Safe Speed Forums

The problem lies with the word "credible". The CPS only pursue cases where they have enough credible evidence to secure a convition. But courts do bring in not guilty verdicts.
Every defendant thinks his defence is credible. Even the ones who are obviously clutching at straws.

In the end, whatever decision the court comes to someone will be unhappy. Sometimes when we find someone guilty but there are enough mitigating circumstances to impose a very small penalty we manage to upset everybody. The defendant because we found him guilty and the CPS because of the small penalty.




See above. When a "credible" case fails its natural to blame the bench. If the bench did get it wrong then it will be overturned on appeal.



This interests me. Magistrates Courts do make orders not to identify children involved in cases. There is also provision for official secrets acts cases to be heard in private. I am not aware of any law which allows or requires a bench to issue a press restriction based on the amount of money involved.

Just to make it clear. I made the point because its the way things are. I was very careful not to say how I feel about the situation.

Your point about "seriousness of the offence in the eyes of the community" is a good one. The problem is that lots of people don't consider theft of cars to be that serious. People with company cars just collect another car. People who don't own cars take the view that its insured so there is no loss.
Similar comments apply to shoplifting. We had a defendant recently whose mitigation was that he had walked past some small shops in order to steal from Tesco "because they can afford it".

Your point about those who don't earn enough to pay a big fine going to jail instead is one you need to take up with government. You are likely to get a response along the lines of "so you want rich people to be able to buy their way out of jail while the poor won't be able to".

On the (off) topic point of fines and jail, when fines are unpaid courts can, as a last resort, send people to jail for non payment even when the original offence did not carry jail.

Well the information comes from one I know via work as someone who is a magistrate. She told me that the " guidance given " to the magistrates was to convict in S172 cases where the registered keeper had not nominated a driver unless it was certain that the RK was telling the truth. I assume that this was from some document or magistrates training course or whatever.

She also voiced an opinion that " no-one doesn't know who was driving a car on a particular day " which I find worryingly partial for a magistrate and she may genuinely believe this due to her life being much simpler than some of us here.

In cases where a limited company was RK the procedure she confirmed ( and this applied in my case) that the CPS trot out the statement that the law requires the RK to keep records as to who was driving a company car at any time. In my case I stated that as a company we had no requirement to keep records and there was no specific requirement in law to do so. The lawyer contracted to the CPS asked why we did not have a tally board hanging up next to the car keys " like everyone else " I stated that I knew no other small business that did so and the issue had arisen due to the failure of the SCP to ensure that the NIP was delivered within 14 days. The SCP sent a 'second' NIP 2 months after they claimed they posted the first by which of course no-one can remebre the journey let alone who might have been driving the car. The Clerk to the Court however told the bench that there was a clear duty for a company to record who was driving and we had clearly failed.... hence my comment about procedure.

The bench found my company guilty but only fined us £300 which I thought was low for a company of £2m turnover and took it that they felt they had to follow the Clerk's advice which I believe to be politically motivated. In a discussion beforehads he had spoken using terms such as "we always do this... etc " which I find strange for a supposedly impartial advisor.

I also know that another well known local courier firm who had kept records of drivers including one driving a hire van that went through a camera. By the time they got the NIP some 2 months later they had destroyed them yet her and her bench convicted them and fined them much more than our company claiming that they simply did not believe them.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

In my opinion, it is fundamentally wrong for a court to convict against facts presented as uncontested sworn evidence unless there is reasonable cause to believe the witness is lying (committing perjury). It is very serious to (in effect) conclude that a witness has perjured himself on the stand and should not be done without very good cause.

Which is VERY different from your previous comment.
Bold emphsis added by me.
What the document actually says, is that evidence that the keeper could not remember is not to be taken at face value, but must be tested in the usual way ie by cross examination and that any doubt must go to the benefit of the defendant. In other words s172 cases are dealt with under EXACTLY the same rules as any other trial.









Bold emphasis added by me.
The bit in bold means that, to estabish a defence under subsection(4) of inability to name despite reasonable diligence a company must prove that their failure to keep records was reasonable.

In other words there is an expectation that records will be kept.

I would be amazed if such evidence were not contested by the CPS. It may be that, under cross examination the witness contradicted him or herself to such an extent that their evidence could not be considered reliable. In which case the bench would have said so in their reasons. Giving a clear basis for appeal if the witness was indeed telling the truth.

I don't know for sure if this is what happened because I wasn't there, and unless we hear from someone who was we can only guess.

