Speed Camera

[Cpw22]

Hi,


I'm after some much needed advice.


My father, who is seriously unwell, and in terminal stage of illness last week put his car up for sale.

A few days passed and I was going to deal with anyone who wanted to view / test drive but someone called him and asked to view asap, this was Thursday.


The car has a issue with its transmission, and when the chap wanted to test drive it, he showed an insurance policy my dad said on his phone to him.
They went some 30 miles and back test driving and the chap who was driving overtook a HGV on the motorway, at around 80-85 MPH, at the point its possible the car was clocked by a mobile speed camera on the flyover, we cant be sure as Dad wasnt looking at the speedo.

The fault came when on test drive and the chap didnt buy as he wanted too much money off the asking price.


Problem now, Dad told me all this (hes in his 80's and very frail) he doesnt have the surname of the driver or address, not even his number as it was via a well known selling site arranged, where I gave him Dads number and he called him (from a witheld number).

Now where does he stand on this if NIP is issued? He has a clean driving record, never even had a insurance claim.

Im worried for him, as this isnt going to help his condition.


If the camera can see the driver theyd see it wasnt Dad driving but obviously its fail to provide.


Please advise what to do, as such weve taken the car off sale until this is resolved.


Ive read hes looking at 6 points fail to furnish details, they wont also take him for the speeding too, will they? I ask as ive spoken to his insurer and at 9 points they will refuse renewal on another car, which will put him in serious danger as he has many hospital trips, which will only increase.


Please can someone help me help him, thank you

[islandgirl]

A very unusual situation
I would say
1. Try to get some information about the driver - however I trust he was definately insured to drive as allowing an uninsured person to drive is also an offence
2. You would have the option of pleading Not Guilty and explaining the situation in court (remember the insurance issue though)
3. For fail to provide information it is a band C fine (150% of weekly income) and 6 points - insurance will be super expensive afterwards I expect
Hopefully other members will be along to give advice soon

[Cpw22]

This is obviously what I expected, intially he was saying hed take the points but I said no, given thats serious.

Ive messaged the person back who viewed asking just for a number at this stage but no reply, unsurprisingly so I wait on that.

I am guessing if they check his driving record, the fact he has insurance on the car, no situation like this before, genuine reason for fail to furnish and his age wont be enough for a judge just to fine him or given less points?
Hes unlikely to be able to withstand a NG plea as he is frail and gets confused when under pressure, hence why I did tell this chap to view after 5pm Thursday but he arrived there at 3:30pm and Dad just went out, obviously lesson learned and in future will not give Dads number and simply give mine to arrange it all.

Im just so, upset, annoyed as this is the first time hes ever had a driving offence right at this point of a serious illness

Can you plea NG but provide mitigation or will they just go default with 6 points and fine? Not worth using a solicitor I guess either?

Thank you for replying though

[des8]

I note that under sec 172 of the Road traffic act 1988 there is a subsection 7(b) which allows a defence to a charge of failing to name the driver.
This defence is "....it has not been reasonably practicable for...." the registered keeper to give it.

Under the circumstances described is it not true that it is impracticable for the elderly gentleman to provide the name & address?

Perhaps a short conversation with a solicitor specialising in motoring offences?

tagging HandyAndy

[HandyAndy]

Section 172(7)(b) is really to cover situations where, say, the recipient of a notice doesn’t get it either promptly or at all. Obviously it is not practical to respond to a notice which wasn’t received, or within the timescale allowed (28 days) if it was received very late.

The way to defend this is under S172(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.

The important point to bear in mind is that the required diligence does not begin until the request for driver’s details is served. That is, there is no requirement for the keeper to be aware of the driver’s details before he is asked to provide them. This was confirmed in the case of Debbie Atkinson vs DPP. The circumstances in which Ms Atkinson found herself were almost identical to your father’s. She lent her scooter for a test drive to a prospective buyer whose identity she did not obtain. He declined to buy it but not before he had committed a speeding offence during the test drive. Ms Atkinson had very little details of him and was unable to trace him despite using the “reasonable diligence” required under the defence provided by s172(4). Here's the judgement:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57ea9577

If a NIP and s172 request are received I suggest a letter to the police explaining the circumstances might see them discontinue (though I wouldn’t count on it). If the matter does go to court he will have to defend the charge by convincing the court that he did all he could to establish the driver’s identity, citing Atkinson to confirm that he had no duty to do so until the request was served.

