surely this isnt right...

soolin

Paradigm wrote: »

Pepipoo having the same problem http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78799

I think they are being quite restrained on pepipoo , they often get bored of strangely convoluted stories quite quickly, hopefully though OP is finally understanding what people here on MSE were trying to get through to him from the beginning.

I do have a minor concern that OP feels that 6 points on is license is absolutely fine as it is a lease car. I will admit to knowing nothing about lease arrangements , but do they really not care how many points you have if they give inclusive insurance?

soolin

prowla wrote: »

I think that the authorities should have to prove who was driving, and not target the leaseholder.

If it was a police officer who had stopped the car then there would be no question, but evidently the automated system they have chosen to use is flawed and is thus incapable of doing the job of being a proxy police officer.

Unless the principle of being innocent until proven guilty applies to everything else except pictures from sub-standard cameras.

I've seen two camera shots of cars - one of somebody speeding, and one of someone driving through a restricted route, and in both cases the driver could be clearly identified.

Go look on pepipoo where people have posted up their camera photos. Its usual to just see either just the number plate or an indistinct body in shadow in the driving seat that could be Anyone.

Paradigm

soolin wrote: »

I think they are being quite restrained on pepipoo , they often get bored of strangely convoluted stories quite quickly, hopefully though OP is finally understanding what people here on MSE were trying to get through to him from the beginning.

Unless he clears his head of the perceived injustice(s) & concentrates on what he legally has to do then it's going nowhere.

soolin wrote: »

I do have a minor concern that OP feels that 6 points on is license is absolutely fine as it is a lease car. I will admit to knowing nothing about lease arrangements , but do they really not care how many points you have if they give inclusive insurance?

Never leased so I can't begin to comment but I can't imagine it's good...

taxiphil

reddwarf2002 wrote: »

Similar thing happened to a friend of mine. There were two drivers and neither of them knew who was driving at the point the camera flashed as it was a long journey and they took turns (I'm sure they did, probably just trying it on - unless it was a non-flashing camera?!). He was summoned at the magistrates and offered a similar story but he was told to decide who was going to take points between themselves as it wasn't an acceptable excuse. As he was the main driver he decided to take it on the chin.

WHOA! :eek: Hang on a minute...

Who exactly told your friend that? The magistrates? The duty solicitor? The clerk? The prosecutor?

If someone actually said that, they were encouraging your friend to commit a crime (perverting the course of justice which carries an average sentence of 10 months in prison).

You don't "decide who is going to take the points", you either tell the truth about who was driving, or if you honestly don't know then you exercise the Section 172 defence. There is absolutely no "third option" of guessing who was driving if you're not sure, or nominating a fall guy who's prepared to have the points on their licence.

If you exercise the Section 172 defence and it fails, you aren't subsequently given the option to rewind the whole case and "choose" someone to take the points for the original offence - you become guilty of a different offence (failing to give information) which replaces the original offence.

Seriously, I would love to know who said that to your friend, as it's a shocking statement for someone in a legal or judicial position to make!

Johnmcl7

Perverting the course of justice would only be if it was deliberate, if they genuinely weren't sure and one decided to take the points it wouldn't be PCoJ. It's not unusual with FtF court cases for the CPS to dual charge for both FtF and the original motoring offence then drop the FtF charge if the person pleads guilty to the motoring offence.

John

soolin

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice would only be if it was deliberate, if they genuinely weren't sure and one decided to take the points it wouldn't be PCoJ. It's not unusual with FtF court cases for the CPS to dual charge for both FtF and the original motoring offence then drop the FtF charge if the person pleads guilty to the motoring offence.

John

No, perverting the course of justice is an absolute offence, any person in authority suggesting that action would end up in serious problems.

I can only urge people to use the experience of the guys on pepipoo for info on driving offences , they will tell it as it is it is.

taxiphil

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice would only be if it was deliberate, if they genuinely weren't sure and one decided to take the points it wouldn't be PCoJ.

But surely if you're "not sure" then you shouldn't be saying that person X was the driver. Isn't it "deliberate" to state that your information is correct, when you know it may not be correct? The motive for the crime is irrelevant, whether it's to dodge points, or fear of a greater penalty from failing to provide information.

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

It's not unusual with FtF court cases for the CPS to dual charge for both FtF and the original motoring offence then drop the FtF charge if the person pleads guilty to the motoring offence.

That sounds like coercion, which is contrary to the Code for Crown Prosecutors:

6.3 Prosecutors should never go ahead with more charges than are necessary just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a few. In the same way, they should never go ahead with a more serious charge just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious one.

FtF is a more serious charge as it carries 6 points IIRC, so what you're describing seems to be a clear and flagrant breach of 6.3. Especially since the 2 charges are contradictory by their very nature, and one would have thought it's impossible to be found guilty of both at the same time.

If they tried to play that kind of game with a murder/rape suspect there would be uproar about the defendant's rights, but obviously it's fair game to do it to motorists!

Johnmcl7

soolin wrote: »

No, perverting the course of justice is an absolute offence, any person in authority suggesting that action would end up in serious problems.

I can only urge people to use the experience of the guys on pepipoo for info on driving offences , they will tell it as it is it is.

No it isn't, the topic comes up frequently on Pepipoo where you'll see the same information as I posted. Intentionally naming the wrong driver is perverting the course of justice, naming a driver you believe was driving but not 100% sure is not.

John

Johnmcl7

taxiphil wrote: »

FtF is a more serious charge as it carries 6 points IIRC, so what you're describing seems to be a clear and flagrant breach of 6.3. Especially since the 2 charges are contradictory by their very nature, and one would have thought it's impossible to be found guilty of both at the same time.

If they tried to play that kind of game with a murder/rape suspect there would be uproar about the defendant's rights, but obviously it's fair game to do it to motorists!

It is possible to be guilty of both at the same time, for example if someone sent back a signed S172 response outwith the 30 days with no reason for the delay. The person would have failed to provide the driver details but the CPS would also have the signed form showing who committed the speeding offence.

On Pepipoo quite a few people used to think the dual charging was an abuse of process but no progress was ever made on that so it's faded away. The usual advice on Pepipoo is for users to speak with the CPS beforehand and request the FtF charge to be dropped if they plead guilty to the speeding, bearing in mind the hefty penalty an MS90 conviction carries they're doing people a favour particularly those that have been given incorrect advice initially on how to deal with a S172 request.

It's not a case of motorists/non-motorists, more one of severity as the dual charging is usually only for less motoring offences. For more serious driving offences such as dangerous driving (mandatory one year ban on conviction, potential jail time) I doubt you'd see dual charging and efforts to identify the driver are usually much more active than just a S172 request.

John

fred7777

inacrisis wrote: »

And I genuinely can't remember who was driving so I don't see how you can be penalised for this, ten weeks to send a letter to me is an extortionate amount of time.

You are being penalised for not being able to identify who the driver was which you are legally obliged to do.

The law was written to prevent people using "I don't remember who was driving" as a way to get off (not saying you are doing this).

In the last company I worked in where certain employees had company cars (and were the registered keepers) and other employees used them people had to sign, date and time the cars out and in again so there was a record of who had been using the car. Doesn't help you now I know but you could do this in the future.