Pulled on way home with new car.

Anihilator

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The facts are it is alleged he was driving without insurance provided he was the owner of the car.

He is not guilty of anything until convicted.

If the police officer had done his job correctly then he would have not been allowed to continue driving the car.


The police allowed him to continue driving.

It is unlikely that the CPS would prosecute given that,

1. There was no intent to commit any offence.

2. He thought his insurance was valid

3. The police confirmed to him that his insurance was valid.

4. The vehicle was not involved in any accident nor were there any other offences committed.

5. The CPS would have to consider prosecuting the chief constable for aiding and abetting.

6. The police officer would have to be investigated for neglect of duty.

It is not a question of whether he has a defence or not but the likelihood of a prosecution being continued should one be made.

In the unlikely event of this coming to court then of course there is a defence that the police told him he was insured to drive. Had he known he was not insured then he would not have driven.

It is up to a court whether or not they accept this as a defence. If not, then given the circumstances, any punishment would be as lenient as could be.

If I were to receive a summons for this then I would at least seek some proper advice and not just 'roll over' as you suggest.

What planet do you live on. If the CPS get the full facts of this case they will prosecute. Ignorance of the law is no defence. It was entirely there responsibility to ensure they were insured and they failed to do this.

Legally they were not insured. There only hope is the police dont ask the relevant questions when he produces.

dacouch

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The facts are it is alleged he was driving without insurance provided he was the owner of the car.

He is not guilty of anything until convicted.

If the police officer had done his job correctly then he would have not been allowed to continue driving the car.


The police allowed him to continue driving.

It is unlikely that the CPS would prosecute given that,

1. There was no intent to commit any offence.

2. He thought his insurance was valid

3. The police confirmed to him that his insurance was valid.

4. The vehicle was not involved in any accident nor were there any other offences committed.

5. The CPS would have to consider prosecuting the chief constable for aiding and abetting.

6. The police officer would have to be investigated for neglect of duty.

It is not a question of whether he has a defence or not but the likelihood of a prosecution being continued should one be made.

In the unlikely event of this coming to court then of course there is a defence that the police told him he was insured to drive. Had he known he was not insured then he would not have driven.

It is up to a court whether or not they accept this as a defence. If not, then given the circumstances, any punishment would be as lenient as could be.

If I were to receive a summons for this then I would at least seek some proper advice and not just 'roll over' as you suggest.

Every single point you have made is incorrect!

Wig

dacouch wrote: »

Every single point you have made is incorrect!

Wrong 1, 2, 3, & 4 were correct.

dacouch

They may be correct about the facts of the situation but have no bearing on whether the person will be convicted over driving without insurance

bristol_pilot

If the individual kept his trap shut, is there any evidence at all that the driver was not stopped whilst on a test drive? He then bought the car later the same day (didn't he).

DirectDebacle

Anihilator wrote: »

What planet do you live on. If the CPS get the full facts of this case they will prosecute. Ignorance of the law is no defence. It was entirely there responsibility to ensure they were insured and they failed to do this.

Legally they were not insured. There only hope is the police dont ask the relevant questions when he produces.

I live on planet Earth in the real world.

In this real world I know for a fact that not everybody who is reported for prosecution is actually prosecuted. There are many reasons why this happens and for the reasons I previously set out there is a good chance that the driver in this case would not be prosecuted. You cannot be certain that if the CPS receive the full facts of this case that they would prosecute. I do not believe that they would but of course cannot be certain. Prosecutions for much more serious driving offences than this have been discontinued , for legal, technical or procedural irregularities, amongst others. This case has several such irregularities.

As has been said the best bet is the police incompetence is continued and the insurance is not challenged when it is produced. If it is and the driver is reported for prosecution then it needs to be contested at the earliest opportunity, ie before a summons is even issued, by the driver or better still a competent solicitor writing to the CPS/Police.

As I understand it the driver already has 6 points on his licence and another 6 could lead to disqualification and the loss of his job. You seem to be advising that he goes to court, pleads guilty and hopes he doesn't get disqualified. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case I do not believe that at this stage your advice is the best initial course of action if he is reported for prosecution for driving with no insurance.

Every single point you have made is incorrect

They may be correct about the facts of the situation but have no bearing on whether the person will be convicted over driving without insurance

I think they will have bearing. For a start they will have a bearing on whether a summons is issued or not and they will have a bearing on whether it is proceeded with if issued. If there were a conviction they would have a bearing on whether there was a disqualification or not.

It not sufficient just to say you disagree with points made by others, you really need to explain in your posts why you believe other posters are incorrect and give the advice you believe to be correct.

DirectDebacle

The OP may find this useful.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/termination_of_proceedings/

MORPH3US

blued wrote: »

My advice is to take the certificate to the police station when it comes through and dont worry about anything on this thread until then. Chances are they will see the document and accept it.

Exactly what I was about to post!

Nixer

If it's any help 12 points is not always an automatic disqualification. I was hit by an uninsured driver, she got 6 points for no insurance and 7 for due care (or might have been other way round). I asked my solicitor if that meant a ban and he said that she hadn't been banned and in many cases he'd seen especially where they'd accumulated 12 or more in one offence, they didn't get banned. No idea if he was telling the truth mind.

BTW Morph3eus, I don't mean to be rude, but, despite what your footer says, you don't own the copyright on your posts, this site does (it's in the FAQs) so nobody needs ask your permission before publishing, but they must ask moneysavingexpert's.

Bikertov

Wig wrote: »

What you should have done was for your DH to drive the car on his DOC policy.

Surely not though ??

I understood that DOC insurance was only valid for a driver if the vehicle had another valid insurance policy on it.

As you are all suggesting that the moment the vehicle was sold, the existing insurance on it vas INVALID, as it was no longer owned by the original policyholder, and the circumstances had changed.

So while DOC would be OK from the point of it was not the DH's vehicle, as the vehicle had no insurance, the DOC would NOT be valid.

Tell me I am wrong anyone ?