Some of the most common trials to face JPs nowadays are the Section 172 cases that arise from the ubiquitous speed cameras. Some people (such as Christopher Huhne) simply lie about who was driving the speeding vehicle, and others claim not to know the ID of the driver, but the consequences of being caught can be nasty. These cases tend to be listed in just a few courts, which can be pretty tiresome for the bench members. As it happens these cases are a rarity in my court, so this week the S172 that appeared on my list was the first that I have ever done, in about 30 years on the bench. The evidence was pretty thin, and we acquitted. The clerk told us later that these cases often fail to stick.
They are a tidy source of revenue for the various loophole specialists in the legal profession, as many people will cough up a hefty sum to keep their driving licence.
The state failing to meet it's burden of proof is hardly a loophole.
ReplyDeletePerhaps your closing could have been;
They are a tidy source of revenue for the state's coffers, who will prosecute many deficient cases knowing few can afford an adequate defence. The disparity in outcome between those who can afford representation and those who cannot shows that we should cling to the last vestiges of our legal aid system lest the courts slip further towards being a robust adversarial system for the rich and a rubber stamp for the poor.
That said, the consequences of driving offences can be horrific and those who wilfully commit driving offences should be punished, as they sin against all of society.
I have sat on one S172 case. The registered keeper was a gentleman who had just retired, bought a new car and gone on holiday leaving his car at the disposal of his two children and their spouses.
ReplyDeleteThe car was observed by the police to be speeding quite close to his home. Any one of the four could have been the driver, the registered keeper was away for a month so was outside the time limit by the time he returned. He asked the police for the photograph but this did not show the driver, so it came to trial.
We decided that he had exercised due diligence in his efforts to identify who had been driving so acquitted him.
I sat on plenty of these before they were (thankfully) moved elsewhere. Typically, the defendant would claim not to have received the Notice of Intended Prosecution or the reminder letter. Funnily enough, the Summons normally made it through the post.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few acquittals, generally when there was convincing evidence of ongoing issues with the Post Office, but most defendants were convicted. Occasionally cases arose like Swansong's above, or with evidence of a reply having been sent, but these were few and far between.
I know people who knowingly speed wearing a basketball cap and dark glasses, in France you can refuse to identify the driver if it is a relative... an amazing number of twin brothers exist in France.
ReplyDeleteIn Switzerland no such problem, any traffic offence is attributed to the cars owner (or company CEO if its a company car), unless proven otherwise.
Are you endorsing a system in which a person has to prove their innocence?
DeleteIn Switzerland there is no points system, and the penalty for speeding is normally just a fine. If you weren't driving you can just give the bill to whoever was, it's no big deal.
DeleteThere is another problem with s172 cases and that involves company vehicles. You can't give a company points! I sat on one such case about 5 years ago and I remembered the company's name. Well I never - about a year later the same company came before the court for the same offence and I was chairing. They had also hired the same top notch lawyer to represent them. He recognised me and I him. In a funny sort of way we dispensed with the preliminaries, found the company guilty as they had made no effort to establish who was driving, and virtually said as much. We did know it was the boss's Roller and no one else was allowed to touch it! Company was rewarded with a substantial fine plus costs and VS to remind them of their duty to society. But that was all we could do and it illustrates that bosses like this can flout the law and will pay any amount not to get points.
ReplyDeleteYou have the power to impose points on one or more directors in that situation.
DeleteOf course, if your statement about who had access to the vehicle was true CPS could have prosecuted the speeding to, a signed s172 request is not the only way to prove driver identity.
Hmph ! Speed cameras are also a lucrative source of cash for the organisations that run the speed awareness courses. Just who are these shadowy organisations ? I think we should be told.
ReplyDelete"Just who are these shadowy organisations?"
ReplyDeleteI think you will find that the AA is one.
https://www.ttc-uk.com/aboutus/
ReplyDeleteI attended a speed awareness course a couple of years ago - quite a humiliating and pointless exercise in my case, as I am already a very careful and "sedate" driver. The course taught me nothing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, being caught in the first place taught me that I had, on one occasion at least, lost focus on my driving and allowed my speed to creep to 37 in a 30mph limit. My own conscience took over at that point - the course itself had little to contribute...
Ex-everything
ReplyDeleteAs an ex-cop I am a fan of these courses. Persistent careless or dangerous drivers do tend to get picked up, and attract penalties – as they should. However these courses offer a smack on the wrist that wont jeopardise a career or job, as a ‘proper’ conviction may. In that sense they are humane.
I had one case where a driver had suffered a minor but chronic injury from a collision they had caused – the other party was unharmed, and insurance dealt with the rest. Although they were at fault, I was more than happy to add ‘suitable for the driver improvement scheme’ in the comments section of the case, which was taken heed of. It seemed a far kinder outcome, and far fairer than a prosecution.
From anecdotal experience, I have had three friends whom have modified their driving after these courses. And I think that is good too. I understand Martin’s sentiments: that they cannot replace the mortifying feelings if you made a genuine mistake; however, far better this course than points for a mistake.
