Safe Speed Forums

Hello All,

Advice please. if you plead not guilty in court to Section 172 Failing to inform the police who driving, on the grounds that more than one person is insured on the car and we can not recall who was driving. what is the most likely punishment if they find you guilty? also what is the maximum puinshment they can hand down, i mean they cant pass a custodial sentence can they!? its just you hear this horror stories of people being made examples of etc...

also if found guilty does that mean i get a criminal record that i would need to divulge in the future.

We genuinely can not recall who it was between the wife and i, i asked to see the photo which shows absoultly nothing and sent them my insurance details which show two drivers. what more can i say.

it is like a police state with these offences. i am confidently expecting the water treatment and bright lights when i go up to explain.

any advice you can impart would be most helpful.

cheers

jacks dad.

If you do not know and, after applying reasonable diligence cannot ascertain who was driving, then that is an absolute defence. It has been tried and tested and if not knowing is genuine then you should go to court, explain the steps you have taken to try to discover who was driving.Point out that if you did name someone to avoid this appearance then you could be guilty of 'perversion of the course of justice' and that you won't do that under any circumstances, then the verdict must be 'not guilty'. Of course, you may have to go to appeal on this, but a court of appeal must acquit so long as your evidence and not knowing the identity of the driver is absolutely genuine. It's the 'Hamilton Defence'.
It may be that in light of this evidence the CPS may well not proceed to court - they have lost on this several times already. Go to 'Pepipoo' for more and better advice as to what diligence you must apply.
Perhaps 'Fisherman' who, I believe, is a Magistrate could tell you more as well.
I hope this helps.

I doubt the CPS will drop it before court.

Large numbers of people "can't remember" in correspondence with the CPS. When it gets to court and they are faced with giving evidence on oath their memory returns. The only way to have a chance of sorting out the liars from the genuine can't remember is test their evidence on oath.

You are only required to use reasonable diligence to find out who it was. That means asking anybody who may know. did anyone see you off on the trip? Did anyone see you arrive? Were there kids or other passengers in the car? if so ask them.
Is it a common journey? if so who usually drives? Asking for the pictures was a good idea, take them to court as evidence. Did anybody use a mobile phone during the journey?

A lot of these go to trial and the majority of those I see end in a not guilty verdict.

The maximum penalty is a fine and 3 points. there is no mechanism to enable courts to "make an example of " someone for this sort of offence.

So Fisherman says there is no mechanism to 'make an example' of people. Give me strength, Oh Lord !

Really? so why do we see magistrates handing out the most vindictive and severe sentences for very minor offences, (some not even offences like the man warning of a police camera, thumped with loss of licence for 'obstructing the police' - what goddamn obstruction ?). The real criminals, of course, get off scot-free because "they have no money to pay fines".

No, there is plenty of malice on the Bench, and its always the basically law-abiding person who commits minor indiscretions who is dealt with in the most vindictive manner, not the real criminals who are essentially ignored.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Could you give some examples of "vindictive and severe sentences for very minor offences" so that I get a better idea of what you mean.


Parliament obviously disagrees with you on that one. Courts implement the law as passed by MPs. I have no power to change the law. What did your MP say when you raised it with him/her?



Courts sentence in accordance with the law and the sentencing guidelines for the offence in question. If we depart from the guidelines, due to strong aggravating or mitigating circumstances we are obliged to say why in open court.

First of all, let me say that I have nothing against Fisherman, I am sure that he is a fair and diligent magistrate, but it is clear to me that magistrates, IN GENERAL, side with the prosecution in most cases. However in terms of this forum, we need to consider the cases where the citizen goes to court after being offered the iniquitous 'get-out'; the fixed penalty and three points on the licence,or the offence concerns motoring.

What I see in such cases is that magistrates, who decide Guilty or Not Guilty, (there is NO jury, after all), fail to consider the need to balance the unlimited resources of the State against the virtually nil resources of the private citizen, who if he is in court for a minor motoring offence is there because he is pretty sure he did not commit it. This is because the alternative of a £60 fine and a few points is usually much more convenient than the GAMBLE of going to court which inevitably includes intimidation by the CPS threatening him with huge court costs, (thousands of pounds), and severe fines if he doesn't submit and pay up !! So most people, even if innocent, pay up and knuckle under for a quiet life; they cannot afford to do otherwise. I suspect that people dealt with in such a wicked way also quietly resolve never to help the Police or any Government department ever again.

So a citizen who goes to court despite all this pre-court intimidation, must be pretty convinced of his innocence to make the effort. Yet his effort always seems to be in vain from what I see happening in our magistrates courts.

Case 1.
I mentioned this in my first post, concerning the pensioner in Hampshire who warned motorists of a police speed trap down the road, and was prosecuted for 'obstructing the police'. Funny, isn't it, that official signs are put up warning of cameras which are perfectly legal, but this citizen doing the same thing is a wicked criminal! So in this context, this was a pretty small even miniscule offence, if one could even consider it an offence at all. Just what does 'obstructing the police in the course of their duty' really mean ? A hell of a lot it would seem ! This offence is very similar to that in the Military - 'Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline'. Anything can be put down for this, and its real meaning is 'That which is not ordered is forbidden' so Guilty every time just like the this 'offence'.

