alter_ego

A friend (honestly!) got flashed on the A8 roadworks Eastbound at Bargeddie / Coatbridge.

The owner has received a rather strange (IMHO) letter from Strathclyde Police.

The letter says they have evidence etc. and asks him to tell them who was driving.

It looks strange to me because;
There is no mention of a time limit for replying (ISTR it is 28 days).
There is no 'threat' that it is an offence not to.
It does not cite any legislation.

Unfortunately I'm posting this from memory, so can't remember the exact wording.

Does anyone know if this is normal?

I believe some people in England have got off by alleging that offering a fixed penalty (which is lower than the fine would be) rather than going to court is "demanding money with menaces" (extortion to you and me). Is this perhaps a dodge by Strahclyde Police to avoid this. I.e. if you respond, you are doing it voluntarily. (They used to use a similar dodge for random breath tests. I.e. they 'asked you' to give the sample and you 'volunteered'. Of course people thought that they were being "required" to do so, so gave a sample. However by you "volunteering", the police were not then "requiring" you to do so without legal authority. ISTR the courts backed the Police in this hocus pocus.)

Also, there is a loophole in England whereby if you don't sign this form, it cannot be admitted as evidence to prosecute the driver; does anyone know if this loophole applies in Scotland?

TIA

GLIM

Hi, in answer to your question the legislation is in terms of sect 172 of the road traffic act 1988.

This is a legal requirement for the owner/ registered keeper to inform the police who was driving at the material time.

One of the only instances whereby you, are sometimes forced to incriminate yourself.(that is if you were the driver) Hence the big right to silence debate in the law courts last year where they upheld the legislation as being fair.

There is no benefit from not signing the form, this might only be viewed as being obstructive i think.

The best thing to do if your mate has any doubts is to contact the Camera enforcement unit at the Road Policing Unit Helen Street Glasgow.

Hope this helps you,

Glim.

alter_ego

Thanks Glim but,

Hi, in answer to your question the legislation is in terms of sect 172 of the road traffic act 1988.
I was not doubting that there was such legislation, my point was that the letter didn't cite any legislation. Every leter / threat that I have had in the past has cited the relevent legislation (albeit none was for a speed camera).

This is a legal requirement for the owner/ registered keeper to inform the police who was driving at the material time.
But not to sign the form (in England / Wales anyway), thus rendering it inadmissable as evidence. Hence my question "if this loophole applies in Scotland?".

Hence the big right to silence debate in the law courts last year where they upheld the legislation as being fair.
<Pedant mode on>
No they didn't, they said that as it was for the "greater public good" the legislation didn't fall foul of the Human Rights Act; a far cry from saying it was fair. <Pedant mode off.>

There is no benefit from not signing the form, this might only be viewed as being obstructive i think.
By the police, no doubt; but not by the courts. (See above link).
Strathclyde Police's cavalier attitude to the law is well known (See example about random breath tests in my original post).

The best thing to do if your mate has any doubts is to contact the Camera enforcement unit at the Road Policing Unit Helen Street Glasgow.
I think I'll pass on that one. I don't think they're very likely to admit that it's a try on (if it is), do you?

A_E