notice of intended prosecution

JustinR1979

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Maybe Dave forgot about that. He can't remember when it's meant to have happened.

I'm 34 and often forget why I've walked into a room, maybe Dave is twice my age so can be forgiven for not remembering this

DoctorFoster

JustinR1979 wrote: »

I'm 34 and often forget why I've walked into a room, maybe Dave is twice my age so can be forgiven for not remembering this

Who's Dave?

DoctorFoster

What am I doing in this room?

JustinR1979

DoctorFoster wrote: »

What am I doing in this room?

I don't know, but you're lucky it has padding

DoctorFoster

JustinR1979 wrote: »

I don't know, but you're lucky it has padding

I wondered why the wallpaper was so thick.

matttye

McKneff wrote: »

If you cant remember, just put down whoever it affects the least.

Advising someone to pervert the course of justice...terrible advice.

matttye

Car_54 wrote: »

Do NOT follow that advice. Failure to name the driver UNEQUIVOCALLY will almost certainly lead to a conviction: six points, a large fine and greatly increased insurance premiums.

My colleague at work who is a solicitor refused to identify the driver for the exact reasons set out in this thread.

He received a summons for failure to provide information, then went to court and pleaded guilty to speeding, which the prosecution accepted without issue and they dropped the failing to provide information charge. He simply told the court he couldn't be sure who was the driver, and the photographs provided by the police were useless, but given that he was the main driver he was willing to plead guilty as it was likely to be him.

Court + cps accepted the plea without issue and he didn't have to lie by identifying a driver when he actually didn't know who the driver was.

Car_54

matttye wrote: »

My colleague at work who is a solicitor refused to identify the driver for the exact reasons set out in this thread.

He received a summons for failure to provide information, then went to court and pleaded guilty to speeding, which the prosecution accepted without issue and they dropped the failing to provide information charge. He simply told the court he couldn't be sure who was the driver, and the photographs provided by the police were useless, but given that he was the main driver he was willing to plead guilty as it was likely to be him.

Court + cps accepted the plea without issue and he didn't have to lie by identifying a driver when he actually didn't know who the driver was.

If he was able to plead guilty to speeding, then he must have receved a summons for the speeding as well as FTF. If he had pleaded or been found guilty of FTF then the speeding charge could not have gone ahead, as there would have been no evidence as to the identity of the driver.

It is normal in those circumstances for the CPS to drop the FTF charge in return for a guilty plea to the underlying offence.

However, to do that he must have identified himself as the driver, at least to the CPS.

Did he have any reason for following that (risky) route rather than simply naming himself in the first place?

DoctorFoster

Car_54 wrote: »

If he was able to plead guilty to speeding, then he must have receved a summons for the speeding as well as FTF. If he had pleaded or been found guilty of FTF then the speeding charge could not have gone ahead, as there would have been no evidence as to the identity of the driver.

It is normal in those circumstances for the CPS to drop the FTF charge in return for a guilty plea to the underlying offence.

However, to do that he must have identified himself as the driver, at least to the CPS.

Did he have any reason for following that (risky) route rather than simply naming himself in the first place?

Should have convicted him for both instead of allowing him to play the system at the expense of the tax payer.

matttye

Car_54 wrote: »

If he was able to plead guilty to speeding, then he must have receved a summons for the speeding as well as FTF. If he had pleaded or been found guilty of FTF then the speeding charge could not have gone ahead, as there would have been no evidence as to the identity of the driver.

It is normal in those circumstances for the CPS to drop the FTF charge in return for a guilty plea to the underlying offence.

However, to do that he must have identified himself as the driver, at least to the CPS.

Did he have any reason for following that (risky) route rather than simply naming himself in the first place?

It is possible that both offences were on the summons, although my recollection was that they only summonsed him for failing to provide driver information.

The CPS often accept pleas to lesser offences even when they are not on the original list of charges (or indictment in the crown court).

E.g. it is not uncommon for a plea to Section 20 GBH be accepted in place of the much more serious Section 18 GBH.

See my comment to DoctorFoster below also.

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Should have convicted him for both instead of allowing him to play the system at the expense of the tax payer.

I think you're both misunderstanding. He did not know who was driving, but knew it was likely to be him. He could not therefore identify himself as the driver.

As I say, he explained in court that it was likely to be him but he could not categorically say it was, but he was willing to plead guilty on the basis that it was likely to be him, and they accepted that.