notice of intended prosecution

matttye

Car_54 wrote: »

You are in danger of turning a relatively trivial matter into a major drama.

Discuss it with your wife, and agree who was the most likely driver, and name him/her. Then in future keep records.

That is not the same as deliberately naming the wrong driver, which is clearly perverting the course of justice.

Albeit rare for people to be acquitted of failing to provide information, it is a statutory defence to prove that you're not intentionally withholding information and that the driver cannot be ascertained, having made reasonable and diligent enquiries.

Honesty is the best policy here IMO. Set out the reasons why you can't identify the driver and if the reasons are good enough then the case will be dropped.

I still think randomly selecting the most likely driver (what makes that driver the most likely? An appointment or something? If so, surely that information could prove who the driver was) is dodgy ground.

When you respond to the notice you are effectively saying "The driver was this person" - if you are not actually sure who the driver was then you're making a false declaration.

In actual fact, a client of ours named a driver who was driving his taxi in the morning on the day of a speeding offence but actually discovered the offence was committed in the afternoon, when he was driving (that's his instructions at least), and he has been charged with perverting the course of justice.

I cannot advise strongly enough against naming the "most likely" driver. It's risky.

dave030445

matttye wrote: »

Albeit rare for people to be acquitted of failing to provide information, it is a statutory defence to prove that you're not intentionally withholding information and that the driver cannot be ascertained, having made reasonable and diligent enquiries.

Honesty is the best policy here IMO. Set out the reasons why you can't identify the driver and if the reasons are good enough then the case will be dropped.

I still think randomly selecting the most likely driver (what makes that driver the most likely? An appointment or something? If so, surely that information could prove who the driver was) is dodgy ground.

When you respond to the notice you are effectively saying "The driver was this person" - if you are not actually sure who the driver was then you're making a false declaration.

In actual fact, a client of ours named a driver who was driving his taxi in the morning on the day of a speeding offence but actually discovered the offence was committed in the afternoon, when he was driving (that's his instructions at least), and he has been charged with perverting the course of justice.

I cannot advise strongly enough against naming the "most likely" driver. It's risky.

bloody hell for the last 4 days people have been saying put the most likely, now you come in a put a spanner in the works. :rotfl:

JustinR1979

dave030445 wrote: »

bloody hell for the last 4 days people have been saying put the most likely, now you come in a put a spanner in the works. :rotfl:

If it worked we'd all be trying it.