Did they not offer driver speed awareness training on the NIP, if you take this you will avoid the points?..
[quote=Mr Pesky]What’s the point, if you know who was driving, & you’ve no intention of perjuring yourself?
Really don’t want to discuss this further on a public forum, mate.
[/quote]
Ok yes my later point accepted but still worth questioning, it’s your right…and if there is a way out like using the 14 day rule or some misinterpritation in the images then take it.
Only if you’re marginally over the speed limit… 77 in a 60 may not apply 
Sell em yer Imax, so they get purfick images 
Fair point the, GF got offered it for 36 in a 30…
3D its the way forward…or backward lol
3 diffs???
Have to say I’m with johnnyfox on this. You have a right to ask for the photographs and - if it is genuinely not possible to make a ‘positive visual identification’ of the driver - then it is difficult to understand how a prosecution can proceed.
Ultimately the NIP serves only to be used for a driver to incriminate themselves (or another) and thus avoid the CPS from having to find and provide evidence.
These ‘administrative offences’ are the only ones where this is possible, ie. the right to remain silent isn’t an option.
Okay, let’s get real:
Exactly.
Para. 4 makes it quite clear that - in the event that the registered keeper is genuinely unable to make a positive identification of the driver - they cannot be found guilty of an offence.
Which is precisely why it is necessary to request sight of any supporting evidence in the form of photographs.
Get real - in practice, what do you think the Court would decide?
An Exige “keeper” genuinely not having any idea whatsover who could have been driving…ffs.
[color:#3333FF]This is what Section 172.-4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says:
“A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was”.
The key here is “with reasonable diligence”, and it is up to a court to decide whether or not the register keeper has shown reasonable diligence.
[/color]
[quote=Mr Pesky]Get real - in practice, what do you think the Court would decide?
An Exige “keeper” genuinely not having any idea whatsover who could have been driving…ffs. [/quote]
Doesn’t matter what car is involved. If ‘reasonable diligence’ is clearly shown then it will not get as far as Court.
I thought we were purely discussing the particular case in question, so “Exige” is relevent.
Also, it’s the Court who decides on the question of “reasonable diligence”, if that is contested.
The CPS will decide whether they have the necessary evidence to bring about a successful prosecution before they elect to take the case to Court.
If you have shown reasonable diligence and genuinely cannot identify the driver, then it will not proceed.
Clearly if any photographs make it possible to identify the driver then the logical course of action is to pay the fixed penalty and have the photo framed for posterity.
Based upon the “facts” already given by Moomin, are you suggesting he perjures himself? Unless I’m completely mistaken, he’s already admitted he’s the guilty party.
Requesting “photographic” evidence is just wasting time & money, & surely that time would be better spent by the Police/CPS pursuing the real scumbags in our society?
Apologies, Moomin, I was initially trying to help by suggesting you tell the truth, & deal with this in the least painful way.
I have twice requested a picture and twice got one back Rob. Because of the first picture and my reply I heard nothing more. The second was down to whether it was me or my brother driving his car on the same road and day to and from Costco…it was him! Both times I did not see a van. Administration is not without it’s mistakes so in my opinion it is always worth asking to see the picture rather than just giving up and signing the NIP. Usually the police post the callabration certs on there websites.
Bit of a difference between a works van, & an S1 Exige, Jonny, when it comes down to knowing who was driving it at the time. If you’re willing to take a chance with the potential consequences, of[color:#FF0000] stating[/color] that you don’t know who was driving, then that’s your choice.
Once again, let’s leave it there - we’re all mates after all.
Sorry, just a final thought about the case in question. Perhaps the 1st vehicle was checking speeds, & the 2nd checking/photographing the car/driver in detail. I don’t know the answer, just thinking aloud…after a few scoops!
Do they get upset if you ask for a photo ?
I’m assuming you haven’t already completed the NIP:
Most forces will send the pics on receipt of a polite letter; after all, it is in their best interests to do so. Not least as if they refuse to send them, then you can quite reasonably state it was their refusal that prevented you giving an identification.
Keep in mind, too, that the only photograph(s) they can use in evidence are the originals, ie. not selective crops, enlargements, etc. as these have (technically) been ‘tampered with’.