Speeding Summons?

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

An allegation of an offence is all that is necessary for a s.172 requirement to be served - see s.172(2), Road Traffic Act 1988 - nothing about evidence.

You'd still need to evidence to support the allegation.

Read section 172, look at the offences it covers and then the points to prove for those offences. You cannot just send out a bunch of 172 notices and prosecute anyone who fails to comply.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

You'd still need to evidence to support the allegation.

Read section 172, look at the offences it covers and then the points to prove for those offences. You cannot just send out a bunch of 172 notices and prosecute anyone who fails to comply.

No evidence is required to serve s.172 requirements - only an allegation of an offence, which may or not have been committed


If the alleged offence is one mentioned in s.172(1), then a s.172 requirement to nominate the driver can be served on the keeper of the vehicle - s.172(2)(a), or any other person s.172(2)(b).


If a person who has been served with a s.172 requirement, fails to comply with that requirement, they commit an offence - s.172(3). (Unless a defence in s.172(4)-(11) applies).



.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

No evidence is required to serve s.172 requirements - only an allegation of an offence, which may or not have been committed


If the alleged offence is one mentioned in s.172(1), then a s.172 requirement to nominate the driver can be served on the keeper of the vehicle - s.172(2)(a), or any other person s.172(2)(b).


If a person who has been served with a s.172 requirement, fails to comply with that requirement, they commit an offence - s.172(3). (Unless a defence in s.172(4)-(11) applies).



.

But you fail to comprehend the fact that without evidence there is no allegation. You cannot simply decide someone is speeding and serve a 172.

Mercdriver

ChumLee wrote: »

But you fail to comprehend the fact that without evidence there is no allegation. You cannot simply decide someone is speeding and serve a 172.

You'd be mistaken. The allegation is by the camera operator. The picture is evidence that supports the allegation if and when it goes to court. If what you were saying was true no case would ever succeed if a camera wasn't used, and we know that that is not the case.

The allegation by the camera operator is all that is required to produce the s172 request, just as an allegation by a member of the public is all that is required to solicit a s172 request in the event of a minor scrape in a supermarket car park. You don't need any evidence whatsoever to trigger the request. It's one of the reasons why the appeal to the ECHR on s172 failed.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

But you fail to comprehend the fact that without evidence there is no allegation. You cannot simply decide someone is speeding and serve a 172.

In criminal matters, an allegation is a just a claim that someone may have, or has, committed an offence.


Evidence is something credible to show that someone actually committed that offence.


As far as s.172 is concerned, all that is required is an allegation.


Quite often, as in a GATSO photograph, the allegation and evidence can be from the same source.
For other offences, there may only be an allegation, and the police investigation to obtain evidence of that offence may involve serving s.172 requirements to obtain that evidence. Even if the investigation found no evidence of an offence, the s.172 requirement would still have been valid.

ChumLee

Mercdriver wrote: »

You'd be mistaken. The allegation is by the camera operator. The picture is evidence that supports the allegation if and when it goes to court. If what you were saying was true no case would ever succeed if a camera wasn't used, and we know that that is not the case.

The allegation by the camera operator is all that is required to produce the s172 request, just as an allegation by a member of the public is all that is required to solicit a s172 request in the event of a minor scrape in a supermarket car park. You don't need any evidence whatsoever to trigger the request. It's one of the reasons why the appeal to the ECHR on s172 failed.

There is no camera operator, gatsos are unmanned equipment.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

In criminal matters, an allegation is a just a claim that someone may have, or has, committed an offence.


Evidence is something credible to show that someone actually committed that offence.


As far as s.172 is concerned, all that is required is an allegation.


Quite often, as in a GATSO photograph, the allegation and evidence can be from the same source.
For other offences, there may only be an allegation, and the police investigation to obtain evidence of that offence may involve serving s.172 requirements to obtain that evidence. Even if the investigation found no evidence of an offence, the s.172 requirement would still have been valid.

So there would either be a photo in this case of the op or in the event of say a fail to stop, a statement of complaint from the other driver. Aka evidence to support the allegation.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

So there would either be a photo in this case of the op or in the event of say a fail to stop, a statement of complaint from the other driver. Aka evidence to support the allegation.

A statement of complaint from a driver will be the allegation, an investigation will discover if there is any evidence of an offence or not.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

A statement of complaint from a driver will be the allegation, an investigation will discover if there is any evidence of an offence or not.

It is the evidence used to produce the 172 (the clue to help you statement of evidence). If it doesn't contain evidence of an offence what is there to investigate?

Using the example I gave it would need to include a vehicle was in a public place, a collision occurred and the driver failed to stop. All that is evidence.

Rover_Driver

An allegation of an offence and evidence of an offence are two different matters.

Consider the case of a motorist making a statement in respect of a failing to stop accident, which is a complete lie - it will be an allegation.

As it is a lie there would not be any evidence, but because there has been an allegation, the service of a s.172 requirement to anyone claimed to be involved in that accident would be valid, even though a subsequent investigation may find that the original statement was false and a lie.