Terminology

[Manxman]

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 ?

That might be a bit of a concern to the keeper then.* (The overseas driver doesn't appear to be very reliable or helpful).

It's not a bit like a murder without a body at all.* Either the overseas driver was, as a matter of fact,*insured to drive the car or he wasn't.* If he wasn't, then a charge against the keeper of permitting to drive without insurance seems entirely reasonable.* I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Going back to the NIP/s172 issue, if the keeper has responded within the time limit naming the driver, then yes - he has complied with the s172 requirements and couldn't be convicted of a failure to provide details charge, but that's not the offence he may be charged with.* The keeper mustn't get hung up on the fact that they've complied with the 172 request - that's irrelevant if charged with permitting.

What evidence does the keeper have that the driver was insured?* It's his responsibility to ensure that anybody he allows to drive the car is insured.

(Are you certain that there has to be a body???)

[Manxman]

I suppose that if charged the keeper could plead not guilty and challenge the prosecution to prove it.* I suspect they would simply reply that the named driver does not appear on any UK insurance database and ask the keeper to prove that the driver was in fact insured.* Could they do that?

[luxardo]

I understand what you are saying but it then begs the question, why stop there ? Why stop at presuming the driver has no insurance and charge the keeper with permitting to drive without insurance ? If they can presume no insurance then they can presume no licence and charge the keeper with assisting that offence ? Go all the way, presume driver was speeding or drunk or driving carelessly ? Which is my original question, I'm sure there is a term for this. A term describing the situation which prevents a charge of assisting an offence where the actual offence is not proven..

[des8]

I think your problem might actually concern the wording of RTA 1988 Sec 143 which makes it an absolute offence to permit someone to use a vehicle uninsured on the road.
If it is an absolute offence it is for the defendant to prove there was an insurance policy in force.
This is the same principle that applies to a charge of driving uninsured... it is for the defendant to show insurance was in force.

The same applies to driving, or permitting someone to drive, without a licence

[Manxman]

Permitting someone who is uninsured to drive your vehicle is a separate offence in itself and is in no way dependent on the driver actually being convicted or even charged.*It's simply a question of whether or not the driver was insured. That's it. *I would suspect that pretty much every time a police force gets a s172 request back naming a driver who is a non-UK resident they will investigate bringing a permitting charge against the keeper - for the simple reason that it's an odds on bet that the driver was probably uninsured.* (The driver would have to take out a UK insurance policy to cover them).

It used to be the case that some unreliable websites "recommended" naming a non-UK resident as driver because they wouldn't be charged*with speeding.* Apart from being very stupid advice (and probably an offence in itself) it didn't stop the person responsible for the car being charged with permitting.

I suspect there could be circumstances where the keeper might have a defence, but as you haven't mentioned anything relevant I doubt they would apply here.

Going back to an earlier question about whether there would be a defence if the keeper's insurance allowed the car to be driven by anybody other than the keeper.* I very strongly suspect that drivers who are non-UK residents would be excluded from such cover.

If charged, the keeper can always plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof.* I wouldn't bet on them being acquitted.

In several posts you haven't touched at all on what reason the keeper had to believe the driver they permitted to drive was insured.* What evidence do they have?* Arguing that the overseas driver hasn't been charged is sticking your (or rather their) head in the sand.

[Manxman]

I suspect you may have been confused by being led down the "aiding and abetting" path.* It may be that to be charged with "A & A" someone needs to be charged with the underlying offence, but the keeper won't be charged with "A & A" here, it'll be permitting.

[des8]

*

If charged, the keeper can always plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof. I wouldn't bet on them being acquitted.

As these are absolute offences it is for the accused to prove innocence.*
The prosecution don't have to prove guilt!

*

[luxardo]

As these are absolute offences it is for the accused to prove innocence.
The prosecution don't have to prove guilt!

Surely that goes against all principles of law that anyone is innocent until proven guilty ? In fact in all prosecutions the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, the defendant doesn't even have to give evidence ?

[des8]

Surely that goes against all principles of law that anyone is innocent until proven guilty ? In fact in all prosecutions the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, the defendant doesn't even have to give evidence ?

Unfortunately, not quite so for absolute offences, or in other words strict liability offences, where the prosecution only need to show the actus reus not the mens rea

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Strict-liability.php

[Manxman]

Unfortunately, not quite so for absolute offences, or in other words strict liability offences, where the prosecution only need to show the actus reus not the mens rea

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Strict-liability.php

I think what the OP is having difficulty with is grasping the notion that the keeper could be convicted of "permitting" without the prosecution actually having to prove that the driver was uninsured. Like you, I don't think they need to,*(merely that the car was driven and the keeper has already helpfully*identified the driver) and the burden is on the defendant to show that the driver was insured.

Even if we were wrong in that belief, (and I don't think we are) it would be simple enough for the prosecution to refer to MID and establish that there is no evidence anywhere of any valid insurance policy that would have covered the named driver, therefore the driver was prima facie not insured.

Again, questions for the OP: (1) did the keeper confirm that the driver was insured? (2) if so, how did they do this? (3) do they have any evidence of this confirmation?

Lessons to be learned: (1) if you lend your car to someone it is your responsibility to ensure they are insured to drive it; (2) if you lend your car to a non-UK resident you are taking a big risk as their insurance will almost certainly not cover them in the UK, and even if your own policy allows any other driver, it almost certainly won't include non-UK resident drivers; (3) If you receive a NIP and nominate a non-UK driver, the police will almost certainly investigate further.

[Manxman]

As these are absolute offences it is for the accused to prove innocence.
The prosecution don't have to prove guilt!

I'm only suggesting that it's always open to the keeper (if charged) to plead guilty and put the prosecution to "proof".* Would be an expensive test of a principle though!

I'd just plead guilty, but then I'd never lend my car to an overseas resident.* And in the unlikely event that I did, I'd arrange the insurance myself.

[luxardo]

It was a work colleague (I work for a multi national) and it was a company car. I wrongly assumed as we work for the same company he would be insured

[wales01man]

It was a work colleague (I work for a multi national) and it was a company car. I wrongly assumed as we work for the same company he would be insured

Does your employer insure this vehicle ?
*

[luxardo]

yes but apparently only for me to drive

[Manxman]

That's unfortunate.*

If I were you (and had the prospect of being charged with permitting) I'd also try asking here:* http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

If you do try there, don't register with a Hotmail address (the site will reject it).