DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6594--------------------------------------------------
Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Bertieboo
Date: October 3, 2023, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
on 16/12/2022 my wife received an ITP from Devon ans Cornwall
Police for speeding 'on the A30 Roseworthy Eastbound@ for
'exceeding 60mph'. The alledged recorded speed was 69mph.
we would not recall 100% who was driving ( we are both insured
on the vehicle) so we asked for assistance in identifying the
driver (letter to the 21/12/2022).
The images they sent on 17/1/2023 showed the rear of the
vehicle. Identity of the driver was impossible - 'unfortunately
in this instance the images are rear facing only. You may be
able to refer to the offence location, time, diary entries, or
phone records (both bizarre requests) to identify who was
driving at the time of the alleged offence.'
My wife replied on 26th January ' my husband and I have thought
very carefully about this matter and understand our obligations
to take all reasonable steps to identify who was driving. We re
unable to be certain who was driving at the time. We are aware
that it is a further offence to make a false declaration and
regretfully we just cannot truthfully identify who was driving.'
D&CP responded on 6/2/2023 saying we have failed to comply with
section 172 and the case is forwarded for court proceedings.
She received the SJP on 26/6/2023. we replied under Section 4
NOT GUILTY
Section 5 - we sent reasons for the not guilty plea.
Summons received to attend Court on 13/12/2023.
What do we do now?
#Post#: 6609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: October 3, 2023, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Presumably your wife’s defence will be that she did not know who
the driver was and could not work it out, having exercised
reasonable diligence. That then begs the question, what
reasonable diligence did she carry out?
#Post#: 6613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Bertieboo
Date: October 3, 2023, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We were both in the car. We were travelling for a week from
Herefordshire to Devon, then Cornwall, then back home. We had 4
dogs in the car - 3 our own and one border collie we were
looking after. It was very stressful. Our dogs were caged and
the collie restrained. The collie barked, whined and
occasionally was very argumentative with our other dogs. We
shared the driving, with the passenger basically keeping them
distracted, quiet etc. We had to use google maps to see where
the camera was and to then think who was driving then...which we
couldn't answer. We were being honest. The easiest way would
have been to say I was driving..but we were not sure.
#Post#: 6614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Bertieboo
Date: October 3, 2023, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached is the pleas made and enclosed with the posted plea
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 6615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: AntonyMMM
Date: October 3, 2023, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only "knowingly or intentionally" naming the wrong driver would
be an offence - the pragmatic approach in this sort of
situation, is usually to name the mostly likely driver.
The case has now been progressed to court and trials aren't
carried out on paper submissions so your wife will have to
attend and answer the charge. If she can convince the court that
she did use "reasonable diligence" and could not identify the
driver then she should be acquitted - but courts are very
sceptical and will expect a very detailed account of what she
did to try - and why it failed.
We do sometimes hear of examples of courts being sympathetic to
a registered keeper in this position and finding them not
guilty, but she needs to understand that it is a risk and the
costs for losing will be significant.
#Post#: 6624--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: October 3, 2023, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Summons received to attend Court on 13/12/2023.
> What do we do now?
--- End Quote ---
First of all, there is no "we" involved here. The proceedings
are only issued against one of you - presumably your wife.
She will have to attend court on the appointed date and face a
trial. The prosecution will produce their evidence which they
say, supports the charge. That will be evidence of the request
made by the police and evidence of your wife's reply. Without
any evidence from your wife she will undoubtedly be convicted.
She has the opportunity to take advantage of the statutory
defence which says this:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence.....if he shows that
he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have
ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."
Unfortunately your explanation demonstrates that she has
exercised no diligence whatsoever. It simply describes the
circumstances prevailing at the time the speeding offence was
alleged to have taken place and that, due to those circumstances
you cannot, between you, recall who was driving. The requirement
to exercise diligence (in establishing who the driver was)
begins when the request is served. She seems to have done
nothing since then (not that you've explained here, anyway).
The camera's function is to identify the vehicle, not the driver
and your protestations that it was facing the "wrong" way are
irrelevant. The suggestions that the police made to help you
establish who was driving are not bizarre. In fact they are
among the suggestions that you might receive on here had you
asked how to tackle your situation before your wife responded to
the s172 request. One of the parties might, for example check
their phone records and note that a call was in progress at the
relevant time and so indicate that (hopefully) they were not
driving.
I'm afraid from your explanation your wife faces almost certain
conviction. If it was as simple as turning up to say "can't
remember who was driving, guv" (which is effectively what she
has already said) everybody would do it and speeding enforcement
would be impossible. The offence carries six points, a hefty
fine and an endorsement code (MS90) which will probably see
increased insurance premiums for up to five years.
#Post#: 6625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Bertieboo
Date: October 3, 2023, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Our ‘reasonable diligence’ was asking if there was a front
facing photo (didn’t help) but which helped us to also find the
camera location to work out who was driving. If it comes down to
‘what is most likely’, then we can say who. We didn’t think it
was right to guess (could the police have other photographic
evidence proving or disproving our plea?)
Can we put this forward to the court in writing now or do we
have to travel to the court to answer the summons?
The summons reason is ‘For a case management hearing (deft to
attend). What does that mean?
#Post#: 6634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: BertB
Date: October 3, 2023, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless your wife has been dual charged with both speeding and
failure to furnish, the opportunity to plead guilty to the
speeding is gone. But again, there is no 'we' or 'our'. It is
just your wife that has been charged.
However it looks like you are suggesting it would be you putting
your hands up as the most likely driver which now becomes
impossible to do, even with the dual charge. Only your wife can
do a deal to admit to the speeding in return for dropping the
FTF charge.
Just asking for pictures will not pass the test of reasonable
diligence though. If you think about it, if just not knowing was
a defence, we would all use it. It sounds like the actual
journey was quite memorable. How far were you driving and how
many times did you swap on that journey?
Diary entries and Phone records are not bizarre requests.
Obviously It doesn't quite work when you are both together in
the vehicle, but its intention is to identify if someone had a
reason to be on that journey. Likewise, phone records can show
travel timeline in maps, whether phone calls were made, or texts
sent that indicated who might be driving.
#Post#: 6637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Gilan02
Date: October 3, 2023, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was the camera location not specified on the NIP?
#Post#: 6644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to identify driver
DIR By: Bertieboo
Date: October 3, 2023, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page