Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Perverting the course of Justice and Insurance Fraud
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
cholyoake
Hello,
It all started with me letting my friend use my motorcycle, uninsured. While he was out on my bike he had an accident that as far as I can tell, the police seem to think it's his fault. So first thing that happend, before the police arrived was he phoned me asking me to add him to my insurance policy so that hopefully it might at least make things slightly easier, which I did. I got down to the scene of the accident to check over the bike and ride it home, and while I was there they asked me if I had insured him on my bike, to which I answered yes, because thats what I had done, then he asked me what time and i said about 8:45, (the crashed happened at about 8:35) and he was actually insured by 9:00, and the police arrived at about 8:50.
So the police knew straight away that he wasn't insured and that me adding him to my policy, at the end of the day, was a complete waste of time and money. But this also made things a lot worse. Just as the police were about to leave, they then jumped out of their car and asked me what time I phoned the insurance company, to which my friend replied 8:20, the police man asked me if this was correct, and said if its not correct I will be reported for perverting the course of justice and insurance fraud, he added that he would be able to find out what time I contacted my insurance company so any lies would be quickly found out. When he said this I (possibly stupidly) answered with the truth, thinking that if he knows whats going on, lies are just going to make it worse. The second I answered he said he was reporting me for perverting the course of justice and insurance fraud, and the same for my friend as well.
So now I don't really have a clue whats going to happen, and what I should do about the whole situation. Any help would be much appreciated, and if you need any more information just ask, thanks.
nemo
QUOTE (cholyoake @ Wed, 20 Jan 2010 - 11:17) *
Any help would be much appreciated,..

If you receive a summons in respect of the offences alleged by the police officer, then I would suggest you make an appointment to see a solicitor forthwith.
AFCNEAL
If you added your (ex) friend AFTER tha accident and have not claimed otherwise, how have you perverted anything?

Had you attempted to back-date (time) the cover or told the Police you did do it at 8.20, that would be different?

Am I missing the point? They may come after you in respect of permitting to drive without insurance though, which at least isn't imprisonable!
Top Cat
You said in your first paragraph you told the police that you had insured him (at 0845) AFTER the accident (at 0835) and in your second paragraph you state that they ask you (what appears to be) the same question again and (as you say truthfully) have given them the same answer i assume,did you say 0845 again or did you say 0820?
cholyoake
I handn't attempted to back date the insurance, I only insured him at 8:45, for the change to take affect at 9:00. Thats what I told the police, I never lied to them at any point. I can handle getting points on my license, in fact I would be over the moon if thats all it came out to be. Its just the fraud/perverting the course of justice that I'm worried about. I never attempted to make a claim on my insurance fraudulently, although that might have been done automatically but I don't think it really got that far before they figured out what was happening, so does that mean that I wasn't committing fraud as I never lied to my insurance company, and hadn't actually tried to get money from them? And as I actually never lied to the police, does that mean I wasn't perverting the course of justice? I don't really know much about it at all.


QUOTE (Top Cat @ Wed, 20 Jan 2010 - 12:12) *
You said in your first paragraph you told the police that you had insured him (at 0845) AFTER the accident (at 0835) and in your second paragraph you state that they ask you (what appears to be) the same question again and (as you say truthfully) have given them the same answer i assume,did you say 0845 again or did you say 0820?


My friend said 8:20, but I said 8:45.

Cheers,
Chris.
nemo
If this does see the involvement of a legal representative at some point in the future, I might question the benefit of publically posting information which may be capable of identifying the case without seeking the solicitor's opinion and advice beforehand.
Durzel
You definitely need expert legal advice on this one.

Under the normal run of things had you not contacted your insurance company you would most likely have been charged with "permitting to drive uninsured", with your friend charged with "driving whilst uninsured".

Unfortunately in contacting your insurance company to add your friend to the policy you have basically sought to alter the facts of the case, which as far as PtCoJ is concerned....

QUOTE (PNLD)
This common law offence is committed where a person or persons
(a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct
(b) which has a tendency to, and
(c) is intended to pervert,
(d) the course of public justice.

Listed below are some of the ways where conduct is capable of amounting to an offence:-

(a) Making false allegations;
(b) Perjury;
(c) Concealing offences;
(d) Obstructing the police ;
(e) Assisting others to evade arrest;
(f) Failing to prosecute;
(g) Procuring and indemnifying sureties;
(h) Interference with witnesses, evidence and jurors;
(i) Publication of matters calculated to prejudice a fair trial.

...probably means they will try to prove that your intention was to "conceal offences" (namely your friend not having insurance). I don't think the fact you made a claim or not on that insurance is material to the offence, it is the timing of it that will be looked at (which given your admission on here was to "make things easier" is really not a good thing). The offence is attempting to pervert the course of justice (since actually perverting it would presumably mean you wouldn't have been caught).

edit: I think I might be wrong about the "attempting" bit, seems attempting is a colloquialism and the actual offence is simply "Perverting the course of justice".
Ocelot
There's some more on perverting the course of justice in this post:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t44463.html
The Rookie
Whilst I understand Durzels post, there was no attempt to PCoJ, it could be argued that by insuring his friend he may have been going to try and do so, the mere act of insuring is not PCoJ, it would then require (IMHO) further action such as telling the police his friend he was insured which he did not.

Simon
Durzel
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 14:33) *
Whilst I understand Durzels post, there was no attempt to PCoJ, it could be argued that by insuring his friend he may have been going to try and do so, the mere act of insuring is not PCoJ, it would then require (IMHO) further action such as telling the police his friend he was insured which he did not.

Simon

QUOTE (cholyoake @ Wed, 20 Jan 2010 - 11:17) *
I got down to the scene of the accident to check over the bike and ride it home, and while I was there they asked me if I had insured him on my bike, to which I answered yes, because thats what I had done, then he asked me what time and i said about 8:45, (the crashed happened at about 8:35) and he was actually insured by 9:00, and the police arrived at about 8:50.

