Driving licence query

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The offence is complete if the person does not produce their licence at the time of the requirement.

Subject to 164(7) and 164(8)(a).

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

Ultimately if a person produces their licence within the period specified at a police station they have not committed an offence. If they don't produce their licence at a police station then they commit an offence.

That's why you see in 164(6) "subject to subsections (7) to (8A) below"

In the unlikely event of a person being prosecuted for non production of their licence, but they had taken it to a police station within the 7 days and produced it, they would be found not guilty so therefore have not committed an offence.

If they were found not guilty I agree, but s.164(8) does not make it an automatic not gullty verdict by saying that someone is not guilty if they comply with it, only that it is a defence - the verdict would depend on the relevant evidence given in each case.

s.164 (8) does not state that complying with it means that the s.164 (6) has not been committed, only that it is a defence that can be used in proceedings against them, so it would be up to the court to accept or decline that defence, depending on the circumstances.

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

Subject to 164(7) and 164(8A).

s.164 (7) and 164 (8A) do not apply to driving licences.

s.164 (7) applies to receipts given under. s.56, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.164 (8A) applies to motor cyclists training certificates.

The wording and application of them is different to s.164 (8)

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

s.164 (7) and 154 (8A) do not apply to driving licences.

s.164 (7) applies to receipts given under. s.56, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.164 (8A) applies to motor cyclists training certificates.

The wording and application of them is different to s.164 (8)

164(8)(a) of the RTA does apply to licences and counterparts.

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

164(8A) does apply to licences and counterparts.

It only adds that that the requirements of s.164 (8) applies to the production of motorcyclists training certificates as it applies in relation to a licence, it is nothing to do with the actual licence or
counterpart itself.

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It only adds that that the requirements of s.164 (8) applies to the production of motorcyclists training certificates as it applies in relation to a licence, it is nothing to do with the actual licence or
counterpart itself.

s.164 (8)(a) does apply to licences and counterparts.

s.164 (8A) has been added to cover the production of a DL196 (CBT certificate)

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

s.164 (8)(a) does apply to licences and counterparts.

s.164 (8A) has been added to cover the production of a DL196 (CBT certificate)


164(8A) does apply to licences and counterparts

Only s.164, 8 (a), (b) & (c) apply in respect of driving licences and counterparts.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

Only if they had reasonable suspicion at the time the person didn't have a licence would they be able to make an arrest using those powers. If they didn't have reasonable suspicion then the driver would be issued with the HORT/1 giving them 7 days to produce.

What if a PC has a driver in front of him who is known as a bad'un and has no permanent address. The PC has no knowledge of whether he has a driving licence or not and cannot check the DL database because PNC is down. The PC probably does not have enough to form a reasonable suspicion of driving without a licence, so the driver can't be arrested for that. What you are saying is that the PC can't arrest him for failing to produce a licence either, because that offence isn't complete until 7 days later. So should the PC just let the person drive away?

The law has been written with the seven day period in a differently number subsection and clearly described as "a defence".
Why would an Act of Parliment refer to "a defence"? A defence to what? You can't have a defence to an offence that (according to you) doesn't exist.
Answer: It's "a defence" to the offence which has already been described in the Act.

In the circumstances outlined, an arrest can be made because an offence has been committed. The statutory defence cannot be claimed at that point, because the licence has not been produced at a police station with 7 days.

You are completely hung up on the use of the DL database to form a suspicion of driving without a licence. When the law was written in 1988, there was no live access to the DL database, so it would be impossible to use the lack of an entry on the database to form a reasonable suspicion of driving without a licence. A Police officer may have suspected it but there was never any evidence to back it up at the time.

Parliament needed to give Police the power to deal with people found driving who could not produce a licence and who (if not arrested) could never be prosecuted for it because they had no suitable address. They gave the police that power by creating an offence, but ensured that drivers with a licence could never be prosecuted for that offence as long as they produced it within 7 days.

