Driving through No entry at London City Airport

Scrapit

massacre wrote: »

What is the point of capture my face!!!

That's obvious, and your reaction suggests they did too. Gotcha!:T

TooManyPoints

AdrianC wrote: »

Prevent you trying to deny you were the driver.

For normal minor traffic offences the prosecution does not need to provide evidence (which may be rebutted) as to the driver's identity. The driver himself provides it in the form of a S172 statement (which he must provide or face prosecution). Quite how the airport authorities intend to process this matter (if indeed they do) is not entirely clear.

a.turner

TooManyPoints wrote: »

For normal minor traffic offences the prosecution does not need to provide evidence (which may be rebutted) as to the driver's identity. The driver himself provides it in the form of a S172 statement (which he must provide or face prosecution). Quite how the airport authorities intend to process this matter (if indeed they do) is not entirely clear.

Mr Freeman would argue otherwise and has won in court more than once with that defence.

TooManyPoints

Mr Freeman would argue otherwise and has won in court more than once with that defence.

Really? Perhaps you could point me to a case or two where he has insisted on the prosecution producing further evidence when a properly completed S172 statement was available to support an allegation of (say) speeding, and where he went on to secure an acquittal when it had not been forthcoming. Since 2004 all that has been needed to establish the identity of a driver detected remotely committing almost any offence under the Road Traffic Act (with the exceptions listed under S172) is a completed S172 response providing the driver's details. Certainly Mr Freeman may have exploited procedural deficiencies and errors but I don't believe he has argued successfully that further evidence of the driver's identity is necessary.