The CPS can't 'contest' evidence for which they have no factual counter-evidence. They can probe the witness, test his credibility and so on; but, if the witness stands up to the test, the evidence is uncontested and, imo, must be accepted by the court. As you say, if the witness is unconvincing - contradicts himself or is evasive under cross-examination - that may be grounds for concluding that his evidence is unreliable. We don't know whether that explains what happened in this case.

Indeed, technically, I agree that the statements are different....but when you have a partial magistrate who voices an opinion (whether held in sincere ignorance or not) that no-one who states that they do not know who was driving that car at any time can be telling the truth, you effectively have an always convict regime. Which in North Wales, we do seem to have.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

I was not either but I would maintain that it is entirely reasonable for a firm to dispose of records after what might seem a relatively short time when there is absolutely no legal requirement to keep such records for any specified length of time

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Thank you fisherman...we are all well aware of this weasel-worded little piece of cowardly nastyness ....and the way the magistrates courts are earnestly guided to interpret it by the Clerks and the CPS.
In any properly drafted legislation imperatives are set and the will of Paliament is made clear. Here, knowing that corporate registered keepers could not be reasonably compelled to keep records for their vehicles not covered by other statutory requirements for record keeping, the law attempts to indirectly imply that records should be kept. yest the only purpose of such records is to enable the RK to defend himself aginst a S172 case where it would be entirely reasonable for him to be unable to name the driver.

I and so many others look forward to this corrosive self-incrimination clause to be ruled against by the ECHR and perhaps the whole rotten edifice of automated enforcement for no benefit, on which the partnerships exist will crumble.

Oh, and its the system I reserve my contempt for and no offence to yourself whatsoever

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Interestingly thought, S172 (6) makes no mention of how long the record should be retained; and there is no other legal duty to keep such a record that I am aware of

So if a record is kept (ie there is no failure to keep a record), but it is destroyed at the end of each day then the company can quite reasonably say that records were kept; they have since been destroyed and therefore we are unable to name the driver from x days ago.

If you read s(6) carefully, and accept the implied onus that it places on the RK, then this isn't really a solution: if records were destroyed at the end of each day (say) then the court would doubtless rule that they had not been "kept" and so you would be back to trying to defend the reasonableness of such actions.

For my part, I would agree with Richard C in saying that keeping no records at all would be perfectly reasonable, in a situation where there is no actual legal requirement to do so, and where doing so would create an administrative burden to the company with no corresponding profit or gain. Indeed, keeping such records would clearly be a bad business decision, based on the basic premise that the purpose of a company is to make money; in the same way it would be of no profitable advantage to keep records of (say) which employees are in which rooms in the building at any time.

So if we take the hypothetical case of the representative of a body corporate being up for s172, what would be the outcome if (a) he were to ask the court to clarify whether or not there is any statutory requirement for him to keep records of the whereabouts of his vehicles and their drivers, and (b) to remind the court that there would be no indentifiable business benefit associated with him doing so; then in the light of this it would be hard to see how the decision not to create such records could be viewed as unreasonable.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

That's a pejorative and unreasoned analysis. The language is capable of subjective interpretation but that's as it should be. Consider two examples:

(i) a substantial business which keeps a reasonably large number of 'pool' vehicles for use by staff. In such a case, normal, prudent business sense makes it likely that it will seek to control and record who has the keys for any vehicle at any time. In this case, it would be hard for the business to claim that records were not kept and that it was reasonable that they were not kept.

(ii) a small business which has one or two vehicles which are used interchangeably by a number of employees and without any pattern. In this case, it may well be reasonable to argue that detailed record-keeping is not justifed or reasonable.

Any JP will only be part of a bench and will have at least 1 other and usually 2 JPs with them when any decision is made. So 1 person with a particular opinion will not be able to convict.

I have strong opions about some aspects of law and the way it is implemented. I leave those opinions at home and judge all cases on their merits according to the law. I don't talk about my views (other than with JPs) because if I do someone will assume that all JPs feel the same and that I keep the same attitude in court.

JPs have a duty to report any colleague who expresses, as part of judical proceedings, a view which is incompatible with the interests of justice. The same applies to people who don't express a view but whose reasoning and judicial decisions are not up to the required standard.

You can report this person yourself. Your local library will give you the address of the Lord Lieutenants Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for your county.

I imagine that a magistrates court would take the view that a record is required. It would up to the aforementioned hypothectical body corporate to challenge the JPs decision in a higher court.



30 minutes for a secretary to look up the records and fill in the NIP with the name of the driver versus half a day for a senior officer of the company to go to court and defend the practice of not keeping records.
I would see record keeping as a business benefit.

But we [b]know[/i] that it isn't mandatory in law, so how can it be required?


