Stopped by police for having no insurance..

vaio

mikeh2000 wrote: »

.......As for the previous post about having 7 days to produce your documents, all that does, if you read the RTA 1988, is stop proceedings being made against you if you do produce them in that time; the offence is completed at the roadside when you can't produce them, which is why I can report people at the roadside there and then for the offence! I can't report someone for an offence before they've done it, which by your reckoning means I would have to start chasing people around 7 days after stopping them to report them. I haven't had any problems in courts with reporting them at the roadside; if it was wrong then don't you think that defence solicitors would pick up on it?

Reporting someone is way different from them having committed an offence.

Reporting is just suspicion, generally a policemans’ view that an offence is complete is just suspicion until a magistrate says it is.

RTA is clear on this.....

A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—

(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or

(b)it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or

(c)it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

Produce within 7 days (or later if 7 days wasn't reasonably practicable) and there is no failure to produce offence committed

NeverAgain_2

...the offence is completed at the roadside when you can't produce them...

It can't be, the police have no power to convict.

You can only be convicted of this offence by a plea of guilt in a magistrates' court, or by a finding of guilt by the same court.

System

You have stopped him for the possible offence of not having insurance. During these investigations you realise that there is another possible offence of drink-driving being committed and follow that up. Regardless of the breathalyser failure he still has 7 days to produce a valid insurance document.

He was stopped for a valid reason and therefore the breathalyser check was valid. Even you must understand that and that the defence were clutching at straws.

NeverAgain_2

mikeh2000,

I am merely pointing out that you cannot secure a conviction at the roadside.

I don't doubt you have powers to report offences, breath test drivers, and so on.

Nor do I doubt your judgment in the sense you know in which instances the person is guilty.

But the fact remains no one can be convicted of these type of offences other than in a court.

Put it another way, if you arrest someone for murder, and they get knocked down by a bus the next day, they die unconvicted, although in that case, they die with a fairly large stain on their character.

vaio

I'm getting bit scared about your ignorance of the RTA. The power to breath test comes from the RT and, as stated above, is based on resonable suspicion......

This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a)is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and
(b)has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.

real1314

mikeh2000 wrote: »

Read the above link, it IS an offence not to produce your documents, whether you have insurance or not.

Mike, you serve the law, you are not actually the law.

Some vehicles are legally driven all over the country but do not have any insurance at all, again, just to be clear, quite legally.
You should familiarise yourself woth how this can be done, to improve your knowledge of the law; after all, you cannot produce an insurance certificate if there is no insurance in place (just to be clear, we are talking about no insurance - not the vehicle, not the driver, and not plod, ambulance or fire engines).

ps. using a met website to refute a quote from the statute is really shoddy.It almost suggests an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

alastairq

must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—

(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and

(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.

(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.

(4)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—

(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or

(b)it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or

(c)it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

regarding carrying a cert. of insurance on a vehicle?

The driver must produce on demand.

However, it is a defence if charged with a failure to produce the document, if the person can show they produced it within seven days...etc.

The act has a presumption the documents should be carried...nowhere does it state documents need not be carried.

leoetal19

OP-let us know how it goes monday
my son was stopped last year driving his girlfriends car he wrongly assumed he WAS insured under his own fully comp policy, but as he was under 25 this wasnt the case
this was in june, in october he got a summons to go to court-all the advice was it was an absolute offence with no leeway--he admitted it but sent a mitigating letter and the case was withdrawn by the magistrates--no further action to be taken, so this court listened to the circumstances despite the FACT he was driving uninsured
hope that helps and try not to worry too much x

vaio

mikeh2000 wrote: »

So what you're trying to say is that an official Police site that gives plain English advice to the public is lying! Unless your a lawyer or actually study statute law it's not as easy as it seems to understand the definitions, which is one reason why the Askthepolice site was created, which was for people to understand stuff which would normally go over there head, as shown by some of the comments on this thread.
'Perverting the course of justice' is a new one on me though!

I've said enough now, if people are starting to question official police information sites, then I'm just banging my head against a brick wall.

I'm not sure about the perverting bit either but I am concerned that you are suggesting that a police web site is somehow more authoritative or can somehow overrule the actual legislation.

System

alastairq wrote: »

The act has a presumption the documents should be carried...nowhere does it state documents need not be carried.

Nowhere does it state that it MUST be carried either. Should is best advice, must is mandatory. If there was a mandatory requirement then it would be stated.