didn't make myself too clear about the motorcyclist event. He said he couldn't identify the driver but when he did finally give the details the court said it was out of the 28 day time scale and that is why he lost his case. If he had named the other driver during the 28 day period as the other possible driver he would have got off. That is why I pointed this case out because we didn't name the other possible driver until the 14th June. My point is there isn't anywhere on the NIP to name "a possible driver" only THE driver. and at no time did the poilce ask me to name the "other possible driver" only demanded I named "THE driver" get my drift? It wasn't until some months later I contacted a solicitor who picked up on this and advised me to write ASAP to let them know all the details of the other driver.

Anything else you can think of that may help would be appreciated otherwise sorry once again about the new thread thing!!! I'm learning slow but sure.

Phew bluedart another big headache to wade through!!!!

Jackygee
Jackygee
Hi,

You may remember me as originally coming on as "Unidentified Flying Driver" some weeks ago.

Well we were in court yesterday and I am afraid we lost and not by just a little bit but quite a lot. I am terribly upset at the moment but need to post this on the forum for others to be made aware at how evil but wise our judicial system is becoming with speeding offences.

This is a warning to you all, but if the "snoopers" that read this forum think I am about to warn people not to keep fighting then you are wrong because I am even more determined that people should keep fighting these b*st**ds!!! My warning is to make sure you read up every bit of very good advice on this forum, make sure that you dot your i's and cross your t's and that you have good credible witness's who know the facts inside and out!!!!! They may be on to us but the fight is not yet over!

I will try to have a go at giving you the blow by blow account but I feel numb right now with anger. I am sure more will probably come to mind over the next few days. Everything was going quite well at the start we had a terrible prosecutor from the CPS he mumbled and stuttered. Our Solicitor I have to say was absolutely brilliant and I would recommend him to anyone because I don't think even Nick Freeman could have got us off today.

We had an evil and very very biased clerk. I think she must be very single and still lives at home with her mum. She was against my partner from the word go and she influenced the magistrates so much so that when they retired to make their decision our solicitor really took her to task on the points she raised which were totally irrelavent to our case but unfortunately once said not easily erased.

When our solicitor pointed out the fact that the NIP form was not user friendly she agreed. Our solicitor went on to say that the reason we did not fill it in and sign was because there was no where on it that allowed us to state the facts of our case. However, we did send with it a signed letter explaining we didn't know who was driving. Our solicitor said instead of writing back insisting they name a driver why did the police not write back at that point and ask us who the other possible driver was or make a phone call to us. She said "it's not the job of the police to investigate"[i] Well excuse me what is their job then?? To hide behind bushes with speed cameras??? (or sit outside my house eating the sandwiches bought from our corner shop whilst blocking my drive and throwing their paperbags into my garden??? ~ yes I've seen you!!!)

After she and our solicitor had had words she departed into the room with the mags, no doubt to put her very strong views across to them once again. For someone who is supposed to be unbiased she certainly was not and I feel we have had an exceptionally raw deal. She insisted on bringing up the Flegg case but when our solicitor tried to explain that our case had many differences the magistrates did not want to give him the time so I really think we had lost the case before we even got in the court. They are really wisening and tightening up and making examples of people now ~ that came across very much today! I suppose it wouldn't have been so bad if we were lying, but we weren't.

3 points and £750 fine! This has hit us very hard as both myself and my partner are servicing our other homes as well as our own but they would not listen to reason and when we offered £50 per month, again they said no and set it at £100 with an amount to be paid immediately and that we had to pay within 6 months and if he didn't send the 2 parts of his licence off to DVLA immediately within the next 7 days his licence would be revoked. That was the bitch clerk again! The magistrates parting words were "I feel you knowingly used this as a device to get out of the speeding offence" Our solicitor was disgusted by this and said he had no right to make his personal opinion known. He also had the cheek to tell my partner that had he pleaded guilty at the beginning he would have got a 30% reduction on the fine!!!

