Blimey - this case is far more more compicated than the one involving the police officers who may be guilty as charged - but never intended any danger to anyone when they set out that day. Problem lies in the absolute offence and not the malicious intent - which does seem to make such charges which secure conviction seem very much "rough justice"
yimitier wrote:
Driving Instructor loses his appeal against"failing to name"!
Lawrence Wilson, who operates as Testmasters Driving School Lostock Hall Lancashire lost his long fought battle against Lancashire Constabulary of "failing to name" yesterday at Preston Crown Court.
After press claims, prior to any court case, that he had falsely named his pupil to be driving at 63 m.p.h in a 50 zone he made 13 more court appearances when he suddenly changed his defence to not having the vehicle in his possession but another similar vehicle both registered to Mr.S. Foster, a well established driving school owner, who had hired the vehicle to him.
He then claimed that the registered keeper was the Driver.
Yesterday,the registered keeper, Mr.S.Foster, of North Western Driving Training Centre, Preston Lancs, gave evidence that he had given a statement to the police establishing that the vehicle Mr. Wilson now claimed to have been driving was in his possession was in effect nearly 200 miles away from the alledged speeding offence at the time and its whereabouts had been investigated by police and substantiated by both documentary and witness evidence.
Mr. Wilson then went on to claim that Mr Foster and a member of his family had filled in all his documents but admitted that he had filled in the name of his pupil as the driver initially and had signed all the documents involved and they were in his handwriting. This claim had never been mentioned before neither in the original trial nor any of the previous 16 court appearances.
Crown Court Judge Russell Q.C., after hearing all the evidence, took just a very short time to deliberate and found Mr.Wilson's application not to be upheld and supported the original conviction on the 13th June 2008.
The excellent summing up of the section 172 law and it's requirements were very definitive and explicit.
However they did raise one or two questions of Lancashire Constabulary documentation that neither Judge commented on.
I expand:
In view of two Judges ( one district & one Crown Court), interpretation and adjudication, at Preston Crown Court Lancashire,
that Section 172 requires :
“Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
Duty to give
information as to
identity of driver,
etc., in certain
cases.
172..(1) This section applies.
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except.
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4),
96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988
c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of
vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to
which this section applies.
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to
the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf
of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any
information which it is in his power to give and may lead to
identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to
the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a)
above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court
that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have
ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of
the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b)
above is guilty of an offence.”
Source: Road Traffic Act 1998.
And, as this was the adjudication, the contents of the wording of all the NIPs, issued by Lancashire Constabulary were brought under the microscope, where it states:
“ In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, I hereby give you notice that it is intended to take
proceedings against the driver of the above motor vehicle for the alleged offence.
The keeper of a vehicle involved in a road traffic offence is bound by law to furnish the driver's details.”
And further down::
“ Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires you to supply the details requested within 28 days of the date of this
notice.”
If the two Judges’ findings and interpretations are correct, (and I believe they are), then all issued NIPs are incorrectly
worded and possibly illegal.
You are NOT bound by law (as stated in Lancashire's issued NIPs) to give the driver’s details but are required to give information that could lead to the identity of a driver.
If this is the case how many prosecutions have taken place using this document under the guise of "NOMINATED DRIVER"? Everyone in Lancashire? In fact you are not required to NOMINATE a driver nor supply his details (right down, in Lancashire's case to supplying his driving licence number and his date of birth!!!!), but simply to provide the police with information for THEM to identify a Driver from the information that YOU supply!!!
In effect, NAMING a driver is not required,so you really cannot nominate a driver, only an investigation by the police can
lead to a prosecution when they are satisfied that THEY are correct in issuing the summons to the RIGHT person! If this is
followed then there would be no prosecutions for perverting the course of justice by simply NOMINATING another NAMED driver who would take the points!!!! The police would have decided that he was the correct driver before it reached court.
A great adjudication by two very learned Judges but I think a body blow to Lancashire Constabulary's cut price justice for maximum profit, and another nail in the Camera Partnerships coffin!
NO SUCH THING AS FAILING TO NAME! NO SUCH THING AS NOMINATE A DRIVER!
