speeding ticket

[Ldaaz]

I have been informed that my car was photographed speeding 38 mph in a 30 mph road. Although I am the owner of the car, I would not know who was driving it at that moment in time as it could be a number of people who might do that.

I phoned the police and they confirmed the driver was not photographed but only able to provide me with photos showing the car number plate.

Assuming the pictures shows the number plate of my car, is it me who has to prove who has been driving the car at that time or is it the responsibility of the police to prove who the driver was at that time (i.e. myself or not myself)

[Curlyben]

Re: speeding ticket

Firstly WHO informed you of this "offence" as that makes all the difference.

[Ldaaz]

Re: speeding ticket

The police constabulary has issued the speeding offence

[Caspar]

Re: speeding ticket

If a Constable has issued the NIP, then the burden of proof is on you to identify the driver. If you want to be really awkward there is a human rights debate around this issue, but you pursue this route at your own risk.

[Amy]

Re: speeding ticket

You were 'caught' by a Gatso camera. A Gatso can only photograph the number plate of the vehicle and from behind. So the driver will, therefore, not be identifiable.

If you genuinely do not know who was driving, you would commit the criminal offence specified on the NIP, 'supplying false information' if you do identify anyone. Doing so could also be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

All they want is your money, this is not about speeding and this is the reason the NIP does not have a section stating the driver is unknown to you.

What you should do, is write a letter (I have one if you'd like to use it) giving your details (date of birth, licence number, etc) and confirming (if indeed you are) that you are the owner of the vehicle, but you do not know who was driving.

Unlike most other driving 'offences' speeding is a driver dependent offence.

Do not complete the NIP. Return it to them blank.

[Caspar]

Re: speeding ticket

There is also an offence I believe is often used in these cases of Failure to Give Information as to the Driver.

Make sure you do not get caught out by this.

It is of course quite wrong, if you were not the driver, that you should accept any penalty just for being the registered keeper of the car.

[Amy]

Re: speeding ticket

This is incorrect.

Paragraph 4 of S172 1988 Road Traffic Act states that 'S 172(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.'

[Caspar]

Re: speeding ticket

......and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.'

This to me suggests there is an onus on the keeper to use reasonable diligence to try to ascertain who the driver was. If they don't they can be prosecuted for failing to provide the information.

All I'm saying is the OP needs to show they do use reasonable diligence in order to prevent this happening.

As already stated it would be quite wrong for the registered keeper to be prosecuted if they were not the driver. To put it all into context this is the relevant section in full:

(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.
(3)Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

[Amy]

Re: speeding ticket

It's not suggested, that's what it says in plain English and all as per post #5.

[Caspar]

Re: speeding ticket

....or even post 4

[Amy]

Re: speeding ticket

What colour is the sky in your world, because that post is a mile away from what I wrote and so misleading it's not true and perhaps that's why I received thanks from other members.

[Caspar]

Re: speeding ticket

Post 4 said the onus was on the keeper to identify the driver.

Paras 2a and b and 3 state thhis to be the case. Para 4 states what you say to be the case. I don't see the problem.

[Amy]

Re: speeding ticket

This isn't about you Caspar and your edited posts do not go unnoticed; it's about helping people not making oneself look good after the fact.

[Bill-K]

Re: speeding ticket

Pure entertainment. This is why I SOOOOO LUUURVE that ferkin' "Police, Camera, Action" $h1te. Keep it coming, guys !!!!!

I just SO lurve the sheer mindlessness of it all !!!

That's what I SO lurve about it, here !!!

[mystery1]

Re: speeding ticket

You were 'caught' by a Gatso camera. A Gatso can only photograph the number plate of the vehicle and from behind. So the driver will, therefore, not be identifiable.

If you genuinely do not know who was driving, you would commit the criminal offence specified on the NIP, 'supplying false information' if you do identify anyone. Doing so could also be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

All they want is your money, this is not about speeding and this is the reason the NIP does not have a section stating the driver is unknown to you.

What you should do, is write a letter (I have one if you'd like to use it) giving your details (date of birth, licence number, etc) and confirming (if indeed you are) that you are the owner of the vehicle, but you do not know who was driving.

Unlike most other driving 'offences' speeding is a driver dependent offence.

Do not complete the NIP. Return it to them blank.

How would you then convince the court, when charged with "failure to furnish", that you performed reasonable diligence in trying to ascertain who the driver was ?

The "Hamilton defence" is not a case of just "it wasn't me gov" or hardly anyone would be done for speeding. You do not have a burden of proof in the matter but you do have to convince a court that you tried to find out who was driving (reasonable diligence).

You can win using 172(4) but it's far from a slam dunk.

M1