Section 164(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that:

"a person driving a motor vehicle on a road must, on being required by a
constable, produce his licence for examination, so as to enable the
constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence,
the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued"

A person who does not produce the licence at that time is therefore in
contravention of section 164(1).

Section 164(8) states that:

"In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a
licence it shall be a defence for him to show that within 7 days after the
production of his licence was required, he produced it in person at a
police station that was specified by him at the time its production was
required."

So Sect 164(1) states that it must be produced at the time. That
in anyone's eyes is a requirement to carry it. The section goes on to say
that a driver will not be guilty of failure to carry it if he has complied
with the 7 day production, but that is entirely different from saying that
there is no requirement to carry it.

The driver is committing an offence. If he does nothing about it, he will
be convicted of that offence, at the date and time the requirement was made.
If the driver takes some later action in terms of a different sub section,
the original offence will not be pursued.

 

John Surely producers will become a thing of the past soon if you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and can prove who you are (probably with your photo card driving license), as doesn't the new road tax computer show details of whether the car is insured and mot'd as well and is this system used by the police when they run a vehicle check on you?? as the current system of having to take your documents to a police station can be quite inconvienient, as happened to me once, i was given a producer and alotted my local police station to report to, unfortunately i did not know it was only a part time station and was only open 8-10 and 2-4 during the day and only 8-10 on a saturday and as i am off to work by 6am and not back till at least 6pm couldn't get in, so i went to the main police station some 5 miles away to do it but had to argue with the civilian deskperson to accept it as it wasn't the alloted station and was treated like a liar by her when i said i couldn't get to the allotted station during its limited opening hours.

 

I dont expect them to be a thing of the past, as you can tax a car with as little as one months MOT and insurance, so it isnt proof you are insured or in an MOT'd car at the time of being stopped.

The whole system needs revamping with a country wide 3rd party cover and road tax system based on fuel purchase, if you want fully comp then you pay aditional funds for that. The current system is too open to abuse. But thats another subject.

 

Overnight John??

Surely that would have taken up more tax payers money

Saying that, woudnt have had to worry about the washing up after breakfast...

J

 

it would have been worth it to make a point.

 

Think the point was pretty well made without a having to do a sleepover

J

 

good. Just think of the friends you could have made and missed out on though.

 

John & Jay-bee

MAYBE IF WE CAN GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF MY THREAD PLEASE.

And it was about my perception of the punishment given to this driver in comparison to punishment or lack of punishment given to what i percieve as more serious cases.

 

the guy took the ****. He refused to pay a small fine on principle. That doesnt wash with the law, it is contempt which is a very serious offence you will go to prison for.

He was stupid and got what was expected. You have to know when to back down when the law is concerned, you wont win using those methods.

 

Yes i agree he took the p##s and he knew he was going to get some form of punishment but the thing that makes my blood boil is the fact that much more serious crimes/criminals are let off, take for example the heroin addicted burglar who breaks into houses and steals thousands of pounds worth of stuff, brings heartache to many people, wastes considerable police & forensic time, costs the taxpayer and insurance companies thousands of pounds, comes before the judge/magistrate is thanked for admitting to commiting 15-20 more burgularies (so he can't be prosecuted for them at a later time, and clears up a load of unsovled burgularies for the police) and is told i wont send you to prison if you go to rehab/detox because it wasn't your fault it was because your on drugs, then what happens a couple of weeks latter you see the same name in the paper cause he's been caught again.

 

Sorry S Page, I was in your corner (so to speak) until John waded in with his size 9s and started his one man crusaded to get me to do a sleepover at the nick coz I forgot to produce my docs a few yrs ago ( not avin a dig john m8 ) to make some new friends (which, may I point out, I dont need to do, I already have 4 imaginary friends )

I totally agree that if you break the law you should expect punishment BUT I believe that the punishment should be relative to the actual implications of the crime committed but also in line with punishment that is currently being dished out (or more likey NOT being dished out) for more "serious" crimes such as drug dealing, burglary etc

 

Jay-bee

You were locked up for failing to appear at court. Everyone at court is usually cuffed as some do try to run - and yes you would have been kept in all weekend if required. We can't exactly give you bail if you have failed to appear previously.

 

Felix

Fair comment, but there is a reason why i didnt turn up in court the first time round, because I didnt even know I had to be in court. During the 12 month period in question, I moved house 4 times (lived with mates etc) and I never received the notification.
If I had of known, I certainly would have turned up as I had nothing to be hide or be worried about because I was insured, the car was MOT'd and I had a vaild driving license. All I was saying was if they had just asked a couple of questions before locking me up it could have been sorted out much faster and without locking me up
It just seems a bit extreme that I could have been locked up for 4 days and only spent 5 minutes infront a magistrate to tell them I was insured etc and could prove it to be told, "..ok, is two weeks long enough for you to get your documentation in to us?.."
At the end of the day it was years ago and I can look back on it as an experience, one that I dont want to repeat



[Edited by Jay_bee - 1/15/2004 2:34:23 PM]

 

So someone who does turn up at court of their own free will is cuffed cos they pose a risk of doing a runner - M A D N E S S

If theyve failed to appear before then fair enough!

 

Exactly

Fair enough I didnt turn up when I should have done but I didnt know I was supposed to be there!!! And, as soon as I found out there was a warrant out, I went straight to the police station to sort it out.

[Edited by Jay_bee - 1/15/2004 2:38:03 PM]

 

At the end of the day, this thread wasnt about me or what happened.

I was trying to second what S Page was pointing out, not about wether you should be punished or not for breaking the law, I think we're all agreed on that. But its the level of punishment/treatment for the actual crime committed that needs to be questioned

J

[Edited by Jay_bee - 1/15/2004 2:43:27 PM]

 

Scooby

If someone has failed to appear they have failed to attend court and will be arrested for that warrant. Group 4 will take them from the police station to the court and it is their policy to handcuff everyone.

To get back to the original question - yes the judicial system does need a good shake up when it comes to punishments etc.

 

a 4yr old girl was taken from a playground and raped by an asylum seeker round here.

guess how long he served?

nothing.
new place to live and 24hr protection.

 

What i should have mentioned at the start of this topic was that the bloke is also 62 years old, so its not like its some youngster racking up offences (not meaning that all youngsters are bad) that is refusing to pay, this was his first offence in 40 odd years of driving.

 

Mr Felstead, sir. Not having a go,like, but as you are an upstanding and law abiding citizen (power to the people etc..) who takes his responsibilities seriously, have you ever forgotten that that motorway is actually only 70 mph limit and not the 75 that you were travelling at....hypothetically, of course.

 

Jesus JF you really need a ****.

 

ROFLMFAO sorry Jon...