I agree with your point technically Simon, but I can't imagine why the Police would ask someone spuriously if they had just insured the other party, they'd surely ask are they currently insured (i.e. were they insured at the time of the accident). With no prior knowledge of the OP having phoned his insurance company why would the police ask whether he "had [just] insured his friend".

There seems in my mind at least that there was an intention to ultimately pervert the course of justice by the mere act of insuring the friend immediately after the accident. The fact that the OP told the police the truth when questioned doesn't imo eliminate the intent that was originally there. Do people get prosecuted for perverting the course of justice on the basis of intent? I honestly don't know.

I'm not a lawyer though so all of the above is basically conjecture - however if the charges as described did end up going to court I can't see how a magistrate would see the OP insuring his friend (on direction) immediately after the accident is anything but conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Wouldn't the defence irrespective of what the OP ultimately told the police be that the OP just randomly decided to add his friend to insurance after he had already permitted him to drive uninsured, and subsequent to an accident that the police had become involved with?

I could quite easily see this case being settled on semantics & statements - i.e. if the police officer asked you "is your friend insured to drive this vehicle" at the point at which they spoke to you, and you replied "yes" (because at that point he was) then I guess you'd be ok, but if they asked "was your friend insured to drive this vehicle [at the time of the accident]" and you replied "yes"... well....
jobo
Convincing the mags wont be easy, as it trail by jury ?

They would have to prove intent, how he intended to PCoJ by post insuring is very unclear, as the time of commence would always be on record
The Rookie
Durzel, I understand the point you are making, and it would be a risk, however as the OP clearly had the opportunity to attempt to pervert by lying and DID NOT DO SO, I think he has a good chance, psot insuring gave him the opportunity, but does not show intent.

Simon
cshm37
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:25) *
Durzel, I understand the point you are making, and it would be a risk, however as the OP clearly had the opportunity to attempt to pervert by lying and DID NOT DO SO, I think he has a good chance, psot insuring gave him the opportunity, but does not show intent.

Simon


The trouble is the fraud, not the pcoj.

As fraud is a conduct offence, I am of the opinion the offence is going to be easy to prove!
jobo
QUOTE (cshm37 @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:28) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:25) *
Durzel, I understand the point you are making, and it would be a risk, however as the OP clearly had the opportunity to attempt to pervert by lying and DID NOT DO SO, I think he has a good chance, psot insuring gave him the opportunity, but does not show intent.

Simon


The trouble is the fraud, not the pcoj.

As fraud is a conduct offence, I am of the opinion the offence is going to be easy to prove!


and what fraud do you believe took place
cshm37
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:30) *
QUOTE (cshm37 @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:28) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:25) *
Durzel, I understand the point you are making, and it would be a risk, however as the OP clearly had the opportunity to attempt to pervert by lying and DID NOT DO SO, I think he has a good chance, psot insuring gave him the opportunity, but does not show intent.

Simon


The trouble is the fraud, not the pcoj.

As fraud is a conduct offence, I am of the opinion the offence is going to be easy to prove!


and what fraud do you believe took place


Do I really need to answer this?

Edit* No you are right - he doesn't appear to have made any misrepresentation at that point - or has he?
jobo
yes please
redloner
Did the OP disclose the (just happened) accident in his friend's driving history when adding him to the insurance?
jobo
QUOTE (redloner @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:35) *
Did the OP disclose the (just happened) accident in his friend's driving history when adding him to the insurance?


and you think that that is sufficient for a charge of fraud ?
big_mac
I would have thought it may be unlikely, but possible.
Failing to disclose previous claims has been found to be fraud.
jobo
QUOTE (big_mac @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 17:08) *
I would have thought it may be unlikely, but possible.
Failing to disclose previous claims has been found to be fraud.


Has it ? not sure it has,
big_mac
The one I was thinking of is household, rather than motoring insurance....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ted-of-fraud.do
QUOTE
He was found guilty of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception against Direct Line Insurance by falsely representing that he had made no insurance claims in the three years prior to taking out a policy in July 2001.
2020Hindsight
It may be argued that being phoned by his friend and agreeing to add the friend to the insurance, "to make things easier" following an accident counts as embarking of a course of action designed to mislead or otherwise impede the investigation, and therefore could lead to PtCoJ.

It boils down to what good reason is there to add someone to insurance immediately following an accident?
There's no benefit to either party if you don't claim or avoiding prosecution if you both intended to tell the police the friend wasn't insured.
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (2020Hindsight @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 17:42) *
It may be argued that being phoned by his friend and agreeing to add the friend to the insurance, "to make things easier" following an accident counts as embarking of a course of action designed to mislead or otherwise impede the investigation, and therefore could lead to PtCoJ.

Were this to be the case then this may well amount to a conspiracy to pervert not simply the substantive offence.
cshm37
and you think that that is sufficient for a charge of fraud ?
[/quote]

Yes, the offence of fraud is complete without having to cause gain or loss. There is certainly an argument that the intent was to cause a loss to the insurer, whether he intended to claim or just 'get away' with having no insurance is only known by the OP.

That leaves dishonesty, and I am sure you will agree that by the subjective and objective test of Ghosh, that is likely the case.
redloner
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:53) *
QUOTE (redloner @ Thu, 21 Jan 2010 - 16:35) *
Did the OP disclose the (just happened) accident in his friend's driving history when adding him to the insurance?


and you think that that is sufficient for a charge of fraud ?

No. I was thinking that if the OP told the Insurer about the accident he could stand in the witness box and truthfully say he had no intention of claiming for the accident as he had declared it at the time of adding his friend.
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.