He (nor indeed anybody else) cannot be convicted of speeding as the police have no evidence to show who was driving.

Just a warning:

This is obviously what I expected, intially he was saying hed take the points but I said no, given thats serious

.

He must absolutely not do that under any circumstances. Naming someone whom he knows was not driving is “perverting the course of justice” and almost always ends in jail time, even where trivial allegations such as speeding are involved. There are numerous high profile examples of this, but here is perhaps the most infamous:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...ne-vicky-pryce

[Cpw22]

Thanks for the extensive in put Andy, its very kind.


Ive noted this, however I dont think my Dad will be up to attending court, hes never in 80 years been in front of a mag and when I mention this sitaution, he gets nervous and is worried.


We will appeal to the Police, better nature regards the postion but as you say, expect theyll not discontinue.

If Dad receives summons, is it worth while to reply with the above information and ask them to consider in his absence? As I expect given his health, we will just have to go guilty by post to lesson the impact of attending court.


Lesson learned on this, just how many get the name, address of every one who test drives a car for sale, very risky postion which I myself now will always be worried about.


Noted your last part, completely agree, makes something small into a huge serious issue.


I guess we just wait 14 days, hope for the best.
I did read mobile cameras dont check every car, and as it was less than 30 seconds overtaking a hgv, maybe we will be lucky.


Seems unfair, speeding for such a small distance, then returning to normal limit - but it is what it is.


One other thing, if we got a solicitor, could he go NG and instruct one to go in place for him to the hearing savibg him from having to?

I wish now I had 'purchased' his car on the day this happend, to save him from 6 points, id have taken them but obviously that boat has sailed.


Again, thank you for your time and help

[islandgirl]

HandyAndy what about the issue of allowing a vehicle to be driven without insurance? Does this not apply here?

[HandyAndy]

...what about the issue of allowing a vehicle to be driven without insurance? Does this not apply here?

It may do. In a straightforward speeding case there is no reason for the police to check insurance cover (and they rarely do). But of course this is not straightforward. The OP says his father was shown an insurance policy but that will not suffice if he is accused of "permitting". I think the likely s172 problem is the most pressing so perhaps we'd best leave the insurance matter to lie at present.

If Dad receives summons, is it worth while to reply with the above information and ask them to consider in his absence?

The court will not consider a not guilty plea in his absence. For one thing he will be required to give evidence under oath concerning what "reasonable diligence" he exercised to try to establish the driver's identity.

One other thing, if we got a solicitor, could he go NG and instruct one to go in place for him to the hearing savibg him from having to?

No, for the same reason as above.

A conviction under s172 (Failing to provide driver’s details) will have a profound effect on his insurance premiums. The endorsement code (MS90) really gives insurers a fit of the vapours and he will see his premium at least double in the first year, and it will influence them for up to five years. It really is a conviction to be avoided if at all possible.

That said, I can understand your concern about your father facing the ordeal of attending court. However, the Magistrates’ Court is a far less formal affair than the Crown Court. His case will almost certainly be heard by three “lay” Magistrates (who may be nearly as old as he is - with apologies to islandgirl ); there are no wigs and gowns; with the Court’s permission you can accompany him in court as a “McKenzie Friend”. Although you may not address the court on his behalf, you can help him with his presentation, however, you will not be allowed to accompany him into the witness box or coach him with his answers from there. The court's Legal Advisor, who is there principally to advise the Magistrates on matters of law, also has a duty to assist unrepresented defendants through the court process. As well as that, it is not unknown for a prosecutor who sees clearly that some slack might be in order, to not "try too hard" to secure a conviction.

Taking this stage by stage, firstly I hope you may be worrying unnecessarily. An indicated 80mph on a car’s speedo usually relates to a true speed of around 73mph, and enforcement does not begin until 79mph. If he does receive a NIP/s172 notice, a well-constructed note to the police may see the matter discontinued on the basis that it is not “in the public interest” to prosecute (especially if the alleged speed is not over excessive). But if he does receive the request for driver’s details he (and you) must decide what way to go.