We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
s172 form
Options
Comments
-
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.
That is why you have the penalty of refusing to name because they were lying about it - as stated above, the notice from the police comes in 2 weeks so their excuse about not remembering a year later was moot, if they'd admitted it at the time it wouldn't have got this far and they got their just desserts.
Either both of them drive recklessly, in which case it's fair they both got penalised, or one of them always does and they refused to name him/her in which case one of them got off light, the other one was penalised for covering them up.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
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?
It is indeed simple, but you're making it complicated.
The police have sent an s172 to person 2 (and possibly to others), possibly because she was named by person 1, possibly because they knew she was insured to drive the car, or possibly for some other reason. We simply do not know.
What we do know is that they were perfectly entitled to do so.
And being named by person 1 (or anyone else) does not make me or anyone else guilty.0 -
It is indeed simple, but you're making it complicated.
The police have sent an s172 to person 2 (and possibly to others), possibly because she was named by person 1, possibly because they knew she was insured to drive the car, or possibly for some other reason. We simply do not know.
What we do know is that they were perfectly entitled to do so.
And being named by person 1 (or anyone else) does not make me or anyone else guilty.
Highly unlikely.
Person 2 was named by person 1, so if person 1 hasn't satisfied their duty under the act there should have been no case against person 2.0 -
If person 2 received an S172 request and failed to respond, then there is very much a case to answer.Person 2 was named by person 1, so if person 1 hasn't satisfied their duty under the act there should have been no case against person 2.
Another possibility is that person 1 failed to respond (and due to the serious nature of the alleged offence), the police checked who was insured to drive the vehicle and hence issued a subsequent S172 request.0 -
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?
As earlier in the thread, the advice from 'a bloke down the pub' is often to say something like that they couldn't remember and give the details of possible drivers.
That would not comply with the s.172 requirement served on the keeper if they had not used reasonable diligence to establish who the driver at the time - enquires etc. they had made to establish who the driver was.
The requirement for subsequent s.172 requirements served on any other person is that that person gives any information in their power to give which may lead to the identify the driver - if that person has no information to give they would not be guilty.
In the current case, the court decided that the keeper did not use reasonable diligence to identify the driver at the time, and the other person may have had information to lead to the identify of the driver, which they did not give.0 -
TadleyBaggie wrote: »If person 2 received an S172 request and failed to respond, then there is very much a case to answer.
Another possibility is that person 1 failed to respond (and due to the serious nature of the alleged offence), the police checked who was insured to drive the vehicle and hence issued a subsequent S172 request.
Unlikely....0 -
Highly unlikely.
Person 2 was named by person 1, so if person 1 hasn't satisfied their duty under the act there should have been no case against person 2.
Why? Where is the legislation to support that view?
A crime has been reported, and the police have a duty to investigate. Convicting person 1 for failure to identify the driver does not solve the original crime, so the investigation continues.
The police have written to person 2 in the belief that she has relevant information. (How they formed that belief is irrelevant.) She is required by s172 to give that information, and she has failed to do so. That is an offence.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards