notice of intended prosecution

Car_54

RichardD1970 wrote: »

No he didn't.

He went to court and told them that although he couldn't be 100% sure (which is why he didn't admit to being the driver when he got the NIP), on the balance of probability he was the driver, which the court was willing to accept.

It's not that difficult to understand.

(you're not a reincarnation of Topdaddy are you? :rotfl: )

By "them" he must mean he told the prosecutor, before going into court.

You do not go into court and bargain, at least in this country.

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Ah now I get you.

Because they weren't going to drop it, he took the offer of three points and a fine of less than £100 instead of 6 points and £500.

He suddenly remembered he was driving, so could have accepted a ticket in the first place. That would have been the cheapest option for the tax paying public wouldn't it? But if you say he wasn't playing the system I guess you should give the op his number.

You're a very cynical person.

My colleague is very forgetful and doesn't remember which car park he's parked in half the time, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd forget whether he was driving his car that day at that time.

In any event, believe what you want when you're very ignorant of the situation. Pass judgement on someone you don't know. I hope you feel better for it.

DoctorFoster

matttye wrote: »

You're a very cynical person.

My colleague is very forgetful and doesn't remember which car park he's parked in half the time, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd forget whether he was driving his car that day at that time.

In any event, believe what you want when you're very ignorant of the situation. Pass judgement on someone you don't know. I hope you feel better for it.

Funny how he remembered when faced with a large fine and 6 points though.

Flower it up all you like or maybe you genuinely believe the system wasn't played.

DoctorFoster

Car_54 wrote: »

By "them" he must mean he told the prosecutor, before going into court.

You do not go into court and bargain, at least in this country.

No they bargain at the lodge. 😄

Car_54

matttye wrote: »

You're a very cynical person.

My colleague is very forgetful and doesn't remember which car park he's parked in half the time, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that he'd forget whether he was driving his car that day at that time.

In any event, believe what you want when you're very ignorant of the situation. Pass judgement on someone you don't know. I hope you feel better for it.

So ... you're adamant that your account is accurate, even though it is a second-hand version of the recollections of a very forgetful person?

DoctorFoster

Car_54 wrote: »

So ... you're adamant that your account is accurate, even though it is a second-hand version of the recollections of a very forgetful person?

But his memory comes back after 14 days. 😜

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Funny how he remembered when faced with a large fine and 6 points though.

Flower it up all you like or maybe you genuinely believe the system wasn't played.

He's a criminal solicitor who represents people for motoring offences all the time. Do you really think he didn't know he would face a larger fine and 6 points if he failed the provide information? He was more concerned with not wanting to pervert the course of justice by attempting to identify a driver when he couldn't do so.

Large fine, 6 points vs. a custodial sentence (perverting course of justice usually always results in a custodial sentence). I know which I'd prefer!

By the way, what advantage do you think he would gain by waiting until it got to court to plead guilty if he knew he was the driver all along?

You don't make any sense whatsoever and clearly don't understand the situation.

Car_54 wrote: »

So ... you're adamant that your account is accurate, even though it is a second-hand version of the recollections of a very forgetful person?

Yep. I've seen the outcome letter - he definitely pleaded guilty to speeding, not failing to provide information.

DoctorFoster

matttye wrote: »

He's a criminal solicitor who represents people for motoring offences all the time. Do you really think he didn't know he would face a larger fine and 6 points if he failed the provide information? He was more concerned with not wanting to pervert the course of justice by attempting to identify a driver when he couldn't do so.

Large fine, 6 points vs. a custodial sentence (perverting course of justice usually always results in a custodial sentence). I know which I'd prefer!

By the way, what advantage do you think he would gain by waiting until it got to court to plead guilty if he knew he was the driver all along?

You don't make any sense whatsoever and clearly don't understand the situation.



Yep. I've seen the outcome letter - he definitely pleaded guilty to speeding, not failing to provide information.

Exactly, he knows the system and how to play it.

Maybe he was hoping a mate from the lodge was prosecuting so no evidence would be offered.

Still he managed to convince the tea boy.

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Exactly, he knows the system and how to play it.

Maybe he was hoping a mate from the lodge was prosecuting so no evidence would be offered.

Still he managed to convince the tea boy.

So he knew he was the driver all along and didn't plead guilty by post so that he could go to court and plead guilty to speeding in exchange for the failing to provide information being dropped... a result that he could have gotten by pleading guilty by post in the first place and not having had the inconvenience of attending the hearing.

That's genius!!

Or it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and you're talking out of your !!!!.

Paradigm

Matttye... did he have to pay costs + the victim surcharge?