So, where is the malice and vindictiveness in the magistrates here ?

Well, in this case, apart from a pretty large fine for what was a first offence, the 'reprobate' had his driving licence taken away for several months. Not only this, when he stated that he was appealing against conviction and sentence, the magistrates insisted that the driving ban apply immediately, so even if he won his appeal, he would still have been punished.
Compensation if the appeal succeeds do I hear you say? Don't be naive, it would never be paid, there are plenty of unofficial but effective ways to prevent it, or make it extremely difficult. After all, innocent men can now be shot dead in the street by the police, and the police involved never have to even face a court, or pay any compensation to the relatives.

Case 2
Oh, how prescient this one is.
Man Barks At Dog (case outlined in Saturday's papers). A youth barked at two dogs and was convicted of an offence under the Public Order Act, with a fine and court costs at over twice the fine. On appeal the judge dismissed the offence, and said, pointedly, 'The Law is not an ass'. The Daily Telegraph called the police 'barking'. I cannot help but think that the magistrates were too; or was it the old Malice and Vindictiveness in operation yet again.

I rest my case

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

One can appreciate 'Fisherman's' point that the law requires magistrates to pass sentances in accordance with the law. Of course this must happen in our society. However, the actual quantum of the sentance does not always reflect the severity of the offence in respect to the offence against society.
For example, where in law does it say that £60 and 3 points is the mandated penalty for a first offence of speeding, It don't believe it does and in cases where there is mitigation stated there is no reason why a magistrate should not pass a lesse (or even a greater) penalty so long as the reason for doing so is stated. If a driver at, say, 03-00 hours in a deserted 30 mph limit with no traffic around 'trips' a camera at 36 mph, surely there is a case for a magistrate to say that he/she has noted the hour, the traffic density, the fact that there was no threat too life or limb and is, therefore, going to fine the driver £10 and apply 2 points (or even no points). That would still serve justice and justice would have been seen to have been done in a very fair way.
In 1980 I was stopped in a new car just 10 days old and told I was speeding in Northampton. It seemed as though the speedo was reading incorrectly and I had this checked by BMW. Indeed, it was under-reading by between 10 and 15 mph. In fact it was lagging both on acceleration and retardation. BMW confirmed this in a letter from their UK Service Manager and another letter from my dealer apologised for this. I went to court to plead in mitigation, having already pleaded guilty and the magistrate ordered a very small fine and no points due to the mitigation. This shows that magistrates discretion can and does apply in some cases. In fact, in my case the Clerk to the Justices seemed agrevated by the Mag's decision and turned to the Chairman and had a few words with him. The Chairman then 'put him back in his box' with some equally harsh words telling him that he and his colleagues made the decisions in this court! Lovely.

Surely you aren't claiming that there is a statute which defines telling someone about a speed camera as obstructing the police? I thought it was a common law offence. And there is certainly no statute that mandates a driving ban for the offence: the court decided that for themselves.

May I thank my fellow posters. I was feeling a bit lonely on this post; in fact, I was wondering when my collar would be felt; 'We know where you live' sort of thing.

Let's not be too unfair. Most magistrates do a fair job, but are too easily intimidated by the Court Clerks and all the other machinery of oppression. Remember that the Lord Chancellor is a POLITICAL appointment, and all the judges rely on the State for their pensions.

Anything for a quiet life, I suppose.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Sorry about this chaps, I know I can be a bit slow from time to time, but is it actually an offence to let someone know of a 'safety' (:rotfl:) cam?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

A case only comes to court when the CPS have looked at it and decided that they have sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction. That decision is taken by lawyers who do that job day in and day out.
In my view the fact there are any not guilty verdicts at all is a mark of how fairly JPs approach their task. Those who listen to sentences being explained will be aware of how often JPs impose a sentence below the guidelines becasue they have found mitigating circumstances.



Leaving aside the relative merits of a "jury" of 3 JPs (trained for the job who explain the reasons for their decision) versus a jury of 12 members of the public drawn at random (with no training, who could be illiterate, racist, rabidly pro speed cameras etc and give NO reasons for their decision) courts have no control over government expenditure or the income range of those who end up in court.
We do take income into account when imposing financial penalties but not otherwise as there is no mechanisim for us to do so.



You don't spend much time in court I take it? We have a significant percentage who can't remember and think that should equal not guilty, others who blatantly lie, some who who want to pay a court fine to prevent their money going to an SCP etc etc. And some who really believe they are not guilty. Like the man who scraped another car in a car park and didn't stop. He was "not guilty" because "you must expect that sort of thing in a car park".


Do you have any ORIGINAL documentary evidence of this? If so i would like to see it in order to take it up with the relevant authority.

A two day trial, which would would be unusually long for a magistrates court wouldn't run to £1000. A half day trial would normally be under £200.


You would only know for sure if it was a large fine if you know the defendants income and outgoings.
All driving bans start at once.

If compensation is awarded by a judge you will get it if it is the state that has been ordered to pay.
The state can't go bankrupt, or move to Spain, or put their assets in someone else's name.

