DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65177--------------------------------------------------
Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information on
the driver
DIR By: helpneeded1
Date: April 1, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would anyone be able to help with a double charge of speeding
and failing to provide information on the driver?
We live in Hertfordshire.
My wife received a NIP in November 2024 for her vehicle speeding
on a weekend at around 16:00. We share the vehicle almost
equally. The road is just 2-3 minutes' drive away from our house
and we need to use it to get to most places in the town, so any
one of us could have been driving the vehicle at that time. We
both checked our diaries and could not tell who was driving. The
online form to respond to the NIP provided an option to the
effect of being unable to confirm who was driving the vehicle,
and then provided a box to give more details on the reason why.
My wife filled out this form in good faith and gave these
reasons. She did not want to guess the driver as she feared a
mistake could be seen as perverting the course of justice. She
thought her response would prompt the police to write back and
advise her further about what to do. The submission was filed
within the required 28 days and was acknowledged by the website.
My wife was, therefore, very surprised to receive a Single
Justice Procedure Notice recently, stating that she has been
charged with exceeding the speed limit and failing to identify
the driver. We feel this is very unfair as she complied with the
request to respond within 28 days, and the website itself
provided the option of not identifying a driver, which gave the
impression that this is a legitimate response.
I have spoken with a few motoring solicitors but they are asking
for £1500-£2000 to defend my wife. One said it will cost £1500
for them to negotiate informally with the prosecutor for them to
drop the failing to furnish charge in exchange for a guilty plea
on the speeding charge. Alternatively, they want £2000 to attend
court and defend my wife, if she pleads non-guilty to both
charges. One solicitor on JustAnswer (who did not inspire me
with confidence) said my wife should just plead non-guilty to
both and try to defend herself in front of the judge, despite
the risks.
Following the recent advice of solicitors, we have now checked
our bank statements and I feel that, on the balance of
probabilities, I have may have been more likely to have been
driving the vehicle at the time of the offence, as I go to the
particular shop showing on the bank statement more frequently
than my wife does. I would say I feel it is 70% likely to be me.
However, this is still a guess and we do not know for sure.
We do not wish to pay such substantial sums to a solicitor if it
is something that we can just do ourselves. Neither of us have
ever previously had any driving points or convictions, or any
other criminal charges for that matter. We just want the best
option in terms of minimal cost and minimal points and minimal
future implications. I have read online and feel we definitely
do not want a S172 conviction due to its implications on future
car insurance bills.
Which option do people suggest?
1. Pay a solicitor £1500 to informally negotiate with the
prosecutor to drop the failing to furnish charge in exchange for
a guilty plea on the speeding charge?
2. Contact the prosecutor ourselves to negotiate dropping the
failing to furnish charge in exchange for a guilty plea on the
speeding charge? If so, how would they be contacted though and
what should we say?
3. Plead non-guilty to both charges and explain the
circumstances to the judge? Would this be too risky though?
4. Plead guilty to the speeding charge and non-guilty to the
failure to furnish charge, assuming the prosecutor will
automatically drop the failure to furnish charge prior to the
court date?
Are there any other suggestions we could try instead? Thank you,
in advance, for all for your help and knowledge!
#Post#: 65186--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: April 1, 2025, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> on the balance of probabilities, I have may have been more
likely to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the
offence,
--- End Quote ---
Then she cannot negotiate the "deal" (to plead guilty to
speeding if the other charge is dropped). That is only available
to her if she was driving.
If you decide that you were the driver the only option for her
is to defend the "Fail to provide driver's details" charge. She
has committed the offence as she has not provided those details
as required. However, there is a statutory defence which says
this:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence [of failing to
provide driver's details] if he shows that he did not know and
could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the
driver of the vehicle was."
There have been one or two notable successes. Here's one:
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/28/northerner.heatherstewart
But it is not easy to convince a court. If it was, everybody
would do it.
#Post#: 65188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: helpneeded1
Date: April 1, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
How likely is she to succeed in pleading non-guilty to both in
court, though? At the time of responding to the Notice of
Intended Prosecution, we had only checked our own diaries. We
had not checked bank statements. It is only now, after being
advised by the solicitors, that I have seen a particular
expenditure from a shop on my bank statement, that I feel makes
it slightly more likely that I was driving. My wife's bank
statements do not show any activity for the day in question.
#Post#: 65191--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: April 1, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If there was reasonable diligence she could have done but did
not do then she can’t avail herself of the defence (at least,
should not be able to).
#Post#: 65204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: April 1, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: helpneeded1 link ---
>
> We feel this is very unfair as she complied with the request
to respond within 28 days
>
--- End Quote ---
Alas, she had not complied with the law. The law doesn't just
ask for a 'response' but asks for an unequivocal driver
nomination. (Of course, there's the statutory defence mentioned
above)
I would suspect the paperwork received made it quite clear what
response was required to the s172?
--- Quote from: helpneeded1 link ---
>
> ...and the website itself provided the option of not
identifying a driver, which gave the impression that this is a
legitimate response.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hmmm - out of interest can you elaborate on this? (Although I
do not see it providing any defence)
--- Quote from: helpneeded1 link ---
>
> 1. Pay a solicitor £1500 to informally negotiate with the
prosecutor to drop the failing to furnish charge in exchange for
a guilty plea on the speeding charge?
