Failure to declare driver

[Arcilect]

Hi,
First time I’ve visited here, thank you in advance for any advice or insight that is offered.
I’ll try to keep this as focussed a question as possible.
Can the police insist on knowing who was driving a vehicle (and charge for not declaring) when that vehicle is NOT suspected of being involved with any offence?
Albeit they suspect an offence was committed in another vehicle and are using trying to use this info to identify the driver of another vehicle.

[HandyAndy]

In short, no. S172 of the Road Traffic Act begins:
"Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—"

A list of offences to which the section applies is provided and if the driver is not suspected of committing one of them then S172 (the part of the Act compelling him to provide the driver's details) does not apply.

[dslippy]

I am not sure what you mean when you say 'and charge for not declaring'

[islandgirl]

charged with what? Fail to provide information as to the identity of a driver?

[Arcilect]

Yes, charged with failing to identify the driver. The vehicle concerned is not the vehicle the offence is alleged to have taken place on.
My son is being accused of committing a driving offence, on a motorcycle (his friends motorcycle) they say he was seen on cctv, after the alleged offence was committed, getting on his own motorcycle after the fact and they have charged him with failing to identify the driver of his bike.
essentially trying to use this charge to identify the rider of his friends bike. His friend has not been visited or questioned by the police.

[islandgirl]

Why have they not asked the registered keeper of the vehicle which committed the offence to identify the driver? It is very strange that they would not.

[Arcilect]

Yes, I feel the same but the fact is. As of yet they haven’t, I simply don’t know the reason why this is.

[islandgirl]

HandyAndy who knows lots about this stuff wrote: "In short, no. S172 of the Road Traffic Act begins: "Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—"
But it goes on to say
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 [F3or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force], 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.

Would (b) capture this situation? I think it might

[Arcilect]

Thank you very much Handyandy and island girl for your help so far.
Personally I would tend to agree in the spirit of it, but in the wording and the fact that the vehicle he has been charged with failing to identify the driver, isn’t accused of being involved in any offence. I suspect the charge may not be valid?

[islandgirl]

But the other vehicle is alleged to have been involved in an offence and the law requires "any other person shall if required give any information...which may lead to identification of the driver" Though if the keeper of the other vehicle has not been approached to identify the driver this makes it even more strange. Just trying to interpret the actual law here in a confusing situation! May I humbly suggest a visit to a solicitor on this one?

[HandyAndy]

Would (b) capture this situation? I think it might

Now we have additional information, I also think it might - but the again it might not. The law says this:

Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies... [The OP's son was the driver of a vehicle alleged to be guilty of an offence - presumably one to which the 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 ... (the OP's son is not the person keeping the vehicle, but...)

(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.

I think the argument that may arise depends on the question being asked. If the police are asking who rode the motorcycle away from the scene (the OP's son's own motorcycle), that vehicle was not allegedly involved in the commission of an offence and so, arguably, the service of a s172 request is not legitimate. If, however, they are asking who rode the motorcycle which was involved in the alleged offence, then it is. It seems the police are using s172 to identify the driver of the vehicle involved in the offence by asking who rode another vehicle noted at the scene. If that's so, I'm not sure of the legitimacy of this.

Yes, I do wonder why a s172 notice was not served on the person keeping the vehicle alleged to be involved in the offence. Perhaps the police have already tried this without success. Perhaps the OP could help us by telling us a little more, in particular how long ago the alleged offence took place. This might help us determine if a s172 requests was served on the person keeping the vehicle allegedly involved in the offence. Meantime, I'll have another think and make some enquiries.

[Arcilect]

Thank you once again islandgirl, I think? the privilege against self incrimination may apply in the context you mention above.
The cost implications of professional representation may inhibit our ability to do this, but it is something I would like to do.
I’m trying my best to learn as much as is practically possible in regards to this, It just doesn’t feel right that the police can compel someone to identify the driver of a vehicle that isn’t suspected of being involved in an offence. Much like handyandy very kindly posted above.

[wales01man]

Whats the problem with identify the person?

[islandgirl]

The difficult nature of the case and the issue of points of law is why expert advice is needed. Perhaps go for an initial free consultation with a criminal law solicitor?

[Arcilect]

Thank you handyandy.
‘Yes, I do wonder why a s172 notice was not served on the person keeping the vehicle alleged to be involved in the offence. Perhaps the police have already tried this without success. Perhaps the OP could help us by telling us a little more, in particular how long ago the alleged offence took place. This might help us determine if a s172 requests was served on the person keeping the vehicle allegedly involved in the offence. Meantime, I'll have another think and make some enquiries’

The charge was made 5 days ago. The officer who played ‘bad cop’ on the day made the charge. The other older officer who was the driver of the traffic car (don’t know if this signifies seniority?) did say on three separate occasions this may not even go ahead they may just issue a warning. I’m presuming ‘they’ are the procurator fiscal.
As of yet there has been no attempt to contact the owner of the other bike (I cannot understand why) unless that vehicles number plate wasn’t recorded on cctv for example?
The offence they are looking to prosecute, is doing a wheelie on 125cc motor bike in an empty car park late at night, which is a ridiculously stupid thing to doI fully accept that (they want to press a dangerous driving charge). But I am keen for my son to be treated fairly according to the law.

Once again a heartfelt thank you for your help on this.