Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Safety Camera Offence Dropped but Now Section 172
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
kmc1133
Hi,

I'm a bit concerned as our vehicle was clocked by a mobile safety camera doing 36mph in a 30mph zone. We responded immediately to the Police asking for the photograph to identify the driver as we genuinely didnt know who was behind the wheel at the time. (only myself & hubby registered to drive the car).

Police got back with the photo which is just of the back of the car and didnt help at all. We wrote straight back to advise that we were still unsure who was driving, however my husband was willing to accept the fixed penalty and points as he is the registered keeper of the car. We were then advised by a friend that there is another offence called 'Section 172' which we could be hit with for not being able to identify the driver.

Admittedly we made more of an attempt to time and re-trace our steps when we found out about it and wrote to the Police on Thursday to confirm in writing that my hubby was in fact the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

This morning (Saturday), I received a letter to say that they are dropping the fixed penalty for speeding as it would be "clearly inappropriate" for my husband to assume the fine & points and advises us that because we are unable to comply with the requirements under Section 172 and identify the driver in writing, we will in due course receive a summons.

Should I get in touch and confirm whether this has crossed in the post or will they think that I have responded to their letter to try and revert back to the speeding offence?

Any advice would be most appreciated. Never been in 'bother' before and we are so worried about it.

Thanks
jobo
can you give us some time frame please
kmc1133
HI,

Hope this timeline helps...

Offence Recorded - 25/02/12
Not sure when fixed penalty arrived as I had to fill it in & post it back to police advising we did not know who was driving at the time & requested copy of photo
Copy of photo received - 20/03/12
Wrote back to advise this was from the back of the vehicle and owner of vehicle would assume points & fine - 28/03//12
Retraced exact timing & whereabouts with diary's and family input & wrote to police again on 10/04/12 to advise that we had identified driver
Received letter this morning to advise that speeding offence had been dropped and we would receive a summons in due course for section 172 - 14/04/12
jobo
well you well outside the 28 days then

the law,,, says,,, you must respond within 28 days UNLESS its impracticle to do so, or you couldnt with reasonable diligence id the driver ish

so the offence is committed on the 28th day after receipt,, your defence would be that you couldnt have identified the driver any sooner than you did unfortunetly you would most likely have to convince the court of this and what information came to light last week which wasnt available with in the 28 days

i can see no harm in sending them another letter saying you have id the driver as soon as practicle and could they please go forward with this ? if they decied to be bloody minded its court

start documenting what you did to id the driver and when the relisation it was your hubby came about
Pete P
If you genuinely cannot find out who was driving your car then you are between a rock and a very hard place. If you wrote back saying you THINK your husband was driving, they would not take that as an ID of the driver as it has to be an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Also if you had nominated your husband as the driver, gone to court and the police had turned up with some very good quality, high resolution photographs which clearly show YOU as the driver, you'd be looking at a charge of perverting the course of justice and you'd very likely face a custodial sentence.

S172 offence = 6 points, £500 fine and a very nasty offence code on your licence which insurers do not like. Plead guilty to S172 at earliest opportunity and you are eligible for a discount on the fine (up to 33% if you plead at earliest opportunity)
kmc1133
Thanks for your help, its much appreciated. smile.gif
andy_foster
QUOTE (Pete P @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:13) *
Also if you had nominated your husband as the driver, gone to court and the police had turned up with some very good quality, high resolution photographs which clearly show YOU as the driver, you'd be looking at a charge of perverting the course of justice and you'd very likely face a custodial sentence.


Utter twaddle.

If the OP had deliberately named someone that they knew wasn't driving, that would be perverting, but if they merely made a best guess as to which of the reasonably possible drivers was actually driving, it would not - although it would probably constitute an offence of failing to provide information under s. 172.
kmc1133
We retraced our steps and created a timeline to determine that it was my hubby driving at the time and wrote to the police to advise them of this a couple of days ago.

My concern is that because it's over the 28 days, they might proceed with both charges as I dont know if the letter I got today from them advising of the drop in speeding charges but advising us that we'll get a summons, has been issued before they have received my letter.....
jobo
there is no WE in this,, who is the RK who is having these letters sent to them

edit i see its you hubby
so who is writing back to them you or him ?
kmc1133
The letters are addressed to hubby as he is the owner and keeper of the vehicle and he is corresponding back.

