Speeding Summons?

Rover_Driver

The summons will be for failing to nominate the driver, without a nominated driver they are unable to prosecute anyone for the speeding matter.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The summons will be for failing to nominate the driver, without a nominated driver they are unable to prosecute anyone.

If a summons is drawn at all ? You cannot (obviously) nominate a driver for a car that is not yours and running on your vehicles cloned plates . Whether the CPS believe the OP or not is crucial . But we shall see what happens , hopefully . The only evidence the prosecution have is the GATSO camera photo afterall.

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

If a summons is drawn at all ? You cannot (obviously) nominate a driver for a car that is not yours and running on your vehicles cloned plates . Whether the CPS believe the OP or not is crucial . But we shall see what happens , hopefully . The only evidence the prosecution have is the GATSO camera photo afterall.

The GATSO photograph will not be evidence for the prosecution for the failing to nominate offence.

The prosecution case will be that OP was served with a requirement to nominate the driver, this they failed to do.

The OP's defence is that it was not their car, so they could not nominate the driver - they may use photographs as part of their defence, but photographs alone might not be considered to be enough for a s.172(4) defence.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The GATSO photograph will not be evidence for the prosecution for the failing to nominate offence.

The prosecution case will be that OP was served with a requirement to nominate the driver, this they failed to do.

The OP's defence is that it was not their car, so they could not nominate the driver - they may use photographs as part of their defence, but photographs alone might not be considered to be enough for a s.172(4) defence.

The police cannot request drivers details for no reason , the reason being the Gatso offence . Therefore they have to disclose the Gatso photograph to justify their request . The photo will be evidence for the prosecution.

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

The police cannot request drivers details for no reason , the reason being the Gatso offence . Therefore they have to disclose the Gatso photograph to justify their request . The photo will be evidence for the prosecution.

The reason is that the police would initially be dealing with a speeding offence, which is why they served the OP with the requirement to nominate the driver. No photographs are needed for that, they would only be needed as evidence in a speeding prosecution.

It is the vehicle keeper's responsibility to nominate the driver - s.172(2)(a). If they do not, they commit the offence.

There is a defence, as in the Op's case - s.172(4), where photographs may help.

wiltsguy_2

i see this as a simple case to be honest, if the OP was 100% not driving/or doesn't know who was driving-fight it.

If the OP was trying to dodge a speeding fine/speed awareness course-i would say it's gone too far and put your hands up, before it gets messy & expensive.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The reason is that the police would initially be dealing with a speeding offence, which is why they served the OP with the requirement to nominate the driver. No photographs are needed for that, they would only be needed as evidence in a speeding prosecution.

It is the vehicle keeper's responsibility to nominate the driver - s.172(2)(a). If they do not, they commit the offence.

There is a defence, as in the Op's case - s.172(4), where photographs may help.

They would need the Gatso photo to prove that their request for driver details (for the speeding offence) is a legal request , if they do not prove that then there cannot be a legal requirement to disclose the driver details and therefore the case will be dismissed as the registered keeper has not been asked legally to disclose ....

ChumLee

Minrich wrote: »

If a summons is drawn at all ? You cannot (obviously) nominate a driver for a car that is not yours and running on your vehicles cloned plates . Whether the CPS believe the OP or not is crucial . But we shall see what happens , hopefully . The only evidence the prosecution have is the GATSO camera photo afterall.

What about the fact no driver has been nominated, is that not evidence?

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

They would need the Gatso photo to prove that their request for driver details (for the speeding offence) is a legal request , if they do not prove that then there cannot be a legal requirement to disclose the driver details and therefore the case will be dismissed as the registered keeper has not been asked legally to disclose ....

The police do not need to prove anything when serving a s.172 requirement.

The authority to serve a s.172 requirement is s.172(2) - where the driver of the vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence mentioned in s.172(1) - nothing to do with proving the offence.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The police do not need to prove anything when serving a s.172 requirement.

The authority to serve a s.172 requirement is s.172(2) - where the driver of the vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence mentioned in s.172(1) - nothing to do with proving the offence.

They may need to have evidence of an offence taking place to prove the 172 in court though.