Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Hmmmmm.....
No comment on this from me - but I know what I think.
I believe you have the right to refuse to answer questions as witness if to do so would incriminate you. (Any legal beagles around who can confirm this?)
Obviously Americans would just say, "I'm taking the 5th!"
The Debbie Atkinson case has caused many furrowed brows in the corridors of power, I believe, and redefines the time at which the registered keeper is expected to begin to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining who was driving. Whereas before that case, it was commonly held that it should be possible to determine who was driving at any given time, and that companies for example could reasonably be expected to keep track of who was driving their vehicles, this no longer seems to hold. This wasn't about what Mr C was doing at the time of the alleged speeding offence (it had gone beyond that), but about what steps he had taken to discover who had been driving at the time, and his failure to provide information on the identity of the driver.
I do wonder whether a lay bench would have come to the same view in this case. Impossible to tell without having heard the evidence of course.
Looks more like very sloppy prosecution - BT Landline and mobile records could have been produced to prove or dis-prove Mr Coogan's defence of "Not me Guv' I was dictating'
That wasn't his defence, since the charge doesn't appear to have been for speeding. "Mr Coogan was accused of failing to tell police who was behind the wheel," in which case, the landline/mobile records are irrelevant.
Anonymous is correct - a speeding charge would have attracted only 3 points, but failing to provide details would have earned 6 points and a potential totter disqualification. Sloppy reporting by BBC News Sussex that he was cleared of speeding, but when did you last see a reporter in court?
My home court deals with traffic as a so called 'gateway court' so we get several of these S172 prosecutions. Without having heard the full story I cannot say with any certainty what we would have decided in Mr C's case of course, but many such prosecutions do seem to be failing for one reason or another
Sec 172 doesn't breach your right against self-incrimination. You're not being asked to report 'who was committing an offence' you're being asked to report 'who was driving' Since driving is not an offence, by naming yourself, you're not incriminating yourself.
Additionally, the Courts have ruled that, by accepting a licence and driving a car, you agree to the rules associated with driving (rather like one does with a game of football)
If you don't agree to name the driver if asked by the authorities, you don't have to drive.
You couldn't turn up to a football game and say to the Ref "I'll play, but I don't agree with the offside rule so I won't be abiding by it".
Without hearing all the evidence it is impossible to properly comment on the actual verdict. It looks to me as though he argued (successfully) the section 172(4) defence.
I know the time scale makes this irrelevant but there are a couple of points I'm curious about. If the car is 'loaned out' to his friends on a pool basis, wouldn't a check on his insurance indicate if any such offences were being carried on that day? Also, as the suggestion that he was on the phone at the time has been introduced by Mr Coogan, then doesn't that, as well as the matter of insurance, become part of the defence which can be examined?
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
Rather cryptic. No comment on what? Did you mean to include a link?
ReplyDeleteGood point.
DeleteThis blog has jumped the shark.
ReplyDeleteQuand on voit c'qu'on voit et pis qu'on sait c'qu'on sait, ben on a bien raison d'penser c'qu'on pense et pis d'ne rien dire
ReplyDelete(roughly : when you see what you see and you know what you know, you are right indeed to think what you think, and not tell)
Merci. Nice quotation.
DeleteIt certainly is (and puts a new perspective on both Proust and la Madeleine!).
DeleteAh ha! [Taps side of nose]A nod's as good as a wink to a blind man!
ReplyDeletePoor chap has finally flipped. Sad.
ReplyDeleteYou may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
DeleteWho cares? A law which abrogates the Right to Silence is an abomination anyway.
ReplyDeleteExcept that you're acting as a witness against another, and you shouldn't have a right not to answer such questions.
DeleteI believe you have the right to refuse to answer questions as witness if to do so would incriminate you. (Any legal beagles around who can confirm this?)
DeleteObviously Americans would just say, "I'm taking the 5th!"
Things are in a bit of a mess on this front following Atkinson v DPP.
ReplyDeleteThe Debbie Atkinson case has caused many furrowed brows in the corridors of power, I believe, and redefines the time at which the registered keeper is expected to begin to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining who was driving. Whereas before that case, it was commonly held that it should be possible to determine who was driving at any given time, and that companies for example could reasonably be expected to keep track of who was driving their vehicles, this no longer seems to hold. This wasn't about what Mr C was doing at the time of the alleged speeding offence (it had gone beyond that), but about what steps he had taken to discover who had been driving at the time, and his failure to provide information on the identity of the driver.
DeleteI do wonder whether a lay bench would have come to the same view in this case. Impossible to tell without having heard the evidence of course.
Although it's not mentioned in the article, it looks as though a certain Nick Freeman (Mr Loophole) could be in the background.
ReplyDeleteLooks more like very sloppy prosecution - BT Landline and mobile records could have been produced to prove or dis-prove Mr Coogan's defence of "Not me Guv' I was dictating'
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't his defence, since the charge doesn't appear to have been for speeding. "Mr Coogan was accused of failing to tell police who was behind the wheel," in which case, the landline/mobile records are irrelevant.
DeleteAnonymous is correct - a speeding charge would have attracted only 3 points, but failing to provide details would have earned 6 points and a potential totter disqualification. Sloppy reporting by BBC News Sussex that he was cleared of speeding, but when did you last see a reporter in court?
DeleteThe comments at http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9820010.Steve_Coogan_found_not_guilty_of_Hove_speeding_offence/?ref=mr are rather sceptical.
ReplyDeleteI liked Mr Coogan in "The parole officer".
ReplyDeleteMy home court deals with traffic as a so called 'gateway court' so we get several of these S172 prosecutions. Without having heard the full story I cannot say with any certainty what we would have decided in Mr C's case of course, but many such prosecutions do seem to be failing for one reason or another
ReplyDeleteUsually with the higher profile offenders, no doubt.
DeleteSec 172 doesn't breach your right against self-incrimination. You're not being asked to report 'who was committing an offence' you're being asked to report 'who was driving' Since driving is not an offence, by naming yourself, you're not incriminating yourself.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the Courts have ruled that, by accepting a licence and driving a car, you agree to the rules associated with driving (rather like one does with a game of football)
If you don't agree to name the driver if asked by the authorities, you don't have to drive.
You couldn't turn up to a football game and say to the Ref "I'll play, but I don't agree with the offside rule so I won't be abiding by it".
You don't have to drive at all; you don't even need to hold a licence to be the registered keeper.
DeleteAlso true - in which case you are definitely not at risk of incriminating yourself!!
DeleteSo perish all luvvies.
ReplyDeletePS: Abolish the licence fee
South London JP- academic of course as you would never have dealt with Mr C.
ReplyDeleteSadly true...grrrr :-)
DeleteClearly was the section 172 offence. My post on it is here
ReplyDeletehttp://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/finger-pointing.html
Without hearing all the evidence it is impossible to properly comment on the actual verdict. It looks to me as though he argued (successfully) the section 172(4) defence.
P.S. Where has the "culture eats strategy for breakfast" quote gone? Back to Ford Motor's War Room?
ReplyDeleteOf course there is the faintest possibility that everything he said was true.
ReplyDeleteI know the time scale makes this irrelevant but there are a couple of points I'm curious about. If the car is 'loaned out' to his friends on a pool basis, wouldn't a check on his insurance indicate if any such offences were being carried on that day? Also, as the suggestion that he was on the phone at the time has been introduced by Mr Coogan, then doesn't that, as well as the matter of insurance, become part of the defence which can be examined?
ReplyDeleteI dare say he has enough cash on hand to indemnify himself against third party risks and thus may not need insurance.
ReplyDelete