Video evidence of crime not enough proof to prosecute..

bignev72 · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:48

FutileBreadMachine said:
As I understood it, it was a rental car, and there were 2 people in the car. If the police cannot prove which one of them was driving, then they can't convict them (I haven't watched the video, but I assume it doesn't show the face of the driver, so they cannot prove who it was).

You're correct. It does state this in the article as well :rolleyes:

Thekwango · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:48

tom_e said:
Again how can you be sure they were both in the car? Everyone seems to be assuming that they both know exactly what the other is up to at all times or they're joined at the hip.

so assuming they were both in the car - as it seems even if they both admit being in the car - if both deny driving then the law can't do anything about it?

tom_e · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:50

Thekwango said:
so assuming they were both in the car - as it seems even if they both admit being in the car - if both deny driving then the law can't do anything about it?

Well apparently they can do enie meanie miny mo and slap one of them with a fine and points.

shorttricky · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:50

Thekwango said:
they should both be charged with the crime if both are denying any wrong doing. It is rather simple is it not, if you are the innocent party you will tell the police that the other person was driving.

To be fair, in your example they have done that already - if one says they weren't driving then the other must have been. Of course, if you insist that the innocent party explicitly has to say "they were driving", then all the guilty party has to do is say the same and you're back to square one.

Thekwango said:
though my post was actually just a jovial comment pointing out how to potentially get away with a crime if this how the law currently stands.

But missed the point about why it stands that way

cheesyboy · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:50

Thekwango said:
so assuming they were both in the car - as it seems even if they both admit being in the car - if both deny driving then the law can't do anything about it?

You need enough evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' to convict someone. If there's no evidence to point at one or other, then you can't convict.

Davey_Pitch · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:52

Thekwango said:
so assuming they were both in the car - as it seems even if they both admit being in the car - if both deny driving then the law can't do anything about it?

If both of them admit being in the car but deny they were driving there is more the police could do I'm sure. They could charge them with failure to report a crime, leaving the scene of an accident, and probably more. The problem comes from the fact that as they've admitted or denied nothing, the law doesn't allow for the assumption that both of them were in the car.

As shameful as it is, the police have done the only thing they can given the evidence at hand. I just hope the cyclist makes a full recovery.

Haggisman · 3 Feb 2016 at 15:52

tom_e said:
Again how can you be sure they were both in the car? Everyone seems to be assuming that they both know exactly what the other is up to at all times or they're joined at the hip.

IMO in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the "keeper" of the vehicle should be held responsible. Normally this would obviously be the Registered Keeper, however in this case it should be whoever signed the rental agreement.

cheesyboy said:
You need enough evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' to convict someone. If there's no evidence to point at one or other, then you can't convict.

Ergo, if you and a mate run someone over whilst wearing balaclavas, then the worst that will happen is you'll get points and a small fine.

cheesyboy · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:00

Haggisman said:
IMO in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the "keeper" of the vehicle should be held responsible. Normally this would obviously be the Registered Keeper, however in this case it should be whoever signed the rental agreement.

Can't imagine how that legislation could ever lead to gross miscarriages of justice...

Haggisman said:
Ergo, if you and a mate run someone over whilst wearing balaclavas, then the worst that will happen is you'll get points and a small fine.

They could both be convicted of contempt of court, since they aren't exempted from being compelled to give evidence (not being married)

Thekwango · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:00

Davey_Pitch said:
If both of them admit being in the car but deny they were driving there is more the police could do I'm sure. They could charge them with failure to report a crime, leaving the scene of an accident, and probably more. The problem comes from the fact that as they've admitted or denied nothing, the law doesn't allow for the assumption that both of them were in the car.

As shameful as it is, the police have done the only thing they can given the evidence at hand. I just hope the cyclist makes a full recovery.

but neither can be charged with murder/manslaughter?

Haggisman said:
Ergo, if you and a mate run someone over whilst wearing balaclavas, then the worst that will happen is you'll get points and a small fine.

seems so......I may have a busy weekend ahead of me....now who can I trust to be my passenger :eek:

dowie · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:02

Davey_Pitch said:
If both of them admit being in the car but deny they were driving there is more the police could do I'm sure. They could charge them with failure to report a crime, leaving the scene of an accident, and probably more. The problem comes from the fact that as they've admitted or denied nothing, the law doesn't allow for the assumption that both of them were in the car.