It's interesting to hear of another police officer doing pretty much as the one who dealt with an accident I was in some time ago. My car was stationary, in a queue of stopped cars and was hit from behind by a car driven at speed (impact speed was estimated by the police to be 40 mph, with no braking marks on the road). I wasn't hurt, but my car was written off (around £11,500 of damage IIRC). The driver of the other car wasn't badly hurt, which was a miracle, she just had air bag abrasions and was deeply shocked. She admitted being at fault at the scene (she'd been distracted and not seen the stopped cars ahead) and the police officer asked me if I felt she should be prosecuted.
DeleteIt was clear that the other driver was going to suffer a heavy financial penalty (she was young, with only third party insurance and her car was written off). It was also clear that she had learned a salutary lesson and was intrinsically honest - she immediately admitted that she had been very careless. I told the police officer that my view was that she'd suffered enough. He said that he felt the same and was going to suggest that her penalty be a driver improvement course, which I thought was a wise course of action.
Given that the police come in for a lot of criticism from time to time, I was pleased to see that they were still allowed to apply common sense and avoid the cost of a prosecution when it was clear that society wouldn't benefit from one.
I strongly suspect that, for some, being given a second chance by being sent on one of these courses is far more likely to result in them being less likely to drive carelessly in future.
"as I am already a very careful and "sedate" driver." Not if you are doing 37 in a 30 limit area.
ReplyDeleteFour years ago I got confused and exceeded the speed limit while driving an unfamiliar route on the way to a friend's funeral.
ReplyDeleteI was offered a speed awareness course and even after all this time I remember what it taught me and I analyse my driving awareness every journey I make.
Sorry if this sounds pompous!
Actually, I constantly have m grandfather style driving mocked by my friends. This 37 in a 30 was, I believe, a unique experience - and one born of my being distracted as I came down a large hill.
ReplyDeleteIs it right that I should be "dealt with"? Yes. My point is that mere fact of being caught led to my evaluating what had happened and learning lessons. The course didn't contribute very much.
I know one or two people who've been on these courses and they all thought they were useful. I think prevention of future offences in this case is better than punishment. Maybe you're the exception Martin.
DeleteMy point is that most of what was available on the course was common sense. What I needed, and received simply by the grace of a speed camera, was the message "Hey - you slipped up there - pay more attention".
DeleteI don't have any problem with being caught, or indeed attending the course if they help some people - just pointing out it wasn't a lot of help to me.
You're probably more self-aware than most. :)
DeleteAs an electrical engineer, I always had to issue a test certificate for any equipment that we set up or checked, and as a minimum a label would be stuck on the equipment giving the date of test and when the next test was due.
ReplyDeleteDoes a motorist have the right to ask for a valid test certificate for the speed camera to be produced for the date in question?
I think you can ask for valid test certificates, however, over the years (and cases), the Police and Safer Roads Partnership (or whatever they are called locally) have had their fingers burnt on this question, and have tightened up and set proper procedures in place for daily, weekly, monthly and annually testing and certificates.
DeleteYou can't go on a fishing trip. The default position is a Home Office approved device is operating correctly unless you can cast doubt on that. "I don't think I was speeding but the machine says I was" won't do that.
DeleteI worked for many years in the Avionics business and believe me, the default position above wouldn't be accepted there. No calibration certificate = results not accepted.
DeleteYou can only impose points on the licence of a director of the company if the CPS prosecute the director - which they can but rarely if ever do. Otherwise all you can do is find the company which has, as a judge said in the eighteenth century, no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked - today we could add no licence to be endorsed.
ReplyDeleteI did one of these last year where the defendant insisted that he had sent the form back recorded delivery and it had been returned to him marked "not known at this address". It sounded unlikely until he produced an A4 envelope, sealed down, addressed to the correct address, with all the outward indicia of having been sent r/d in due time and returned as he said. He wanted me to open it so that it could not be said that he had tampered with the content. I told him to show it to the the prosecutor first and then hand it to me unopened. The legal adviser thought he should open it but blow that, if anybody was going to play Marvo the Magician in my court it was me.
And sure enough, out of the envelope came the form duly signed and dated and nominating himself. The prosecutor was puzzled but agreed that he had not failed to nominate and dropped the charge. He told us later that the man was very lucky; he was on nine points already and would have been taking the bus home!
The other cases from the same day was more sombre. The defendant insisted that she had sent the form back by r/d and had a slip from the Post Office to prove it. The prosecutor asked for sight of it; dropped the charge; but retained the slip because as he said the Met would want to find out what had gone wrong. Later he explained this case too. Some drivers put a blank sheet of paper in an envelope and send it off r/d. The Met now records them by r/d number and prosecute for perverting the course of justice. This woman later got four months immediate.
In New York, if the only evidence of a traffic offense is from a camera, then the only consequence available is a fine; as the identity of the person proceeding through the red light or such cannot be established, there are no points against the owner's driver's license.
ReplyDeleteThe point many Mags seem to miss (or ignore) is that the the NIP and Reminder is sent by first class post and therefore "deemed served". The onus then shifts to the Defendant and s/he has to show whether "reasonably practicable".
ReplyDelete"I never got it" seems to get many Defendants off the hook.
The test isn't "I can't be sure s/he received it".
It's, "is there a system in place".
I find it amazing how many businesses conveniently forget to bring their post logs - or say that their business keeps no track of incoming or outgoing post.