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

What if a PC has a driver in front of him who is known as a bad'un and has no permanent address. The PC has no knowledge of whether he has a driving licence or not and cannot check the DL database because PNC is down. The PC probably does not have enough to form a reasonable suspicion of driving without a licence, so the driver can't be arrested for that. What you are saying is that the PC can't arrest him for failing to produce a licence either, because that offence isn't complete until 7 days later. So should the PC just let the person drive away?

If you are having to come up with convoluted theoretical scenarios to try and back up your position it just undermines the point you are trying to make. What is the officer supposed to do if the person says "I have a driving licence but I don't have it on me". Is he supposed to arrest him for not producing his licence on demand when he has already stated he has one but is not carrying it? What would such an exercise achieve?

thenudeone wrote:

The law has been written with the seven day period in a differently number subsection and clearly described as "a defence".
Why would an Act of Parliment refer to "a defence"? A defence to what? You can't have a defence to an offence that (according to you) doesn't exist.
Answer: It's "a defence" to the offence which has already been described in the Act.

The law has been written in this way because it is not compulsory for a driver in the UK to carry their driving licence with them when they drive a vehicle. The fact that it is a different subsection within the act is irrelevant.

When a driver is stopped and asked to produce their driving licence, a document they are not legally obliged to carry with them, the law allows for the police to give them 7 days in which to produce their licence. This is clear in s.164(8)(a). Once they have complied with this "statutory defence" then there is no offence. If they fail to comply with the requirement to produce within the 7 day period then they commit the offence of failing to produce their licence.

thenudeone wrote:

In the circumstances outlined, an arrest can be made because an offence has been committed. The statutory defence cannot be claimed at that point, because the licence has not been produced at a police station with 7 days.

I wonder how many police officers have actually arrested someone solely on the basis that a driver was unable to produce their licence there and then. Imagine the reaction of the custody officer when a person was being booked in for not producing their licence. The first question would be "Why didn't you issue a HORT/1?"

Police policy for years has been to issue a HORT/1 in such circumstances, based on the law allowing a person 7 days to produce their licence when so required. That is why it says in s.164(6), in relation to committing the offence, "subject to subsections (7) to (8A). That is what allows the police to issue a HORT/1 when a person is unable to produce thier licence at that time.

If there are other factors which would allow an arrest then that is an entirely different matter.

thenudeone wrote:

You are completely hung up on the use of the DL database to form a suspicion of driving without a licence. When the law was written in 1988, there was no live access to the DL database, so it would be impossible to use the lack of an entry on the database to form a reasonable suspicion of driving without a licence. A Police officer may have suspected it but there was never any evidence to back it up at the time.

No I am not. And I am well aware of when the law was written and what police policy was back then. No licence on the person? Issue a HORT/1 and give them seven days to produce. As per s.164. The only way that a person could have been dealt with on the spot at the time back then is if they verbally admitted they didn't have a driving licence. Otherwise it was back to the issue of a HORT/1 to see if they were able to produce in the allotted time. If they failed to produce then proceedings could commence.

thenudeone wrote:

Parliament needed to give Police the power to deal with people found driving who could not produce a licence and who (if not arrested) could never be prosecuted for it because they had no suitable address. They gave the police that power by creating an offence, but ensured that drivers with a licence could never be prosecuted for that offence as long as they produced it within 7 days.

There were many offences back in the 1980's where police did not have a power of arrest, not just driving licence matters. That is why the power of arrest under s.25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was given to police to allow for an arrest to be made under certain circumstances.

Rover_Driver

Trebor16 wrote: »

When a driver is stopped and asked to produce their driving licence, a document they are not legally obliged to carry with them, the law allows for the police to give them 7 days in which to produce their licence. This is clear in s.164(8)(a). Once they have complied with this "statutory defence" then there is no offence. If they fail to comply with the requirement to produce within the 7 day period then they commit the offence of failing to produce their licence..

The police do not give the driver 7 days in which to produce their licence, s164 8 (a) RTA does. It is not a case of complying with the 'statutory defence' - it is available to them as a defence for not producing their licence at the time it was required.

It is because drivers are not required to carry their licence when driving that s 164 8 RTA 1988 was written and the way it was written - they can use that defence if proceedings are taken against them for not producing their licence, if they have complied with s.164 8.