From where I'm looking this conclusion is a jump too far, based on your insider knowledge of what I see as a skewed system.

If we go back to basics, where we have a small company with limited resources and a number of trustworthy drivers sharing a pool of vehicles, there is absolutely no direct business benefit to be derived from keeping records of who drives which vehicle where and when. Bear in mind that each driver may use each vehicle many times a day, so keeping such records might not be a trivial exercise. Indeed, even in a small company it might come to several man-hours per day, as in order to satisfy the requirements of s172 fully full records need to be kept of exact routes as well as times.

So in terms of "reasonableness" tests, our notional body corporate could demonstrate to the court that they had weighed the certain cost of (say) one man-hour per day in order to keep records (lets say £30 * 37 hours * 52 weeks = £57,000 per annum) against the possible cost of being found guilty of a s172 offence (< £1,000 fine?) and reached the conclusion that keeping records would be an appallingly bad business decision! It would certainly seem perverse to argue that it was "reasonable" to expect them to keep records for the sole (and non mandatory) purpose of satisfying s172 requests, when the direct costs of this action might be a drain on resources in excess of £50,000 per year!

And contrary to Observer's examples, I'd say that for a bigger company the numbers are likely to stack up even higher against record keeping.

So to my mind, the "weasel wording" of s172 in respect of bodies corporate, and moreover its apparent railroading through the courts contrary to the logic above, seems to be nothing more than the courts being used to prop up the speed camera regime and its dependence on accused RKs NOT being able to defend s172 cases.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Next door to my work is a bakery - about 6 - 10 staff work through the night.
There is a log to fill in if they take the van to collect the day staff from Kendal, or for deliveries, and ALL are required to sign.
However one night somebody got a ticket in one of the vans.
Photos did not show the driver.
Nobody owned up to being the driver, and nobody had logged out the keys at the time of the ticket.
End result, the owner got points and a fine.

Just what can you do to ensure employees follow procedures? Watch them with CCTV?
I got a ticket while I was not in the country, and was treated like a criminal for 4 months before they begrudgingly accepted my assertion that nobody else had access to keys, nor any reason to be miles away from my home at an extremely early hour!
In my case, they refused to show me the pictures!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

On the other hand s172 (6) makes it clear that a subsection 4 defence (not knowing the driver despite reasonable diligence) is only open to a company if they show that their failure to keep a record was reasonable. So companies who decide not to keep records may well lose the chance to use that defence.




I work for the NHS, and they don't come much bigger than that.
When I get into a company car I pick up the clipboard which was left on the drivers seat by the previous user. I enter my name, the vehicle mileage, the time of day and the location.
At the end of the journey I do the same and leave the clipboard on the drivers seat.

I timed myself yesterday and it took less than 30 seconds at each end of the trip.

To get points he must have registered the van in his own name as a private individual.
That often raises problems with validity of insurance and arouses suspicions that such vehicles are eventually going to be sold as one owner, no commercial use.






Arrested, detained at a police station, yourself your car and your home searched, taperecorded interviews with a lawyer present, regular appearances in court to have the remand in custody extended all for a NIP.
You did have bad luck. Most people just get a few letters.

I know this was only raised as a side issue to this topic, but nevertheless this point has been preying on my mind today and I feel I have to probe a little further.

You state that "lots" of people don't consider car theft to be very serious. I'm sorry but I simply cannot get my head around that statement; nor the related point made about the idea of "temporarily" stealing a car being a substantially less serious offence.

To my mind I regard stealing a piece of property worth thousands of pounds from another member of society as a very substantial offence demonstrating a high level of criminality. I do accept that there is such a thing as "petty theft" but to me that stops somewhere around minor office supplies / kids nicking 50p sweets from shops. Stealing a car is a serious crime, full stop.

Nor do I believe that I take this stand simply because I'm something of a car enthusiast and value cars more highly than other people might. I'd say that stealing a £1000 television, computer, dishwasher, photocopier would be also be a serious crime; and I certainly can't see how a society could ever give out anything less than a prison term for someone who deliberately commits such an act, showing such lack of respect for others.

If anything, I'd expect a car thief to end up with a stiffer sentence, as the attendent road safety risks inherent in a typical car theft make it a type of crime it is particularly important to try and deter.

Is this just me? Does anyone else on the forum believe the contrary? That car theft is anything other than a serious criminal offence? That a car thief should ever get less than (say) a 6 month prison sentence, regardless of whether he intends to permanently deprive the owner, or simply to terrorise the neighbourhood for an hour or two?

Either I'm totally out of touch with the feeling of society in general, or the justice system is. It would be interesting to know which...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!