As shameful as it is, the police have done the only thing they can given the evidence at hand. I just hope the cyclist makes a full recovery.

it certainly does seem to reinforce the point that if you're ever in trouble with the police or even potentially associated say absolutely nothing to them and get a solicitor

Davey_Pitch · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:13

Thekwango said:
but neither can be charged with murder/manslaughter?

No, not without proof that one of them was actually driving. As both have admitted nothing, the police can't even be sure who was in the car, let alone who was driving it.

I think if this happened in America it would be easier to deal with. I don't know if we have something similar to their obstruction of justice law, where both of them could be charged simply for not answering the question. Of course, they could counter that by both of them saying it was them driving, and you instantly create reasonable doubt.

It's a horrible situation, and I feel so sorry for the cyclist, but that's the way the law is sadly.

StriderX · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:14

Ban them both tbh, it's not a conviction but does the same job.

Davey_Pitch · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:15

dowie said:
it certainly does seem to reinforce the point that if you're ever in trouble with the police or even potentially associated say absolutely nothing to them and get a solicitor

Yup, it does seem that way sadly.

neoboy · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:16

Werewolf said:
Who was the driver?

That is the big question.

And the one the police are unable to work out given the evidence.

On the other hand they've applied the penalty that can be given to the keeper of the vehicle for not identifying the driver.

Well in this case I can only imagine keeper of the vehicle would be the person who had it hired at the time? Very fact that they fined and gave points to someone means that they had an idea of who had the vehicle in the possession at the time so frankly that person is perverting the course of justice by not providing details. While that person may still get away from the more serious charges of GBH or vehicular assault they would still have a nice piece of criminal record to remind them and employers of their character.

As it stands though failing to provide details is just an option for scumbags to get away with all kinds of serious vehicle offenses that only lands them small fines and points.

Dis86 · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:20

tom_e said:
The car could have been splattered with blood but apparently that still wouldn't make a difference as no one knows who was driving.

You're missing the other points from my post.

tom_e · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:22

Dis86 said:
You're missing the other points from my post.

I imagine it would have gone back to the hire company and whoever signed the lease will be who they put the damage down to, again this does not prove who was driving at the time.

Davey_Pitch · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:23

neoboy said:
Well in this case I can only imagine keeper of the vehicle would be the person who had it hired at the time? Very fact that they fined and gave points to someone means that they had an idea of who had the vehicle in the possession at the time so frankly that person is perverting the course of justice by not providing details.

The fact that someone is the registered keeper is absolutely no indicator of who was driving. Two people were registered and insured to drive the car. Logically it could have been either one of them as much as the other. The police requested details, the man who hired the car failed to provide them, and he was fined for doing so.

I don't agree with it, but that's how our law works at the moment.

Thekwango · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:24

Davey_Pitch said:
No, not without proof that one of them was actually driving. As both have admitted nothing, the police can't even be sure who was in the car, let alone who was driving it.

I think if this happened in America it would be easier to deal with. I don't know if we have something similar to their obstruction of justice law, where both of them could be charged simply for not answering the question. Of course, they could counter that by both of them saying it was them driving, and you instantly create reasonable doubt.

It's a horrible situation, and I feel so sorry for the cyclist, but that's the way the law is sadly.

yea it really does just seem wrong. registered keeper in this instance should be charged with perverting the course of justice, given that it seems they haven't replied to the request asking who was driving.

you do got to feel for the cyclist - 2 scum buckets have basically just gotten away with assault (I know only one was driving - but other didn't provide the details requested either, so equally scummy imo)

Dis86 · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:26

tom_e said:
I imagine it would have gone back to the hire company and whoever signed the lease will be who they put the damage down to, again this does not prove who was driving at the time.

Yeah but they would have had to confirm who the driver was when the damage occurred.

Davey_Pitch · 3 Feb 2016 at 16:27

Thekwango said:
yea it really does just seem wrong. registered keeper in this instance should be charged with perverting the course of justice, given that it seems they haven't replied to the request asking who was driving.

you do got to feel for the cyclist - 2 scum buckets have basically just gotten away with assault (I know only one was driving - but other didn't provide the details requested either, so equally scummy imo)

I completely agree with both points. I don't know our legal system well enough to understand why the registered keeper can't be charged with perverting the cause of justice. I can only assume there is a reason, otherwise you have to imagine the police would do it to try and get the info out of him.