|
|
Post by Andyberg on Apr 30, 2017 6:12:56 GMT
Following on from the lively speeding / goat pun thread, I read this story yesterday. Photographic evidence is fine / standard practice for evidence against a speeding driver yet it was inadmissible in this case, just WTF? In a speeding case, the car owner is legally require to tell who was driving the car or face doubt the points plus a hefty fine under a section172 So are there any armchair solicitors or closet CPS bods who could explain why this wasn't applied in the case below? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672 |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Apr 30, 2017 6:51:25 GMT
Saw that yesterday and had to read it twice and still could not work out why the police did not make some effort to sort this. I suppose it involves actual police work rather than collecting a photo from the speed camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2017 6:52:20 GMT
Perhaps all in the car should be prosecuted, not just the driver. This so the passengers are also responsible for what the driver does. Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Apr 30, 2017 7:27:17 GMT
No prosecution because this is NFN,
Phil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:02:43 GMT
Deleted as BFG's later post sounds more logical...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:12:38 GMT
Perhaps all in the car should be prosecuted, not just the driver. This so the passengers are also responsible for what the driver does. Why not? Well how could you show that? If you suddenly went on a bender and deliberately crashed your bus how are the passengers on it responsible for that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:14:26 GMT
Dashcams.
Are they actually any use? It seems the obvious thing to have but I would have thought if they were to be used in legal cases they would have to be up to a certain specification re lens quality etc and what about rain on windscreen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:16:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:17:12 GMT
Edited to add a bit  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:24:58 GMT
Edited to add a bit I believe it is as I said, the burden of proof required by somebody to prove fault in an insurance claim would be different to that required to follow up a criminal prosecution, so yes I would say they are some use. I have also heard the police put out an appeal for any private footage (including dash cam footage) following a crime. Most recently ISTR they did so after last months Westminster bridge attack. So they will use it in a criminal investigation as a piece of the jigsaw, but probably won't be able to totally support a prosecution solely on evidence provided by one. |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 30, 2017 9:52:36 GMT
My thoughts on it are that the police asked the registered keeper who was driving and they never replied. If so there is no driver to charge for this offence.
However if the keeper has failed to reply to an S172 he may/will be prosecuted for that with an insurance busting 6 points as insurance companies don't like that conviction code.
The article does not tell you if this is the case or not, only that there is no prosecution of dangerous driving as the failure to provide details is a separate offence and there is no evidence that the registered keeper and driver are the same person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 10:03:17 GMT
Perhaps all in the car should be prosecuted, not just the driver. This so the passengers are also responsible for what the driver does. Why not? Burn the Witches! |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 30, 2017 10:08:33 GMT
Following on from the lively speeding / goat pun thread, I read this story yesterday. Photographic evidence is fine / standard practice for evidence against a speeding driver yet it was inadmissible in this case, just WTF? In a speeding case, the car owner is legally require to tell who was driving the car or face doubt the points plus a hefty fine under a section172 So are there any armchair solicitors or closet CPS bods who could explain why this wasn't applied in the case below? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672I believe it's because the requirement to name the driver as either yourself or somebody else is very specifically linked to the offence of speeding which in turn is linked to being caught by a properly calibrated 'official' speed detection device not some geezers dash cam. . It's not just speeding. They can use it if they believe a driver to be guilty of any offence. Speeding is a easiest for the police when there own equipment is involved however careless/dangerous driving for example can be done from independent witnesses including dashcams. The problem most police forces have is that drivers send in footage to them too late and the requirement to send a nip to the RK within 14 days is not met and the prosecution can not be made. However if an accident is involved the 14 day requirement is removed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 10:12:30 GMT
I believe it's because the requirement to name the driver as either yourself or somebody else is very specifically linked to the offence of speeding which in turn is linked to being caught by a properly calibrated 'official' speed detection device not some geezers dash cam. . It's not just speeding. They can use it if they believe a driver to be guilty of any offence. Speeding is a easiest for the police when there own equipment is involved however careless/dangerous drivinf for example can be done from indempant witnesses including dashcams. The problem most police forces have is that drivers send I footage to them too late and the requirement to send a nip within 14 days is not met and the production can not be made. However if an accident is involved the 14 day requirement is removed. You will note I had already edited my post in recognition of yours which sounded more logical. |
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 30, 2017 10:14:23 GMT
Perhaps all in the car should be prosecuted, not just the driver. This so the passengers are also responsible for what the driver does. Why not? Burn the Witches! You may wish to consider... goo.gl/photos/XUiaPGXSNoCNcA769 |
|