The only problem here is that it cost so much from the public purse to get before two judges who ACTUALLY listened to ALL the evidence and then correctly implemented the law so clearly.
Just a pity that they failed to notice what the NIP actually asked for, or that despite the evidence from Mr Foster about misuse of police photographic evidence they seemed to ignore the shortcomings of Lancashire Constabulary's procedures in pursuing "speeding offences" by any means without comment! Maybe something would be done behind the scenes to correct these shortcomings!
Your comments would be appreciated!
You know - we in Durham have been criticised constantly for not going down this route of delegating our responsibility to the Pratnership industry. Any slight increase in our KSI stats - and we get hammered. Even when some fool decided to ram a central reserve after our teams reined him in. Not one officer could have foreseen that - yet we got "hammered" by media and faced hard questions as to our procedures as a result.
But one of the reasons why our guvnor Paul Garvin decided against that route .. and a view held by our current guv... had to do with the fact that we KNOW folk manipulate the law by s/cam.
We also became clued up early on that false returns would absorb the time it was supposed to release for us.
W e also held the view that no learning curve and only resentment could be achieved via this route.
We also know there can be no substitute for copping a silly driver "at the wheel" and making sure he or she understands the "alleged wrong" and learns positively from the encounter - whether or not it results in telling off or penalty pointing.
The scheme over -relies on "driver honesty" in owning up .. and veiled threats which can lead to various temptations as we now know. But if the person happens to be innocent - but cannot prove because he did not realise the need to keep records if the car is insured for more than one driver - then we are in the realms of rough justice.
I quote a case I read about ONLY "in passing " - and think it was an ABD case from memory - of the diabetic who had his licence revoked because of his worsening medical condition, He decided to keep his car and remained the RK - but he insured it with his wife and his two hired carers as named drivers . One of these drivers got pinged. He failed to keep records of who drove when and none would own up. He ended up in the dock and it was pre "Hamilton". I gather he ended up with a fine for failing to disclose .. but then won on appeal as the nature of his case showed he had at least tried to find out who did the "dirty deed of speed past the camera".
But.. perverting the course of justice for speeding fines ..
They just do NOT happen here.
WHY?
Because ... the persons we prosecute know why we are prosecuting them. They understand why and they may be initially upset and tell us to "go catch real criminals" .. curse and swear at us.. and we do not take that as either insult /offence or "resisting our authority" - we understand the frustration of embarrassed indignity if you like
See it for what it is .. a need to let off steam and the best thing to do is to let the person do so .. and then try to reason and negotiate/discuss with them why we pulled.. why we are concerned here .. even coming towards professional discrettion at times.
If we prosecute - that person knows and understands fully the logic .. without the hate/anger/bitterness.
With a camera - you get all of the above - plus daft temptation and concoction of really elaborate tales - and these become even worse when we are talking of tiny margins - and it we really look hard, fast and close at all of these PCOJ - scam related cases - we find an unusually high number at "the blip margin" and not the dangerous "blat margin"./
The Swiss person who lives in the Lans Hills did an FOI. He is an accountant by profession. Deals in Forensic Accountancy. (which is about investigating where monies go.. frauds .. and so on
.) He is worried by the FOI he turned up on this. He thinks "desperate people .. getting desperate and insane to the point of committing a a desperate and uncharacteristic act".
I respect those relatives despite their eccentricities. I am in the odd situation in that I do know them and can honestly say they are bright./.. too clever for their own good .. bossy.. opiniated.. alpha type "hustlers".. the tyope who will run rings around you and tie you into knots before your realise
But
having said that .. you have to accept they have logic..
My problem lies in how to use the law to counter them at times
Ask. Get your own copy. I found the stats involving low speed infringements rather disturbing , given we tend to apply acid lectures and use punishment when we know well deserved.
Here? No doubts. Not one. We do not have PCOJ over speeding offences -
We have never had one such case with regard to a motoring offence.
Do an FOI on us as well.
We may have for other non-motoring offences .. but we have not ever recorded any with regard to a motoring offence.
You really have to ask why this may be so.
I happen to think because each person we prosecute knows and understands WHY!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
C Plus "readers" hate the idea COAST/DIS/Speed Awares and even Bikeability .. . I cannot think why... 