I have said this before and I will say it again something needs doing and it needs doing now! We all sit on this forum discussing things and there are some very clever people on here who are well and truly switched on with some great advice, but if it were the French they would be showing their anger and bringing their country to its knees!!!

Less talking! It is now time to do something and we can only do it together! This isn't just my immediate anger talking this is something I have felt for a long time and I know a lot of you out there feel the same way.

Thank you for listening and thank all of you so much for your previous help. I look forward to your comments, I would love to get some reaction to this. I for one am gutted, if they were allowed to bring up the Flegg case why wasn't the Hamilton case bought into it as well?? From what I can remember of the Hamiltons they got done by a forward facing camera and still won!!!!

Very kind regards to you all and good luck keep up the good work and the fighting spirit!!!!!!!!!!

Jackygee
audiquattro
Am sorry to hear your out come...................sneaky sods all keep together, I have no faith at all in the system sad.gif but you gave it your best shot smile.gif
MartinHP71
Really sorry to read this, especially as you say it was due to a biased clerk ... this seems a common thread and seems to be the downfall of so many. You did well fighting the fight and letting us know how things went ..

Good luck
crystal
Hi,

Have you considered an appeal ?

Regards
Crystal
Dakota
I think you should appeal and report the clerk for misconduct. You will be in a very strong position to take the clerk to task as you were legally represented.
davecsm
Well I've followed your case from the beginning and it seems a cut and dried example of 'I don't know who was driving', so it's just incredible that you were found guilty (and £750 is taking the pi££) so I think I would appeal if it were me.

Btw, did your partner's workmate take the stand and say that it might have been him driving?

Bad luck on getting a bench full of tossers and I do agree with you about the French. Our government lies to us and we re-elect them. Their government lies to them and they are on the streets giving them a kicking.

Try to keep up the good work
jeffreyarcher
How was the £750 broken down vis-a-vis fine / costs?
popdog28
I cannot believe that in this case, a harsh guilty verdict was reached. How can the proscecution work if they cannot prove who was driving? Seems to me, on the evidence supplied here, that they did'nt have enough proof to get a guilty verdict. You were legitimately unsure who was driving, and there evidence was inconclusive. Just read a local paer, and a sex offender who exposed himself to an 11 yr old girl got a £600 pound fine! Obviously speeding is more serious than traumatising young girls. The f$*%ing coutry is a joke. My faith in the legal system has all but gone.
Bluedart
QUOTE
QUOTE (popdog28 @ Mon, 18 Sep 2006 - 10:41) *
I cannot believe that in this case, a harsh guilty verdict was reached. How can the proscecution work if they cannot prove who was driving? Seems to me, on the evidence supplied here, that they did'nt have enough proof to get a guilty verdict. You were legitimately unsure who was driving, and there evidence was inconclusive. Just read a local paer, and a sex offender who exposed himself to an 11 yr old girl got a £600 pound fine! Obviously speeding is more serious than traumatising young girls. The f$*%ing coutry is a joke. My faith in the legal system has all but gone.
QUOTE
My faith in the legal system has all but gone.

Why are you lagging behind?
popdog28
Its only when you see such disprappotionate fines that you realize how very wrong this legal system. Maybe in 2 years time i can be as bitter and cynical as some of the more established members on this site. One can only have dreams...... biggrin.gif
Jackygee
I had a bit of advice from Jeffrey Archer regarding our recent court case and he told me to put it to the forum for a bit of further help from anyone who may know.

We had a very biased Clerk to the Court along with an equally biased Magistrate who was further poisoned by the clerk when they retired to make their decision. In other words we had a very unfair trial but cannot afford to go to appeal. However we feel we have been fined beyond belief. For failure to identify the driver (my partner still maintains he did not know who was driving on the day) the case went against him as the RK and he got 3 points (38 in 30 limit) and £600 fine along with £150 prosecution costs. Jeffrey advised me that we could possibly appeal this fine at crown court as we feel it is more than a drink driver would get along with a recent mention on the forum that on the same day we went to court, a chap who exposed himself to an 11 year old girl, got the same fine! We are truly disgusted by the way we have obviously been used as an example to others not to fight the system.

