NIP farms

[Chris Wilson]

I am not sure if it still occurs, but I well remember students offering to take points for cash. They would say they were the driver for say £250, and any fine money, and appear in court. I was told about one such cash for points crook by a family member in the legal profession who apparently accepted £500 to appear in court and admit to a what he was told was a minor road accident, only for the rozzers to say he'd run two people over. He suddenly thought £500 was totally inadequate and started gabbing ..

It was in the local news media that certain cities have drivers now too well aware of how cash for crash scams operate, so the perpetrators are now moving into more rural areas. Hopefully if some farmers with the really big tractors see this occurring they will show them how to do a really proper (and messy) job.

 

[Surveyor]

In my case the car was being driven nearly every day by multiple people in the same day. It's a personal vehicle.

Why were multiple people driving the same car nearly every day?

The case was dismissed.

Though my case was made easier when the CPS solicitor started talking to me about another location and a different vehicle not connected to me. When he was asked to correct himself he didnt have any paperwork and withdrew the prosecution.

Not dismissed, withdrawn due to a prosecution error.

At court all 3 drivers (me included) showed clean licenses. So I'd no reason to lie i.e. to avoid points as I had 0 points.

Wanting to maintain a clean licence is a reason to lie.

 

[Chris Wilson]

The good thing about CPS solicitors, should you be unfortunate enough to be up against one, is most are appallingly sloppy, idle and inept. It's the reason the likes of Nick (Mr. Loophole) Freeman has such success getting his clients off. He openly admits he's nothing special, just ultra thorough in finding enough carelessness in the CPS evidence or NIP to show it to be illegal or of dubious accuracy. The CPS are, apparently, very obliging in that regard. Such thoroughness costs though...

 

[Semple]

In my case the car was being driven nearly every day by multiple people in the same day. It's a personal vehicle.

The case was on the 13th day in the past. So I've no idea who was driving the vehicle on that particular time of day on a main road between my town and the next town.

I asked to see the footage at the police station, which they let me see. It didn't show the driver.

The cops should have dropped the case at that point. Apparently some do. Yet they decided to take it to court.

At court all 3 drivers (me included) showed clean licenses. So I'd no reason to lie i.e. to avoid points as I had 0 points.

The case was dismissed.

Though my case was made easier when the CPS solicitor started talking to me about another location and a different vehicle not connected to me. When he was asked to correct himself he didnt have any paperwork and withdrew the prosecution.

A waste of time and money.

They should probably have only taken it to court if they had a way of identifying the person driving in the video. Though if they had, I'd have seen it at the police station and confirmed the identity.

I don't know if the law as changed since then, but from my understanding only business vehicles have to maintain a log of who was driving a company vehicle at what particular time of day.

I suspect yours is likely a rare occurrence rather than the norm. The clean driving licenses may well have gone in your favour too, as obviously not someone who's been prosecuted in X years.

 

[GGizmo]

Why were multiple people driving the same car nearly every day?


Not dismissed, withdrawn due to a prosecution error.


Wanting to maintain a clean licence is a reason to lie.

Do you work for the CPS?

Because its a family car and people use it.

It's innocent until proven guilty.

1. I took action to try and identify the driver by going to the police station to see their evidence.

2. It's not a reason to lie as there was only 3 points at stake. It would make no difference to any of the 3 potential drivers.

That was the case I put to the Judges. I was up before the CPS guy.

 

[Chris Wilson]

The judges, plural?? Jeez, he took it all the way to the Supreme Court, fair play....

I suspect you have just elevated some magistrates to a higher plane

 

[dowie]

It's in the Road Traffic Act. Why would it be against the law for the police to require the registered keeper to provide details of who was driving their vehicle?

Well, he kinda gave the reason why it might be in the tweet you quoted - AFAIK he's talking about the right against self-incrimination.

I believe it was taken seriously enough that this did get appealed as far as the ECHR though they've allowed it... I'm sure some lawyers or legal scholars can argue the toss over it.

I'd be curious if anyone knows how it is handled in the US where they seem to have strong constitutional protections against self-incrimination (the old "pleading the 5th" thing we see in courtroom dramas/films etc..) can you be compelled to state if you were driving or someone else was there? Presumably, if you can't then they must have some other default way of issuing a fine to the person who should have had ownership/control of the vehicle???

 

[Chris Wilson]

I think in most US states you aren't a registered keeper of a vehicle, per se, but rather of the registration plate which can be swapped between vehicles, I too am interested in knowing this.

Possibly like my trade plates that are registered to me, but can be used on any vehicle.

 

[TheVoice]

Well, he kinda gave the reason why it might be in the tweet you quoted - AFAIK he's talking about the right against self-incrimination.

I didn't quote a tweet, and like I said, it's well-established within the RTA already.

 

[dowie]

I didn't quote a tweet, and like I said, it's well-established within the RTA already.

Sorry I meant post not tweet... that it's well established in the RTA isn't particularly relevant to the point the other guy was making, something can be established in legislation at the national level and then later be challenged the ECHR if it can be argued that it breaches some fundamental right. It wasn't some completely spurious suggestion as it did get all the way there as a serious legal challenge and you can kinda see why it might be argued that id does break that principle.

I'd still be interested if anyone reading knows how this is handled in the US, sometimes they have much stronger interpretations of these sorts of rights (such as is the case with freedom of speech).