I say 'we' as we were both in the car at the time of the alleged offence.
jobo
yes but it will be his summons

i think its unlikely they will chase both if they process his last reply, if they did it would strenghen your defence to the 172 charge, as its far easier to defend a late return than no return and if it went to court they would most likely drop the 172 for a guilty plea to the speeding if both were charged

your not the first to fall fowl of a '' it might be me'' return

myself i would do as above and send them a please see my last letter, letter with an out line that you replied as soon as you practicly could

squaredeal
The letter your husband posted on Thursday unequivically admitting being the driver will not have been received / logged with them before the 'OK you can go to court for FTF then' letter was posted from them.

Get your husband to call them on Monday, checking they have received his admission and that it is sufficient for them to proceed with processing the speeding offence.

I'll give you 10-1 on that this will be fine. It's much easier to offer a CO/SAC than prepare a summons file, especially for an offence only 6 weeks old.

sgtdixie
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (Pete P @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:13) *
Also if you had nominated your husband as the driver, gone to court and the police had turned up with some very good quality, high resolution photographs which clearly show YOU as the driver, you'd be looking at a charge of perverting the course of justice and you'd very likely face a custodial sentence.


Utter twaddle.

If the OP had deliberately named someone that they knew wasn't driving, that would be perverting, but if they merely made a best guess as to which of the reasonably possible drivers was actually driving, it would not - although it would probably constitute an offence of failing to provide information under s. 172.


AF

A bit harsh and not quite correct. Pete said that they would be looking at a charge of PCOJ. Quite correct. It would then be up to the accused to show that it was a genuine error rather than a deliberate act when interviewed or at trial. If convicted a custodial sentence is a near certainty.
ict_guy
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 17:55) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (Pete P @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:13) *
Also if you had nominated your husband as the driver, gone to court and the police had turned up with some very good quality, high resolution photographs which clearly show YOU as the driver, you'd be looking at a charge of perverting the course of justice and you'd very likely face a custodial sentence.


Utter twaddle.

If the OP had deliberately named someone that they knew wasn't driving, that would be perverting, but if they merely made a best guess as to which of the reasonably possible drivers was actually driving, it would not - although it would probably constitute an offence of failing to provide information under s. 172.


AF

A bit harsh and not quite correct. Pete said that they would be looking at a charge of PCOJ. Quite correct. It would then be up to the accused to show that it was a genuine error rather than a deliberate act when interviewed or at trial. If convicted a custodial sentence is a near certainty.


Although, a photograph has been obtained, which is of the back of the car and does not provide any help with identifying the driver. Indeed, if there were better photographs to assist the RK in identifying the driver, then why would they not have been provided when requested (I know they don't have to be, but it wouldn't be a very fair system would it????)
jobo
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 17:55) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (Pete P @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 13:13) *
Also if you had nominated your husband as the driver, gone to court and the police had turned up with some very good quality, high resolution photographs which clearly show YOU as the driver, you'd be looking at a charge of perverting the course of justice and you'd very likely face a custodial sentence.


Utter twaddle.

If the OP had deliberately named someone that they knew wasn't driving, that would be perverting, but if they merely made a best guess as to which of the reasonably possible drivers was actually driving, it would not - although it would probably constitute an offence of failing to provide information under s. 172.


AF

A bit harsh and not quite correct. Pete said that they would be looking at a charge of PCOJ. Quite correct. It would then be up to the accused to show that it was a genuine error rather than a deliberate act when interviewed or at trial. If convicted a custodial sentence is a near certainty.


err the prosiction have to prove intent ?
kmc1133
Hi all,

I'll bow out from here and thank you all kindly for your help.

Hubby is going to give them a call on Monday to confirm that the letter of admission was/was not received and ask if tthat it is sufficient for them to proceed with processing the speeding offence.

thanks again, much appreciated.
Pete P
QUOTE (ict_guy @ Sat, 14 Apr 2012 - 18:17) *
Although, a photograph has been obtained, which is of the back of the car and does not provide any help with identifying the driver. Indeed, if there were better photographs to assist the RK in identifying the driver, then why would they not have been provided when requested (I know they don't have to be, but it wouldn't be a very fair system would it????)


It wouldn't be the first time the police suddenly came into possession of photos of much better quality.
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.