Gooner

At last, following an incident in October last year I have today attended The Magistrates Court and been found 'not guilty' of speeding and 'not guilty' of failing to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle alleged to have commited the offence.
As MD of the company I was issued with a summons for the two offences, and I am delighted that the system has been fair to me in this case.
'Not guilty' of speeding was a foregone conclusion, as the driver had not been named.
'Not guilty' of failing to provide the name and address of the driver was on the grounds that I was not able to do so, and had shown due diligence in trying to identify the driver.
Thank you to the 3 Magistrates for being fair and reasonable, for once the system has not persecuted the motorist!

[Edited by Gooner - 7/31/2003 7:27:21 PM]

sexy wrx69

nice one mate.

Turbohot

Congratulations !!!!!Hope it opens a floodgate to many other cases' judgments in future!YHM.

Turbohot

Give us a bit more details pls. coz you can't be emailed.Did you have a lawyer or,did you contest yourself?

Gooner

I was represented by a solicitor who was excellent. Where the driver of a vehicle cannot be identified, you should keep records of vehicle drivers, however, as we had not previously had any such incidents and there were a set of rules in place, albeit, they did not cover this particular situation, the Magistrates decided that I had shown due diligence in trying to identify the driver and therefore could not be found 'guilty' for the offence under section 172 of The Road Traffic Act (7)(b).

Turbohot

Was it in your Scoob?Which area?

Gooner

Yep, Beds.

Spoon

Why didn't you just ask your wife?