Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Should I 'admit' to doing something I can't remember?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Barking Mad
This is a question about a 'notional' incident. I'm after prompting for the views of others because there might be some mileage in it.

Let's say I get home one evening and find a NIP on the doormat. Yep, my car was apparently caught speeding locally 10 days ago - and as I am the ONLY person who ever drives it, the alleged offence must have been committed by me - trouble is, I genuinely can't remember anything about the day in question.

Should I admit I was driving the car even though I have no recollection of being the driver at the time?

Or should I write in to the ticket office and say "I'm sorry, but I can't remember driving on that day"?

Any views on this?
firefly
QUOTE (Barking Mad)
<...>

Any views on this?

Yes.

Amnesia won't save you from a s.172 charge.  Well, it might - but only if you've a doctor's line to say as much.  Is this what you mean?
Barking Mad
OK, Firefly, I write back on the NIP all my details (not knowing about PACE, of course)...

It then transpires that I discover I was infact somewhere else on that day, too far away to have been where they said my car was (probably why I can't remember being there) What should I do then having admitted to being somewhere I wasn't because I could't remember? Could you suggest a defence at court for this? Or would I then be prosecuted for "reckless furnishing"?

Of course, because this is a 'notional case' it doesn't matter. But are there any other thoughts on the matter as to why I might write and say "I can't remember driving there" (ignoring being somewhere else, possibly)?
jeffreyarcher
In this example, you have 'discovered' that you were somewhere else. Presumably new information came to your attention, otherwise there was nothing to 'discover'.
If so, you should wrote back ASAP correcting your original statement (do not wait until a court summons), and you should probably include what the new information was in your letter.
andy_foster
Barking,

Assuming that you are the person keeping the vehicle, if for any reason you are unable to provide the driver's details, you would be required to prove that you could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that information. Simply saying "can't remember" would not be enough.

If you are the only driver of your car, then you would not have been reckless in naming yourself. If you were to subsequently discover that you were elsewhere at the time, your car might have been used by someone without your knowledge and consent, or even have been cloned.

The issue that I assume you are getting at, is that if you admit to being the driver, despite having no specific recollection, and therefore not being absolutely certain, the court will decide as fact that you were driving, unless you produce compelling evidence to the contrary.
For a conviction, absolute certainty is not required, only proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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.