Safe Speed Forums

Another good example of Greensheds mathematic skills (or lack of) along with the usual mis information propaganda.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Oh yes. Does anyone remember the case that this thread was originally about?

Did either or both Ian and Jayne Oliphant-Thompson say "hello to 9 points"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The law starts from the point of the RK being asked to name the driver and goes on to state that a not guilty verdict must be returned if, despite using reasonable diligence, he is unable to find out who was driving. The DPP and the Judicial Studies Board among others, have interpreted that as meaning that if unable to remember the RK must use reasonable diligence to try to find out. They have not taken the view that reasonable diligence should have been applied at all times prior to receiving a s172.

Case law makes a difference between the two.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I don't belong to anybody and post here as an independent person.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

If somebody has complied with the s172 and named the driver they can't be prosecuted for fail to name the driver.

If somebody has been tried for fail to name the driver there are two possibilities. If he is found not guilty, then the court has accepted that he did not know, and could not find out, who was driving so prosecution for the alleged speeding is not possible. If he was found guilty of failing to use reasonable diligence, the driver is still unknown and cannot be prosecuted for the speeding.

It is possible for somebody to name the driver, but after the time allowed for him to do so, in which case there is a theoretical possibility of prosecution for both offences. The cases of Hatton and Middleton, although not prohibiting prosecution for both offences, do make it clear that this should not happen as a matter of course. I have never seen a dual prosecution.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Fisherman wrote: “I have no idea if there is a contradiction or not. A NIP is a pre court thing which I don’t deal with. I quoted the relevant part of the law which courts are obliged to follow”.

So, Fisherman, no chance then that you’ve checked the wording of the NOIP document (as I suggested) and discovered that, whilst there’s no contradiction between S172 and NOIP, both are at odds with your misinterpretation of the former.

Had you been familiar with the wording of the NOIP (which you describe as a “pre-court thing” you don’t deal with) you would have known the significance in S172 of the text “such information.......as he may be required to give by..…police” thereby alerting you that police qualify the level of such requirement of the RK as “any information in your power which may lead to the driver’s identification”.

Although the circumstances of your misunderstanding are now clear, I am unsure how the obfuscation in your above post is supposed to reconcile with your attempts to “dispel some of the incorrect information which abounds in the media” and help forum users with your “experience of the day to day working of courts”.



Fisherman wrote: “I am aware that Clerks to the Justices do attend meetings of camera partnerships but are there as representatives of HMCS and remain independent of the SCP. They are paid by HMCS not the partnership”.

Perhaps Fisherman could kindly explain how he reconciles this independence with the fact that HMCS is listed as a member of the Safety Camera Partnership.



[i][/i]Steve wrote: “Does anyone remember the case that this thread was originally about?”

Good question. Anyone know whether the couple have arranged to appeal?



Rob7

I am sorry if it offends you that I have failed to comply with your directions. I quoted the law which sets out clearly the responsibilities of those who receive an s172 request. I suggest you compare what the law says with your interpretation of the matter. If that still leaves you confused, you can take it up with whoever issues NIPs in your area.


having shown this thread to my BLA I am assured that I have got it right.


Then I suggest you use the search function to look for other posts I have made.


Its the law.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/codeco ... _Oct07.pdf

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Fisherman wrote: “ I am sorry if it offends you that I have failed to comply with your directions. I quoted the law which sets out clearly the responsibilities of those who receive an s172 request. I suggest you compare what the law says with your interpretation of the matter. If that still leaves you confused, you can take it up with whoever issues NIPs in your area”.


Oh dear, Fisherman, for a magistrate who purports to be helping readers with advice as an individual, rather than on behalf of the system, you don’t seem very keen on accepting reciprocal help when it includes factual matter that tends to correct you.

It appears your stock response is to ignore such evidence by way of obfuscation. Yes, that word again but unfortunately it fits. Take our current series of exchanges for example, I have tried to help you understand that S172 (RTA 1988) does not preclude a registered keeper from the ‘within your power’ level of requirement for driver information. Your attention has been drawn to the key wording in S172 “such information……….as he may be required to give by……….police” and it was suggested you refer to the text of a police NOIP (NIP) to learn that the level of requirement for the RK is to give “any information in your power”.

However, one of your attempts to avoid this is your claim “The NIP is a pre court thing which I don’t deal with”. That may excuse you for being initially ignorant of its content but not, given your purported desire to help this forum with independent advice, your failure to subsequently check and consider the evidence once it has been brought to your attention.

To simply repeat parrot fashion that you have quoted the law, that your respondent should compare it with their own interpretation and, if still “confused”, take it up with “whoever issues NIPs” is, with all due respect, fatuous nonsense. The requirement is clearly displayed on the NIP. That does not “confuse” me. Indeed, you are the individual who appears to be having difficulty with it. If you believe you know better than what is printed on police NIP documentation then, surely, it is you who should be “taking it up” with them; especially if you’re a magistrate.

So, rather than running the risk of appearing to emulate some of our lesser gifted politicians, how about condensing the issue into a nice straight answer to a nice straight question.

Registered keepers are informed on the NIP document, I quote “you are required to give any information in your power which may lead to the driver’s identification by completing the appropriate part of the Section 172 statement overleaf”. Unquote. Do you accept this as being the correct S172 requirement Fisherman?


Fisherman wrote: “Then I suggest you use the search function to look for other posts I have made”.

You know that I was referring to a specific example of your obfuscation and that my actual concern was how you reconciled this with your attempts to help forum users. There was no suggestion unrelated posts by you would be the same.


Fisherman wrote: “Its the law”.

It may be the law but it does not alter the fact that HMCS is listed as a member of the Safety Camera Partnership which includes the Police and CPS amongst others. Perhaps readers would prefer to reach their own conclusions as to how much independence this suggests.