This is one way to deal with the amnesiac hook wrigglers:
tinyurl.com/y9teg5j
|
And all for doing 40 in a 30 zone!
EDIT: by which I mean, what plonkers
Last edited by: Focus on Tue 2 Mar 10 at 11:07
|
>>"What plonkers."
Really? The magistrates have knowingly convicted an innocent person. One of the Daily Mail posters has performed a reductio ad absurdum and has written:
>>"It's about time the courts applied this ruling to other ofences too.
>>How many times has a 'gang of youths' got away with a serious assault or an act of
>>vandalism because it couldn't be proven which individual stuck the blow / threw the
>>brick / was driving the stolen car at the time.
>>They should ALL be tried and face the same punishment until the real perpetrator comes >>forward or is named by the others. "
I do hope the poster was joking - although I suspect not. But this is a prime example as to why it is inappropriate for the magistrates to convict both of them for an offence that only one has committed. It is a slippery slope towards convicting somebody for being in the wrong place whilst an offence was being committed. I hope they appeal, and I hope they get off.
|
>> >>"What plonkers."
>>
>> Really?
Because, as I read it, if they'd bothered to turn up, the judge might have let them off.
|
|
This "can't remember who was driving ha ha" defence was made popular, I suspect, by the Hamiltons a few years ago. Good on the magistrate for laying down a marker that we've had enough of it. Though I suspect the magistrate will be over-ruled.
|
>> >> They should ALL be tried and face the same punishment until the real
>> >> perpetrator comes forward or is named by the others. "
>>
>> I do hope the poster was joking - although I suspect not. But this is
>> a prime example as to why it is inappropriate for the magistrates to convict both
>> of them for an offence that only one has committed.
"Joint enterprise". Quite legitimate, and a very useful doctrine. These people deserve what they got.
|
It appears they applied for photos and these didn't show the driver. At that point this couple had the freedom to choose which would be impacted less by the fine/points/insurance uplift and for that person to accept the conviction.
They were stupid not to take the decision to end it there.
|
|
Hang on just a minute. They were convicted for failing to identify which of them was driving - "A separate speeding charge for both defendants in relation to the incident was withdrawn" (Western Morning News).
|
Whilst I am usually glad to see some rich folk who are playing the system get their come uppence, am afraid this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
We have 2 cars and apart from trips to work, me and wife will just take whatever car is at the end of the driveway to take kids to clubs, nip to Tesco for milk etc. And these are regular routes to us.
Depending on timescale, which I assume would be 2 weeks, if we got sent a pic of one car, on our standard route and the pic didn't identify the driver, we would need to do a good bit of back tracking to narrow down who was driving. Yes I might be able to work it out and be confident, but maybe not?
However to then actually fine someone and give them points, especially the husband who didn't own the car, is pretty shocking imho. Fair enough, could fine her as owner for not providing the name of the driver (although I believe that has been challenged in court before as well).
|
>> Yes I might be able to work it out and be confident but
>> maybe not?
But presumably you would at least turn up in court to explain that to the judge?
|
>> But presumably you would at least turn up in court to explain that to the
>> judge?
It's not clear that this is what happened. Firstly it's a magistrate, not a judge. Secondly the article is very vague indeed (what a surprise).
Edited to add that the Telegraph reports that this is exactly what happened. I agree, very foolish. However:
>>"They were convicted for failing to identify which of them was driving"
I don't understand how they can BOTH be convicted of this offence. One is the registered keeper, the other has nothing to do with it.
Equally, I do not see how one can be expected to perjure oneself in court by admitting to doing something that one cannot be certain one has done.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 2 Mar 10 at 12:37
|
>> >> But presumably you would at least turn up in court to explain that to
>> >> the judge?
>>
>> It's not clear that this is what happened.
I was going by 'They have to satisfy and explain why they are not able to, but they are not here to do that' (reportedly said by prosecutor).
>> Equally I do not see how one can be expected to perjure oneself in court
>> by admitting to doing something that one cannot be certain one has done.
Were they expected to? Shouldn't they have at least tried to give the reasons why they couldn't be certain first?
|
Quite right to convict both.
It has been openly discussed this is a method to trying to either get the SCP to disengage after the umpteenth letter or try and string out matters to beyond the limitation on proceedings by naming each other as driver. This time it didn't work.
dvd
|
The most effective way to annoy any court is not to take it seriously.
Seems to me this couple was playing with the prosecution as first one wrote a baffled letter, then the other, then the first one again.
Failing to turn up for the hearing sends a clear message to the court, which has given them its answer.
|
Listen I think its great they have been done especially if they were just trying to play the system.
However
I am intrigued to know, where in law, the husband can be charged and have points put against his licence for an offence that happened in a car that did not belong to him. Yes, string the wife up but I cannot see where in law the punishment can be applied to the husband. If that was the case, you could get whole families of speeders being fined if they had access to the family car?
Don't get me wrong, it is very obvious they have been stringing this along etc etc but what offence did hubby do in all of this?
