OT Sort of, it is about speeding

I chose the Mirror so not to upset those with a Daily Mail phobia.

Http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/02/speed-pair-pay-penalt
y-115875-22079436/

OK so they shouldn't have been doing 40 in a 30 limit, but this has got
to be a travesty of justice. Two people convicted of one persons crime?


Who out there in UKRM land knows the law about this?

The DM view:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254765/Ian-Jayne-Oliphant-Thomps
on-Millionaire-couple-caught-speeding-forgot-driving.html

 

Bit more detail :-

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/speeding-case-8211-couple-
fined/article-1872669-detail/article.html

Not done for speeding, but for failing to give details - it sounds like
the magistrates just plain didn't believe the "Umm, can't remember" line,
with a side-order of "not exactly helping yourselves here, guys"...

"The decision was made to proceed with the case in their absence after
they failed to contact the court with a reason for not attending.

Magistrates were told that Mrs Oliphant-Thompson was first sent details
of the offence on Friday, March 20 last year.

She wrote back a month later to say: "It might have been me or might have
been my husband.""

 

A friend of mine got a NIP through the post about 3 months after the
offense (sent recorded delivery!) - he ignored it and they tried to do
him for failing to give details. After hiring the lawyer who
regularly gets celebs off (Nick something or other) and incurring
£2700 in court fees the police dropped the case at the last minute.

 

great value, then!

 

Not at all.

No, they both refused to give details of who was driving. I have
absolutely no sympathy for them.

 

I've paid as much to keep my licence clean this past 20 years. Depending on
your POV it IS worth it.

 

Well neither have I but only because they were too stupid to pull it off. It
isn't *that* feckin hard.

 

"We know the driver was one of the two of us although we genuinely
cannot make any positive ID. To continue to ask us is erroneous and
immoral"

Firstly and admission of guilt and then another antagonising
statement. I'm sure they knew full well who was driving, and so did
the magistrate. I reckon they were trying to get out of it and it
failed.

 

For the record, I've got nothing against anyone with a double-barrelled
name to be convicted of anything with a sentence up to and including
being shot at dawn.

 

A possibility.

Dumb statement.

No he didn't.

Ding.


E.g.:

But two green Kawasaki bikes one speeding and one not. Both pull into
the same car park. Police don't know which one it was speeding so they
nick both of them.

Both profess innocence to speeding in court and the judge does both of
them because he knows one of them was.

Not that hugely dissimilar.

 

No idea. It the principle of the thing, like leaving the country because of
the poll tax. And as we know, principles can get fucking expensive.

 

Damn near zero

Damn near zero

 

Yes, very dissimilar.

There is proof that the Landie in this case was speeding. Photos.
There is no proof that either of those bikes was speeding. Because, if
there was, there'd be no doubt as to which rider to nick.

Don't forget - this pair haven't been prosecuted for speeding. They've
been found guilty of failing to give information as to who was driving.

Somebody has a defence to that charge "if he shows that he did not know
and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver
of the vehicle was". The magistrate clearly felt that they did either
know or could have known, with reasonable diligence. In other words, he
didn't believe their protestations that they couldn't possibly be
expected to know.

 

OK I just read the Mirror write up that said they got 6 points each. I
assumed it was for speeding. I've read the others since.

A previous publican in one of my locals was let off because their one
car was driven in and out of town passed this speed camera several times
a week at that particular time, late morning, with whoever wasn't tied
up at the pub getting lunches and opening up. The other ran the errands.
They couldn't remember who it was.

I dodgy statement from the judge that 'we' have to keep records about
who drives 'our' car. And if the system plods on at it's usual speed,
hold the records for several months.

It still smacks of guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

 

It's only money....

 

But you are accepting being done for something you don't feel is any sort of
wrong, in my case. And 3 points becomes 6...9...12 and then the whole game
gets deadly serious. So you have to fight for every yard of ground.

 

Mmm. "Don't feel" don't count.
Were you driving?
Was the vehicle's speed higher than the number-onna-stick?

Yes to both? Fair cop.

There comes a point where you have to make a decision between principle
and expediency. For me, that's 2x3 points. Twice now - and currently
<touches wood, quickly> back at zero.

 

I'll see your two green kawasakis and raise you a blue kawasaki, two
blue/white suzukis and a Hammerite-black MV Augusta. Your car park is a
petrol station at a border crossing, your policeman is Swiss and the
speeding is compounded with ambitious overtakes.

What a gas!

 

If it's a "pool car" for a business in that way, I'd say that was a
reasonable requirement. Last time I used company pool cars regularly, the
keys were certainly logged in-and-out - and that was about 20yrs ago.
<shrug>

I presume he's got "any driver" insurance for business use...?

Yup. That's because s172, RTA 1988 does actually mean you ARE guilty of
failing to provide details unless you can prove you can or you couldn't
reasonably be expected to...

 

For you, Tommy, ze holiday is over.