Harry_Boy

Taken from today's 4Car website.....

"A loophole for avoiding conviction after getting snapped by a speed camera looks like it has been closed. During the past few years, some drivers have avoided convictions by returning an unsigned 'Section 172' form - which asks the car's keeper to identify who was driving when a speeding car was photographed. These forms have proven inadmissible as evidence without a signature.

But in a High Court appeal yesterday, Idris Francis from West Meon, near Petersfield, Hampshire, had a conviction for failing to sign this notice upheld. Mr Francis was caught speeding in March last year, on the A325. But when the case came to court, he could not be convicted of speeding because he had not signed the form identifying himself as the driver. Magistrates instead fined him £60 with £364 costs for failing to identify the driver.

At the time of the original conviction, it was considered that Mr Francis' appeal would become a test case, and several thousand drivers around the country are said to have been waiting on this verdict. The loophole has known for some time and it seems that the issue has now been clarified, although not without expense: Mr Francis is thought to have paid around £8,000 in legal fees."

SirFozzalot

still no points though!

dosenöffner

But £8,500 out of pocket as a result. Is that really worth a couple points if you're not losing your liscense. At least his insurance won't go up £200 a year.

hawkeye

ahhh but NEXT time he could represent himself and save the £8000 legal costs

Rog Ford

If he's done for failing to identify the driver, doesn't he get the points anyway?

greasemonkey

Yes, he did get three points for failing to identify.

Clive the Brave

ok, peeps.

Here's a great loop hole to get your heads around.

I was down by Stone Henge, showing the girlfriend at the time around.
Turns out doing 83 in a 60 in not the done thing.

So a nice letter from the Gfriend stating that she was driving and that she was only visiting from the USA got me out of the ticket.
No hasstle at all from that.

Points = 0
cost = 1st class stamp, dinner for the girlie :>)))))))))))))

Conclusion::
No points, dumpped the girlie and the whole thing cost me a lot less than £8,500 grand

WHAT A PLONKER!!!!!!!!!!!!

greasemonkey

So from this can we deduce that the back of your car was photographed, or that you have long hair and regularly wear make-up?

Chris L

This guy still has an outstanding case in the European Court don't forget. He is contesting whether it is a breach of his human rights to have to sign a document that effectively incriminates himself. So there is hope yet for chaos if he wins

greasemonkey

Not sure chaos is anything to hope for, you obviously haven't bumped into Scoobynet's version yet?!

Not sure he's confirmed yet whether he's going to take it to the ECHR. As you say, there's plenty of potential there for red faces on the Government side, let's hope he's got the ***** to carry it through.

Harry_Boy

And the pockets....

DJ WATTS

Can you explain this process a little more to me?

I have had a friend do the same and they got away with it.

What processes did you do to prove you were not driving and what if they tried to get in touch with her and ask her?
Did you give correct contact details for the USA incase they need to speak to her?

More details please.

GialloEvoII

and did they not ask to see insurance to back up that she was infact named on the policy. If not you could incriminate yourself for aiding and abeting an uninsured driver.

mart360

And tb will be issuing a statement to the world that we have now fundamentally changed our Law and ethos on which British justice is based.


So we are now guilty until proved innocent !!!!!



makes you laugh, cry paedo / asylum and human rights jumps through barrels to give compo and legal aid,, yet joe public is public enemy number one!!!

its time tb was voted out, a bloody nose works wonders in focusing ones prioritys,,,

NB dont give the usual tory crap look what they did replys,, the issue here is that this government needs to be shown that the motorist has had enough
and because of the crap way they treat us ,, camera partnerships / convictions on partial evidence and you will be voted out at the next election..

mart

lightning101

Why do you get the line "you have the right to remain silent" when basically you can be fined / imprisoned for doing so ? e.g. Judge "Who was driving the car ?", you don't answer, using you right to remain silent, and judge does you for witholding evidence.

Its seems in this so called "free world", you are free to do as you are told.