Speeding Summons?

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

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.

No, it can't.

The definition of an arrest is to take a persons liberty to answer to an alleged or suspected offence. You need evidence to arrest. So there has to be some substance to the allegation ie evidence.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

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.

What do you think the "alleged to be GUILTY of an offence" means ? It means there must be substance to it , not spurious . Otherwise the wording would be different .

Car_54

ChumLee wrote: »

No, it can't.

The definition of an arrest is to take a persons liberty to answer to an alleged or suspected offence. You need evidence to arrest. So there has to be some substance to the allegation ie evidence.

But that evidence itself may be completely spurious and without foundation, so we're going round in circles.

In practice, if I walk into a police station and make a complaint that the driver of ABC123 pranged my car, that will be sufficient evidence for a s172 request to be issued. The police will have no way of knowing whether I'm telling the truth.

Car_54

Minrich wrote: »

What do you think the "alleged to be GUILTY of an offence" means ? It means there must be substance to it , not spurious . Otherwise the wording would be different .

The word guilty has no significance - if you were alleged to be NOT guilty there would be no point in issuing the s172. They might just as well have written "alleged to have commited an offence".

Minrich

Car_54 wrote: »

But that evidence itself may be completely spurious and without foundation, so we're going round in circles.

In practice, if I walk into a police station and make a complaint that the driver of ABC123 pranged my car, that will be sufficient evidence for a s172 request to be issued. The police will have no way of knowing whether I'm telling the truth.

Well they would want to see your car for starters and see the damage and see if it is consistent with what you say , that is evidence for starters !

Minrich

Car_54 wrote: »

The word guilty has no significance - if you were alleged to be NOT guilty there would be no point in issuing the s172. They might just as well have written "alleged to have commited an offence".

Shows how little you know about it then , if you think that the actual wording does not mean anything !

Car_54

Minrich wrote: »

Well they would want to see your car for starters and see the damage and see if it is consistent with what you say , that is evidence for starters !

It is evidence that the car has been damaged. It is not evidence to support the allegation that Mr X did it. Nor indeed is it evidence that an offence has been commited.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

The definition of an arrest is to take a persons liberty to answer to an alleged or suspected offence. You need evidence to arrest. So there has to be some substance to the allegation ie evidence.

It is nothing to do with being arrested, it is about the authority to serve a requirement to nominate the driver of a vehicle who has allegedly committed a offence - s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It is nothing to do with being arrested, it is about the authority to serve a requirement to nominate the driver of a vehicle who has allegedly committed a offence - s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

The post you quote is on about "Alleged" , they just used arrest to show the word alleged in a different sentence but also using the word evidence .

Minrich

To quantify the last few posts - No Sec 172 request has ever been made without there being grounds for requiring it (call it what you like , but generally when discussing Police matters the word evidence is used) Take it from me that that IS the case . The Police do not do things unless there are grounds for doing so , especially when it comes to sending paperwork and accusing a driver of an offence .