Speeding Summons?

stephenoldham

Mercdriver wrote: »

It can. It's only after pleading not guilty at the pleading hearing that the defendant can demand the evidence.

The disclosure position is pretty clear. Here's the scenario.

1. Dr Shoe is charged with failing to provide driver details (s.172(3)).
2. She pleads not guilty.
3. Her defence is "I couldn't provide the details because I don't know who was driving. My car was not on the road at the time of the offence. Maybe my car has been cloned. s.172(4)"
4. The CPS have an obligation to disclose material that undermines the prosecution or assists the defence.
5. A photo of the speeding vehicle showing discrepancies with Dr Shoe's car would both undermine the prosecution and assist the defence.
6. That photo would be discloseable to Dr Shoe.
7. If the CPS refuse to disclose the photo then Dr Shoe has to serve a defence statement and make an application under s.8 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 for disclosure.
8. If the court order disclosure and the CPS still do not disclose then there can't be a fair trial and Dr Shoe could make an abuse of process argument.

Simple really!

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

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.

Lie or not if a statement is made it is still evidence of an alleged offence at the time the 172 was sent out. If they knew at the time the statement was a lie then there is no allegation to send out a 172.

You're confusing sufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution with evidence to support the allegation. They are two different things. So back to the op's situation, within the disclose pack there will be evidence to support the alleged offence of speeding.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

You're confusing sufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution with evidence to support the allegation.

No confusion at all, evidence is evidence wherever it comes from - to support a prosecution or to support an allegation.

If someone makes an allegation that has no supporting evidence it is just an allegation. Allegations and evidence are two different matters.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

No confusion at all, evidence is evidence wherever it comes from - to support a prosecution or to support an allegation.

If someone makes an allegation that has no supporting evidence it is just an allegation. Allegations and evidence are two different matters.

Allegation, time, date, location, alleged to have done something is evidence.

In the case of the op the only thing they are lacking is name of the driver.

Or maybe you're suggesting I walk into a police station allege you were speeding and they'll issue a 172. We all know they'd need evidence.

MacMickster

I've just skimmed through this thread so apologies if this has been said before.

Rather than canvass the opinions of a bunch of barrack room lawyers on an anonymous internet forum, I think that the OP should really get some proper legal advice. To turn up in court representing yourself and basing your defence around your choice of the various comments on here is a recipe for disaster.

Minrich

Some of those on here are just quoting from elsewhere on the internet , happens on every motoring forum . There should be a requirement to post your qualification or job or experience etc prior to posting or within the post .

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

Or maybe you're suggesting I walk into a police station allege you were speeding and they'll issue a 172. We all know they'd need evidence.

Exactly, an allegation of speeding, no evidence, just an allegation.
Which is sufficient to authorise a s.172 requirement to be served.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Exactly, an allegation of speeding, no evidence, just an allegation.
Which is sufficient to authorise a s.172 requirement to be served.

There has to be substance to the allegation . What is your experience in these matters ? Your occupation perhaps ?

ChumLee

Minrich wrote: »

There has to be substance to the allegation . What is your experience in these matters ? Your occupation perhaps ?

That's the part he's failing to grasp.

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

There has to be substance to the allegation .

If there was a requirement that there had to be substance to the allegation, it would be mentioned in s.172(2), but it isn't - only 'Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence.....' just 'alleged' no other qualification or requirement.

The allegation can be completely spurious and without foundation, but it does not affect the authority to serve a s.172 requirement.