> 2. Contact the prosecutor ourselves to negotiate dropping the
failing to furnish charge in exchange for a guilty plea on the
speeding charge? If so, how would they be contacted though and
what should we say?
> 3. Plead non-guilty to both charges and explain the
circumstances to the judge? Would this be too risky though?
> 4. Plead guilty to the speeding charge and non-guilty to the
failure to furnish charge, assuming the prosecutor will
automatically drop the failure to furnish charge prior to the
court date?
>
--- End Quote ---
1. Unnecessary really
2. This can only usually be done by attending court
3. Risky - a real chance of a s172 conviction I'm afraid (6
points)
4. This gives away any 'bargaining chip'. She could be
convicted of both offences as they are not mutually exclusive.
The usual way is to see the prosecutor on the day to offer to
plead guilty to the speeding if the FtF is dropped - they will
often accept.
However, note the point only the driver should consider pleading
guilty to the speeding. (And the charge cannot be
'transferred')
#Post#: 65318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: April 2, 2025, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the very thing you have now done (established who
was driving) has destroyed her “reasonable diligence” defence.
The offence is committed when the 28 day timeframe to respond
has expired with no unequivocal nomination being made. The
reasonable diligence a recipient is expected to exercise must be
exercised within that period. If she goes to court and her
defence is “I couldn’t find out within the 28 days. But since
then [having done something she could easily have done during
the 28 days] I now have”, she will be convicted.
There is some debate among contributors on here about naming
“the most probable” driver. As you have discovered, naming
nobody because you cannot be absolutely sure inevitably leads to
court action. So, often the advice given for people in your
situation is to name the person most likely to have been
driving.
It is suggested that his does not fulfil the requirements of
Section 172, which requires the driver – not the most probable
driver - to be named. But being pragmatic, this is going to lead
to your wife’s situation and defending the “Fail to Provide”
(FtP) charge is very difficult even without destroying the
defence as you have. As well as that, a conviction for that
offence is far more serious than speeding. Apart from six
points, it has a profound effect on insurance premiums.
In practice, provided there is no reason for the police to
suspect that any skulduggery was being undertaken (say, if one
of you had nine points) and provided they have no evidence which
casts doubt on the truth of the nomination (which they usually
don’t - and if they did they would usually ask the recipient to
“reconsider” their nomination) the case will simply be processed
by the “sausage machine.”
#Post#: 65424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: April 2, 2025, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: helpneeded1 link ---
>
> ...and the website itself provided the option of not
identifying a driver, which gave the impression that this is a
legitimate response.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hmmm - out of interest can you elaborate on this? (Although I
do not see it providing any defence) [quote from @JustLoveCar's
post]
I'm surprised if the website offered an option of not being able
to identify the driver as many people would take that as meaning
that an "I don't know" response was one that was acceptable.
My wife (the RK) and I (the driver) both answered s172 requests
last year. I'm sure I kept copies of our responses somewhere -
I think I'll check to see how the question was phrased.
#Post#: 65449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 2, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If anybody wants to debate NJ's comments regarding pragmatism,
feel free to start a thread in the Flame Pit. If anybody wants
to hijack a case thread to debate an issue that was merely
indicated as an aside for the sake of completeness, and is of no
assistance to the OP whatsoever, please feel free to take a long
walk on a short pier.
Except when the Divisional Court decide otherwise, the
requirements contained within s. 172 apply only when the
addressee "is so required" (by or on behalf of the Chief Officer
of Police). *If* the requirement (the s. 172 notice incorporated
into the NIP), on proper construction, does not make the usual
requirement, then there is no offence of failing to comply with
a requirement that is not made.
That said, I would suggest that the OP's comments regarding the
impression that "dunno" was an acceptable response is
substantially borne of variously clutching at straws and/or
having a moan as he feels hard done by, and is exceedingly
unlikely to negate the usual requirement to name the driver.
#Post#: 65591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: helpneeded1
Date: April 3, 2025, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your responses. They are quite helpful.
#Post#: 65592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Double charge of speeding and failing to provide information
on the driver
DIR By: helpneeded1
Date: April 3, 2025, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ManxTom link ---
>
> [quote author=helpneeded1 link=topic=5756.msg65177#msg65177
date=1743518764]
> ...and the website itself provided the option of not
identifying a driver, which gave the impression that this is a
legitimate response.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hmmm - out of interest can you elaborate on this? (Although I
do not see it providing any defence)
--- Quote ---
>
>
>
> I'm surprised if the website offered an option of not being
able to identify the driver as many people would take that as
meaning that an "I don't know" response was one that was
acceptable.
>
> My wife (the RK) and I (the driver) both answered s172
requests last year. I'm sure I kept copies of our responses
somewhere - I think I'll check to see how the question was
phrased.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Unfortunately, we did not take screenshots of the website form
when my wife filled it out. It was done back in October/November
2024, so my memory is a little hazy. However, I do recall that
there was an option to tick to the effect of not being able to
provide the name of the driver. My wife ticked this box and then
it took her to a box to give an explanation. She filled this
box, stating the reason why she could not provide the name. We
were ignorant of the law and did not realise that doing this
would result in a police charge.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page