Speeding Summons?

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

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 .

There can be a difference between what powers the police have, and how they exercise those powers.

In respect of traffic matters and s.172 requirements, they may have a policy that they need some grounds before serving them, but that is not required by the legislation - only an allegation is needed.

ChumLee

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.

Do you honestly think you don't require evidence to support an allegation?

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

Do you honestly think you don't require evidence to support an allegation?

An allegation is just that, an allegation - it may, or may not, have any evidence to support it.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Rover_Driver wrote: »

An allegation is just that, an allegation - it may, or may not, have any evidence to support it.

As the mother in Primark appears to be demonstrating.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

An allegation is just that, an allegation - it may, or may not, have any evidence to support it.

Ok, then give us an example of how and allegation is worded but without containing any evidence.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

Ok, then give us an example of how and allegation is worded but without containing any evidence.

The mother in Primark mentioned above is a good example - she alleged that the security guard forced her daughter from her, and has now been charged with perverting the course of justice.


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/primark-breastfeeding-row-mum-charged-125918525.html#NI4Clbl

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The mother in Primark mentioned above is a good example - she alleged that the security guard forced her daughter from her, and has now been charged with perverting the course of justice.


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/primark-breastfeeding-row-mum-charged-125918525.html#NI4Clbl

Even that has a date and location of the alleged incident, which were it true would be evidence and form part of a charge wording.

Dr._Shoe

BUT.

Assuming I do get a summons, they won't be doing me for speeding, but for failing to supply driver details (S172).

To this I would have to plead guilty but offer the fact that the car in the picture is a clone using my pictures to support my mitigation. This should lead to the case being dismissed because this would mean that I there is no way that I would have been able to comply with the S172 request so therefore no offence would have been committed.

In actual fact I have already pleaded guilty in effect by saying that I don't know who was driving the car.

Does anyone know of the timescale of a potential summons? I know they have to lay the information in court within six months but do they actually take that long? If so I won't be in the clear until some time after Sept 7th...

ChumLee

Six months after the 28 day period following the issue of the 172 and it may well take them that long. If they aren't proceeding you'll likely gat a letter telling you so.

Rover_Driver

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

To this I would have to plead guilty but offer the fact that the car in the picture is a clone using my pictures to support my mitigation.

Consider s.172(4), as it was not your car, you could have a defence:
'A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was'