I am not going to comment on individual cases because the only information I have is what I have seen in the media.
A number of cases i have been involved with were reported in the local and national press. None of them told the whole story and all had factual errors, some of which were major.

We all need to be aware that the primary reason for press reports is to sell more papers.

It doesn't. £60 and 3pp is a fixed penalty which is, in effect, a special offer for those who know they are guilty and are happy to accept that fact.

There is no specific sentence for a first offence of speeding. There are guidelines which vary according to posted limit and actual speed with the sentencer being able to increase that penalty if he/she/they feel there has been a significant failure to respond to previous penalties.




You seem to be confusing speed offences with careless driving offences. Speeding is a strict laibilty offence with no need to prove anything other than a speed in excess of the posted limit.
DWDC and dangerous driving exist for cases where there was an immediate risk to life, limb and property.



Its not possible to drop mandatory points due to mitigation.
It is possible to find special reasons not to endorse. Special reasons are things which do not constitute a defence but which a court should properly consider. This would be what happened in your case.



we do this all the time in every case. Sometimes we use our discretion to impose a heavy penalty!! At which point the defendant sometimes fails to realise that discretion works upwards as well as downwards and tells his mates that the bench was vindictive.




We always do make the decisions.
But when its not a decision that the defendant wanted to hear they justify losing their case by alleging incompetence, conspiracy with the CPs, taking orders from the clerk. In fact anything that saves them having to tell their mates in the pub that they had a useless defence.

I haven't claimed that because I have no idea if its statute or common law. Either way its down to parliament. Only they have to power to make new law or strike out old ones.


Parliament gave courts the power to disqualify for any offence. A power which is not often used other than for offences involving the use of a car.
Its particularly useful for dealing with persistent kerb crawlers.

I have no idea why they disqualified the man in question because I wasn't there.

Thank you.



No we aren't. Our judicial independence is guaranteed in law. We don't rely on the state for pay or pension.

I am liable to be jailed for a long time if I commit a criminal offence in court, such as finding an innocent person guilty on the direction of a politician or court clerk. I won't risk that for any offence let alone a speeding case.



Relax , he doesn't sit on speeding cases.

Fisherman,
thank you for all that. I, too, believe that magistrates do a very fair and sometimes difficult job. Having been in business for many years and being an 'old man' now, I know and have known many magistrates on a social basis and as friends.
My feelings about S172 are that it is a badly drafted attack on out long-held traditions that requiring self-incrimination or confessions under duress is contrary to our legal system. That's not your fault, of course, but I guess you bear the brunt of anger over it.
Then we come to the listing of the Courts service as partners in the cash-camera partnerships. Again, one must respect your statement as to your independence and I certainly do. It's a big PR mistake to list the courts service as 'Partners', since this implies a complicity which does not exist. Mr. Joe Public, however, will always believe that Magistrates work for the Courts Service. It's a matter of perception. That is why some feel that they don't get a fair hearing in the Mags. Courts.
it's not your fault, but one might have thought that the Magistrates Association (or whatever) could have brought this to the notice of the gov't and asked for the 'Courts Service' to be removed from the list of cash-camera 'Partners'.

s172 does have a defence of being unable to name the driver after reasonable diligence. Its also worth pointing out that the CPS still have to prove the alleged offence which tripped the s172 request before there can be a conviction.
At the moment its legal as it is considered to be proportionate and pursuing a legitimate aim. That may change.



The alternative would be not to name HMCS as a partner.
People would then raise the point that there is co-operation between ticket offices and court listing offices when dealing with cases too serious for a fixed penalty. The conspiracy theorists would have even more fun with the lack of an admitted connection than they do with the current situation.


My feeling is that thoughts of not getting a fair deal are more likely to have their roots in misinformation from vested interests.
You don't have to look far to find sites with all sorts of untruths paraded as fact.

Proving a murder has taken place does not justify compelling someone who's vehicle was demonstrably present at the time to confess to it, under threat of punishment under a 'lesser' charge, with similar penalty!

As someone who is purportedly well versed in the interests of justice, how can you not have serious reservations about the validity of s172?



Is this a dig? (serious non-confrontational question)

I have never claimed to be "well versed in the interests of justice".
I have never claimed to be in favour of s172.
I have never claimed to be against s172.
I have posted about how it works in practice.





We get the occasional case where the defendant, having been stopped at the roadside by police, has demanded that the police bring him a copy of PACE.

In each case this had been refused. In each case the defendant was of the opinion that, because he had not "had his rights" he could not be found guilty.

In each case the defendants "proof" of this right was a screen print from Pepipoo.

I took the trouble to obtain a copy of the Pepipoo information for myself





There has never been a right to have a copy of PACE brought to the roadside. There isn't even anything remotely similar in law as far as I am aware.

Every case ( I have heard of ) using this as a defence has resulted in a guilty verdict.
In at least one case the officer had intended to give a warning but changed his mind in the face of what he saw as obstruction.

Being a magistrate one would hope and expect that you are!

This may be how you interpret it in your court, and I applaud you as I believe that is a fairer interpretation, but the actual law says:



so I think in practice most magistrates will convict if it is proved there was an allegation.