Although it currently sends out the message that money won't buy their way out of this, I daresay he will appeal, and his appeal is upheld, then it means money does buy your way out of this.
|
|
They weren't "done" for speeding.
|
I'm sat on the fence re this.
We all know they're having the system over, big time and therefore morally have received their comeuppance...but... to be convicted of something in a court, you have to have the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt and if the State can't prove someone did something, then they walk free...that's the way it works.
On cases like this they're being done for not providing info on who the driver was, rather than the speeding....but that offence circumvents the usual right you have i.e. not having to say anything to incriminate yourself.
That whole area is IMO a mess.... but has been appealed before, all the way to Europe. I agree with others, in that it's potentially a very slippery slope. The whole basis of our legal system is 'innocent until proven guilty'...not 'prove yourself innocent'.
|
>> to be convicted of something in a court you have to have the case proven
>> beyond a reasonable doubt
They did not say who was driving. They were convicted of not saying who was driving. Doubt, as they say, "don't enter into it".
|
>> Doubt as they say "don't enter into it".
>>
Of course there is doubt. There could be doubt (as others have pointed out) as to whether they genuinely knew who the driver was. My gut feeling is they knew damned well and are playing the system and have failed spectacularly...but....British Justice should not be on the equivalent of gut feelings or however the Magistrates have come to this conclusion.
The other thing is the sorry loss of the right to silence. With this offence you do not have the right to keep quiet so that you do not incriminate yourself or a loved one. It's a fairly fundemental part of our Justice system..or it was.
The bottom line is two clever dicks have been caught out and in that respect it was the right decision..but...in doing so it has eroded a bit more or all of our freedoms.
So was it worth it in the big scheme of things. Probably not IMO.
|
>> >> Doubt as they say "don't enter into it".
>>
>> Of course there is doubt.
No there is not. It was one of them. It does not matter which one - they did not trouble themselves to explain, and have got exactly what was coming to them under the circumstances.
|
>> No there is not. It was one of them. It does not matter which one
>> - they did not trouble themselves to explain and have got exactly what was coming
>> to them under the circumstances.
>>
It matters greatly which one...one of them is innocent of the original offence. Both may well be guilty of the second offence..or...they may not... (I suspect they are)....however the State should be PROVING they did something, not requiring them to incriminate themsleves or each other and/or presuming they are wrong by their silence.
|
>> >> No there is not. It was one of them. It does not matter which one
>> >> - they did not trouble themselves to explain and have got exactly what was
>> >> coming to them under the circumstances.
>>
>> It matters greatly which one...one of them is innocent of the original offence.
Correct.
>> Both may well be guilty of the second offence
They are. That's what they were correctly convicted and penalised for.
>> ..or...they may not...
Rubbish. That's what they were convicted of.
|
>> ..or...they may not...
>>
>> Rubbish. That's what they were convicted of.
>>
How do you know? We've all jumped to that conclusion and i'll admit that includes me, but that cannot have been proven.
The other angle is using evidence in a system that refuses you the right to remain silent and forces you to disclose information that can incriminate you or your spouse. That never used to be the case. That principle is wrong, purely to make a camera prosecuting system work.
|
>> >> ..or...they may not...
>> >>
>> >> Rubbish. That's what they were convicted of.
>>
>> How do you know?
There is nothing *to* know. They did not say who was driving, and did not explain themselves. That's all there is to it.
|
Isn't the important point that they felt unable to turn up and explain themselves? It's one thing saying you don't know in a letter, quite another to turn up and potentially perjure yourself in court.
I suspect had they turned up and stuck to their claim the court would have had to accept it. But as they didn't, the courtt (probably fairly) drew their own conclusion.
|
The whole area is a mess. If they had asked each other who was driving and neither can remember and the pictures don't show it then that should be considered reasonable diligence. Do we even know if they were in the car together at the time of the offence? If both used it within a short time of each other then it is entirely possible they couldn't know as the person that did set off the camera didn't remember and the other person couldn't have known.
The whole idea that one of them should just take the points on a strategic basic is offensive to me. If you are going to rely on automated enforcement then it needs to better identify the driver. With forward facing cameras there is at least a chance of seeing who was driving. Then this whole argument would never arise and partners wouldn't be taking points they didn't earn just to have a quiet life and have threats against them having worse consequences removed from them.
All a gatso proves is that a vehicle of a certain type with a certain number plate drove though it and had a photo taken. If I followed someone in an identical car with a cloned plate not long after and set the camera off at the moment that person would just have to roll over and take the points.
A judge in Hong Kong has just savaged the ECHR ruling.
If the system were fair and just people wouldn't play it.
|
..They weren't "done" for speeding...
I suspect they were done under sect 172 'failing to provide details of who was driving'.
More than one person can be guilty of this offence in connection with one incident.
Without any other information, it is reasonable to assume that a husband and wife could work out who was driving.
If there is some reason why they genuinely could not work out who was driving, they should have gone to court and put their case before the magistrates.
In the absence of any other evidence, the magistrates are entitled to infer guilt, which is what has happened here.
|
>> I suspect they were done under sect 172 'failing to provide details of who was
>> driving'.
