s172 form

Nasqueron

This case highlights the problem with the way this law is with the "name the driver" clause - there was a case in the last couple of years where a car was caught on camera deliberately knocking a cyclist off and the RK (possibly a hire car?) wouldn't name the driver and in the end both the people named as possible drivers got the "failed to name" prosecution of points and fine instead of the charge of dangerous driving.

In my, entirely unqualified, opinion, in cases like this if they refuse to name they should both be charged with the penalty that would have been given which might encourage them to name the driver or both have the consequences

Fat_Walt

Car_54 wrote: »

The police can send a 172 to anyone. There is no need for evidence.

There's no suggestion in the report that they named each other. In fact, the husband had “done nothing to try and ascertain who that vehicle was being driven by at the relevant time.”

So it's likely they both said "might have been either of us", and failed to carry out any reasonable diligence which might have given them a defence.

Yes, but they got the second name from somewhere, the first 172 so that person has done all they need to do. If they haven't there's no case against the second person as the first is guilty of the offence.

Rover_Driver

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Yes, but they got the second name from somewhere, the first 172 so that person has done all they need to do. If they haven't there's no case against the second person as the first is guilty of the offence.

If the reply to the first s.172 requirement was something like 'it could of been me or (name of other person)'. The police considered that the requirement of s.172(2)(a) had not been complied with in that case - the driver had not been identified and s.172(4) did not apply, and the same with the reply to the second person's s.172(2)(b) requirement.

jaydeeuk1

So if person 1 said person 2 was driving, and person 2 was adamant that person 1 was driving (rather than saying don't know), then presumably they'd have been in the clear as

"The charge was careless or dangerous driving including overtaking on a blind bend but they couldn't identify the driver. This implies they both drive like this on a regular basis so six points each is fair."

could not therefore be assumed.

Nasqueron

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

So if person 1 said person 2 was driving, and person 2 was adamant that person 1 was driving (rather than saying don't know), then presumably they'd have been in the clear as

"The charge was careless or dangerous driving including overtaking on a blind bend but they couldn't identify the driver. This implies they both drive like this on a regular basis so six points each is fair."

could not therefore be assumed.

If the car was not stolen then it must have been one of the two.

Thus either both drive like that (so they couldn't be sure who it was driving in that manner) or only one of them does and thus they would know who it was so could identify them.

Far more likely they figured by refusing to name they would both get away with it and weren't aware the law closed that back door

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Yes, but they got the second name from somewhere, the first 172 so that person has done all they need to do. If they haven't there's no case against the second person as the first is guilty of the offence.

Presumably they got the 2nd name from the 1st reply, but that does not mean he satisfiled the requirement. If he said "It was X" that's ok, but if he said "It might have been X, or it might have been me" it isn't.

Why do you think there is no case against the second person? The police can send a S172 to anyone, and he is required to give "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." This is not dependent on any reply given by the 1st person.

jaydeeuk1

Nasqueron wrote: »

If the car was not stolen then it must have been one of the two.

Thus either both drive like that (so they couldn't be sure who it was driving in that manner) or only one of them does and thus they would know who it was so could identify them.

Far more likely they figured by refusing to name they would both get away with it and weren't aware the law closed that back door

Thats the problem, they refused to name, but if person 1 named person 2, and in turn person 2 named person 1, how would the courts be able to convict beyond all reasonable doubt one of them without other evidence? They can't throw the refusal to name because they have.

AdrianC

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Thats the problem, they refused to name, but if person 1 named person 2, and in turn person 2 named person 1, how would the courts be able to convict beyond all reasonable doubt one of them without other evidence? They can't throw the refusal to name because they have.

They were found guilty of refusing to name simply because the judge did not believe that neither of them knew. Read the judge's quoted comments in that article...
(Magistrate's court, so no jury)

peter_the_piper

Probably got info from Fred down the pub/bible group that if you say you don't know who was driving then they let you off cos they can't prove it. Fred was wrong.

Fat_Walt

Car_54 wrote: »

Presumably they got the 2nd name from the 1st reply, but that does not mean he satisfiled the requirement. If he said "It was X" that's ok, but if he said "It might have been X, or it might have been me" it isn't.

Why do you think there is no case against the second person? The police can send a S172 to anyone, and he is required to give "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." This is not dependent on any reply given by the 1st person.

It's quite simple really. Either person 1 has complied or they haven't. If they haven't then where does person 2 come into it? They could have named you, would you therefore be guilty too?