>> 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
|