Terminology

[luxardo]

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.

[R0b]

Are you referring to aid and abet?

[des8]

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.

[luxardo]

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.

[Manxman]

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?

[luxardo]

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

[des8]

Is this an actual case?

[luxardo]

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".

[des8]

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

[luxardo]

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.

[des8]

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.

[luxardo]

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 ?

[Manxman]

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

[luxardo]

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 ?

[des8]

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

*