Has anyone had any experience of appealing a fine. According to Jeffrey it is a simple matter of filling out a form. If it means more prolonged stress and days off work I don't think we could do that again but we are still feeling the sting of a fine of that magnitude. Any advice please?? What's the chance the media would be interested in this? It is by all accounts legal extortion and I would love to bring it to public attention!
CrossFox
Without knowing the details of the case, it looks to me as if the magistrates have decided that you were "trying to pull a fast one" by claiming that you could not identify the driver, in which case the mags have used their discretion in awarding a fine within the limits set ( up to £1,000 ).

What evidence did you provide in court to show that you were diligent in trying to find out who was driving?

The trouble with magistrates, is that they make decisions based on what they believe is true and not on what can be proved as true. ohmy.gif

If they think that you are lying, they do not feel the need to prove that you are lying. dry.gif
Teufel
generally although with exceptions

magistrates are small minded bigots

court clerks are frustrated lawyers on the career short bus
popdog28
Having read you case before, I was personally disgusted with the outcome. You were generally unsure of the driver, at a fairly minor speed, and you were penalized VERY harshly. Just a bad clerk, on a bad day, with a bad magistrate. My wife works as a residential social worker. Her kids steal, mug, you name it, and all they get is a slap on the wrists. No deterrant at all. I am afraid the justice system in this country is an oxymoron....or something like that!
jeffreyarcher
You've started a duplicate thread!
Jackygee
I appreciate all your votes of sympathy but no one has actually advised whether I could appeal the fine. I spoke with our Solicitor and he said appealing the fine is almost as bad and stressful as appealing the actual guilty verdict because it goes to crown court. Anyone Know?

Still feeling really angry would love to bring our case to the attention of the media but I was watching GMTV the yesterday when they mentioned Strasbourg and I couldn't believe how many people were up in arms about the speed camera issue going to the Courts of Human Rights!! They were actually on the side of speed camera's! One woman said she wants to know her kid is safe when he is riding his bike to school - has that woman ever driven behind kids that are on bikes?? Its us drivers that need protecting from them! They just get given a bike for xmas and their parents let them loose on the roads usually without any training and mostly without helmets!!!

Oh well enough said! Strangely enough my partner is having to sell his car to pay the fine~ maybe thats ultimately what the government want!

Now, which way is Spain??



QUOTE (CrossFox @ Wed, 27 Sep 2006 - 11:09) *
Without knowing the details of the case, it looks to me as if the magistrates have decided that you were "trying to pull a fast one" by claiming that you could not identify the driver, in which case the mags have used their discretion in awarding a fine within the limits set ( up to £1,000 ).

What evidence did you provide in court to show that you were diligent in trying to find out who was driving?

The trouble with magistrates, is that they make decisions based on what they believe is true and not on what can be proved as true. ohmy.gif

If they think that you are lying, they do not feel the need to prove that you are lying. dry.gif



Full details of our case have been declared on the forum leading up to the case. In brief my partner works with his colleague each and every day and take turns driving the van. Definite case, without a doubt, didn't know who was driving on that day at that time not just a ploy to get out of it, unlike some, not that I blame them!

Just think we have been used to make an example of i.e: "we are hitting with a big fine so others don't try this one anymore 'cos it won't work 'cos we are not going to believe you anyway!!! Well, I really hope they get their come uppance individually & personally that is!!! Not nice? Well I don't feel very nice at the moment and I am usually a genuinely nice, trusting person!
crystal
Hi,

As far as I know appealing the fine is a simlar process to appealing the conviction, but they wont re-run the evidence presumable just the a summary,

I think I would appeal both.

If you just appeal the fine I think the court will assume that you belive your gulity verdict is correct, thus you have failed to name the driver and whist the fine is high is only slight more than half the maximum (was income a factor).

Either way if you loose you will have extra costs but I would hope lower for just appealing the fine.

Sorry it went badly, so far I have found the crown court more reasonable than the mags court

Regards
Crystal
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.