Accident with uninsured driver

vax2002

The police have done your brother a very big favour, Dont push it !
They could have arrested him immediately for assisting an offender and Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
He knowingly conspired to assist an offender to avoid prosecution, he has been very lucky indeed.

George_Michael

vax2002 wrote: »

The police have done your brother a very big favour, Dont push it !
They could have arrested him immediately for assisting an offender and Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
He knowingly conspired to assist an offender to avoid prosecution, he has been very lucky indeed.

Don't you ever get bored with posting factually incorrect bull****?

The OPs brother had an accident, and they exchanged details with the driver of the other vehicle.
That is their legal obligations with regards to the accident taken care of.
They later found out that the driver wasn't insured, and they then contacted the police to report this.

What exactly do you think that the police could prosecute the OP's brother for?

dacouch

wba31 wrote: »

Yes, the passenger in the vehicle is insured to drive it. His partner was driving, she is not insured

That's good news, the Road Traffic Act makes the Insurer of the vehicle liable to pay a claim if the driver in the crash is identified eg they it was not a thieve who ran off.

You can claim against the vehicle Insurers.

You can get their details (Name of Insurer, policy number and their tele number) from here for a fee of £4 http://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx

Alternatively he can go through his own Insurer, but in a case like this I would be inclined to contact the other Insurers as it avoid your excess etc.

Be aware that they will probably not be aware of the accident, as the owner will not think of telling them so they may need to contact them. Also some claims staff are not aware of the part of the RTA that makes them liable so they may try and fob you off. Don't take no for an answer.

vax2002

George_Michael wrote: »

What exactly do you think that the police could prosecute the OP's brother for?

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Interfering with the administration of justice by conspiring to prevent detection of offence, or and assisting an offender.

Or as in your case you could just pretend the Law does not exist, wave your MSE magic wand and it would all go away.
Next question ?

mikey72

vax2002 wrote: »

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Interfering with the administration of justice by conspiring to prevent detection of offence, or and assisting an offender.

Or as in your case you could just pretend the Law does not exist, wave your MSE magic wand and it would all go away.
Next question ?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:(and they may well be in capitals)

thenudeone

vax2002 wrote: »

The police have done your brother a very big favour, Dont push it !
They could have arrested him immediately for assisting an offender and Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
He knowingly conspired to assist an offender to avoid prosecution, he has been very lucky indeed.

Vax, you don't half come up with some rubbish.
Please do your research before mouthing off.

Or indeed try to remember what you've already been told here
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51490699&postcount=35

The offence of "Assisting an offender" (as originally drafted in 1967) only applies to "arrestable offences" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4
The original definition of "arrestable offence" is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/24/enacted
Driving without insurance WAS NOT an "arrestable offence".
The definition of "arrestable offence" was removed by this law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110. in most cases references to "arrestable offence" now refer to "indictable offences" (although the website for the 1967 Act hasn't been updated to remove the reference to "arrestable offences")
Driving without insurance IS NOT an "indictable offence". So even if someone was actively assisting someone to drive without insurance (which these circumstances wouldn't support), they would not be "assisting an offender" as defined in law.

Perverting the course of justice? What a laugh!
This is common law offence and the definition is here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a06
in summary it is committed when an accused

1. does an act or series of acts;
2. which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
3. which is or are intended to pervert;
4. the course of public justice

although this is expanded here http://www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/pcj_consultation.html#_Toc284951052
to clarify that

• "(a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient.)"

Since the OP has made no such positive act (and in fact he's rang the police to report the incident) it's blatantly clear to everyone (except Vax) that this offence has not been committed either.

Some please stop scaremongering and pretending that you know something about the law, when you clearly don't (although you regularly seem to forget that you don't).

vax2002

I think you will find that PACE replaced it and all offences are arrestable .
Taking money from someone to hide the fact they had no insurance is about as obvious an attempt to pervert the course of justice you could get.
A jury would decide the guilt, not some MSE magic wand fairy.
Copy and pasting from wikipedia does not make you more correct.
The OP should seek legal advice upon the position before re-approaching the police.

Sgt_Pepper_2

vax2002 wrote: »

I think you will find that PACE replaced it and all offences are arrestable .
Taking money from someone to hide the fact they had no insurance is about as obvious an attempt to pervert the course of justice you could get.
A jury would decide the guilt, not some MSE magic wand fairy.
Copy and pasting from wikipedia does not make you more correct.
The OP should seek legal advice upon the position before re-approaching the police.

You also have to pass the necessity test to assert and in this case what would be your reasons?

If the owner is guilty of pervert them what is the ops brother who agreed to accept the money?

Sgt_Pepper_2

colino wrote: »

When you remember your two independent witnesses names, make a full report at the local copshop. (Funny they weren't interested before with a hit and run driveaway and three people now rubbing their whip-lashed necks).
Take it to the nth degree, he is probably disqualified as well, hence the instant and now retracted cash offer.

I see you've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

wba31

Hang on a second, when he was offered the money, he was told that both people in the other car were insured, they just wanted to settle another way. His car is worth £1000 AT MOST so he was happy to take the money, get his car repaired or replaced, and not claim through either insurance.

It's only when the guy confessed the truth that he as passenger is insured, but his partner as driver wasn't that my bro decided to contact the police. so AS SOON AS HE KNEW THAT LEGALLY THERE WAS A PROBLEM he contacted the police, he hasn't tried to hide anything from anyone!