They were, as stated above.
|
There is plenty of past practise in this kind of "collective responsibility" conviction' Indeed a man was hung for murder, even tho it was established in court he did not pull the trigger.
Let be honest about this, they thought they were above the law, and it was just a piddly speeding offence. Well they got done. Tough
|
|
im still out on this one, oh its nice to be back ( is this the new honestjohn website?) im confused?
|
Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, you can't plead not guilty by post in a Magistrates Court. You have to attend. So it follows they must have pleaded guilty, which you can do by post. Hence the conviction.
If however they did actually plead not guilty and as the article says then "failed to attend", then there would have been a warrant out for their arrest wouldn't there - which there doesn't seem to have been.
Secondly magistrates don't set precedents so no erosion of any rights or freedoms have taken place.
Glad to be corrected.
|
>> Secondly magistrates don't set precedents so no erosion of any rights or freedoms have taken place.
>>
There's an erosion of a right and freedom every time that legislation is used, because you no longer have a right to remain silent, if you do, you're convicted, fined and receive a load of penalty points on your licence, usually more than the original offence.
Magistrates don't set the precedence, but this lot has been appealed right the way to Europe before, using all the courts available.
|
Forget the speeding for now. WP knows about these things and as far as I can see, there is no requirement in law for a passenger in a car to name the driver. What if little old granny had been the passenger, would she now have points and a fine ?
That is the responsibility of the registered keeper.alone.
The fact that the passenger is the spouse has no bearing on that.
Therefore the passenger commits no offence, surely ?
Or does he/she obstruct the course of justice ? A sledgehammer, etc ?
Suppose this had been a pool car with 20 authorised drivers, none of whom could remember ho had it on the day.......fine them all ?
As has been said, it's another erosion of rights. In my days in the force, a spouse could not be forced to give evidence against the partner. nor could you be forced to incriminate yourself.
I agree that these two are trying it on and should have argued this case in court......but that's another matter and up to them.
Ted
|
|
I thought this had previously been "tested", with the same outcome. So maybe they just got bad advice.
|
Silence of the cams states
>>>>>there is no requirement in law for a passenger in a car to name the driver. What if little old granny had been the passenger, would she now have points and a fine ?
That is the responsibility of the registered keeper.alone.
The fact that the passenger is the spouse has no bearing on that.
Therefore the passenger commits no offence, surely ?<<<<<<<<
Wrong. There are two legs to S 172, the Keeper and also ANY OTHER PERSON who may information. as to who the driver was.
S 172:
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, 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.
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
dvd
|
Look, at the end of the day, its the rich people who use wealth to wriggle out of, and manipulate the letter of the law because they think they are above it, that erode all OUR civil liberties. I bet they dont pay much tax either.
Screw them to the wall.
|
>> Screw them to the wall.
>>
What upright!!
One has standards you know AE.
|
...and forces you to disclose information that can incriminate you...that never used to be the case...
It's not entirely new.
Failing to provide a specimen for analysis has long been an offence.
It would have to be, otherwise every drunk driver would get off by simply refusing to blow in the bag.
The burden of proof has also been reversed in Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) hearings.
If a drug dealer is arrested with £1,000 in his pocket, the assumption is the £1,000 has come from dealing, is therefore the proceeds of crime, and can be confiscated.
It is up to the drug dealer to prove to the court the money is not from dealing.
I've heard a few excuses over the years: 'won it on the horses', 'given to me by a mate/girlfriend to buy a car/three piece suite', 'wages from casual work', etc etc.
|
>> ...and forces you to disclose information that can incriminate you...that never used to be the
>> case...
>>
>> It's not entirely new.
>>
Same with the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act and 'offensive weapons'.
I acknowledge there's some 'devils advocacy' on my part...because the legislation we currently have re seizing cars with no insurance which was done to death in discussions on the HJ site...i'm fully supportive of......... because of the health impact it has had on criminality and those who wilfully refuse to insure their cars...but the principles involved i.e. innocent until proven guilty have gone out the window for that as well.
|
>> re seizing cars with no insurance which was done to death in discussions on the
>> HJ site
It was done to death, the issues were not resolved, but they are nothing like those being discussed here. It seems that you have completely misunderstood both issues.
|
>> It seems that you have completely misunderstood both issues.
How?
People do things, get caught and legislation has been enacted to ensure they are punished. Trouble is that legislation weakens basic rights that have been enshrined in our laws for ages i.e. right to stay silent and not incriminate yourself AND the State having to prove you've done something, not rely on you to provide that evidence.
What other angle have I missed?
|
|
Most speed cameras that I have seen on the continent are the forward-facing type and I was once assured by a German colleague that they capture a high quality photo of the driver. Ours generally don't and have to rely on the presumption that the registered keeper was driving, unless they can provide a plausible alternative explanation. Not ideal......room for wriggling on one hand and miscarriages of justice on the other. Maybe the only 'acceptable' speed camera (if there is such a thing), is the forward-facing photographic type?
|
Millionaire couple 'forgot' who was driving - Focusless
