• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum. If this is your first visit to LegalBeagles and you need assistance then you can ask a question here;
    Create a Thread
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Terminology

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Terminology

    Can someone help me out here please ? I can't remember/find the term for the situation where you cannot be charged for assisting an offender commit an offence¬*unless the offender is actually charged with the offence in question.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Are you referring to aid and abet?
    Check out some useful guides below

    A guide to voluntary termination
    Seting aside a CCJ
    Completing an N180 Form (Courtesy of Jaguarsuk)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    LEGAL DISCLAIMER
    Please be aware that this is a public forum and is therefore accessible to anyone. The content I post on this forum is not intended to be legal advice nor does it establish any client-lawyer type relationship between you and me. Some of the content I post may include example wording, letters, or other similar responses but they are intended purely for informational and educational purposes. Using some or all of the content I post may fail to meet your needs that is specific to your situation. Therefore any use of my content is at your own risk and I cannot be held responsible in any way. It is always recommended that you seek independent legal advice and you can do this through the Law Society's Find a Solicitor database, by contacting your local Citizen's Advice Bureau or legal advice centres such as LawWorks. You may also be able to seek legal advice from your local university who may run a free (but limited) legal advice clinic to members of the public.

    Comment


    • #3
      inchoate offences?
      Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 sections 44 to 46, permits people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

      Comment


      • #4
        Aid and abet yes but not inchoate.

        I was thinking particularly of a keeper giving the name of a driver in response to a camera related traffic offence.
        If the police then attempt to charge the keeper with aiding and abetting the named driver for driving without insurance (as the keeper's policy is for himself only to drive) they would have to also charge the named driver with driving without insurance.
        The named driver could have a vehicle and be covered under 3rd party to drive all other vehicles.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why would they be charged with aiding and abetting when it would be much simpler to charge them with permitting the car to be used¬*without insurance?¬* Isn't that what usually happens in this (quite common) situation?¬* Whether the driver was insured or not is a question of fact - it doesn't depend on them being charged does it?

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

            Comment


            • #7
              Is this an actual case?

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes, NIP for speeding (camera detected) ticket issued. Keeper gave name of driver. Police asking for proof named driver was insured to drive car and hinting keeper could be charged with aiding and abetting no insurance. Keeper stating only "I have complied fully with the NIP. have nothing else to say and refuse to answer any questions".

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the keeper has the car insured and the driver has his own insurance with "driving other cars" extension there has been no offence and plod can hint all he wants.
                  If the driver did not have his own cover, and the keeper allowed that person to drive without checking that matter, the situation could be different.
                  It would then depend on whether or not the checks the keeper made would be considered sufficient by a court

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Slightly complicated by the fact the named driver lives abroad and is refusing to cooperate.
                    Rozzers hinting variously :- he doesn't actually exist/he is not insured to drive/does not have a licence to drive and threatening keeper with aid and abet
                    Keeper maintaining silence and stating he has complied fully with the NIP.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If the driver is refusing to show he was insured it is possible that the police will proceed with a charge of¬* "permit a driver with no insurance" .
                      Because the named driver is refusing to show he was covered, it will be assumed he was not (and DOC cover is now not common).
                      The keeper will have to show he took reasonable steps to see the driver was insured eg looked at the drivers certificate of insurance or is that a step too far? Is it sufficient to ask the driver if he has DOC cover and take his word for it? Court's decision.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If the driver is refusing to show he was insured it is possible that the police will proceed with a charge of¬* "permit a driver with no insurance" .

                        Yeah, that was my original fear (and question) and I'm sure there is a term or case law which says they can't charge the keeper unless they also charge the driver

                        Driver is just burying head in sand and refusing to cooperate. Cops have his address but he lives abroad.
                        Keeper is relying on maintaining he has complied with NIP (named driver) and is under no obligation to do anything else.
                        It's not the case unfortunately but IF the keeper had an insurance policy that allowed any driver would this make all of this go away ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think your friend is either mistaken or the police have not been very clear.¬* The charge would be permitting to drive without insurance, not aiding and abetting.

                          AIUI, it's up to the keeper to establish that the driver they lent the car to was insured at the time.¬* The police tend to be a bit suspicious when the driver named on the s172 request is from overseas (if that is the case here).¬* They will often investigate the possibility of a permitting to drive without insurance charge as it is extremely unlikely that a non-UK policy would be valid here.

                          I don't think simply asking the person who is borrowing the car whether they are insured to drive it in the UK is sufficient.¬* If I were in that situation I'd want to see documentary evidence (and take a copy of it).

                          The keeper may have complied with the s172 request (I presume they mean they named the driver at the time of the speeding offence) but merely knowing who was driving at the time wouldn't be a defence to a "permitting" charge.

                          What evidence does the keeper have that the driver was insured to drive the vehicle in question?

                          EDIT:¬* Just seen your last post.¬* I'm pretty certain they don't need to charge the driver to convict the keeper of "permitting".¬* As I say above, this is quite a common scenario when overseas drivers are named on s172 requests
                          Last edited by Manxman; 9th January 2020, 11:29:AM. Reason: cross posted

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Keeper is no longer in touch with the driver (ignoring phone and emails) so is not going to be assisted in any way.
                            Surely charging with permitting an offence to be committed without charging the actual offence is a bit like murder with no body ?
                            Last edited by luxardo; 9th January 2020, 11:48:AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by luxardo View Post
                              It's not the case unfortunately but IF the keeper had an insurance policy that allowed any driver would this make all of this go away ?
                              yes

                              ¬*

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X