Tag Archive for "Failing to disclose drivers details defence." - Forrest Williams

Failing to Disclose Drivers Details

Posted on: September 27th, 2011 by motoringlawyers

I came across a website this week that frankly scared me.

A client has been charged with failing to disclose the drivers details following a speeding allegation.

He sent me this from a website run by a non solicitor –

Take the matter to court. Plead not guilty. The prosecution will outline its case and state that contrary to Section so and so of the Road Traffic Act 1988 you failed to supply such information etc. etc. After they have confirmed with their witness that you did not complete the form they will rest their case. You defence is simple. You state that supplying the required information is tantamount to a confession, and you are not obliged to confess to anything under the rule of Self incrimination. Threatening you with penalties if you do not confess is coercion and is therefore illegal. You can then rest your defence. If you are convicted of failing to supply the information inform the court you intend to appeal.

I wouldn’t bother with a solicitor, they will only cost you money.

This is so wrong and dangerous. It is talking about a situation that was changed over 5 years ago. It was thought for a very short period of time that you could refuse to give your name in response to a request attached to a Notice of Intended Prosecution. This was cleared up by the court and it is now law that if you do not give the name of the driver without reasonable cause (i.e. you do not know and cannot find out who was driving) then you are guilty of an offence of failing to disclose. This carries 6 points not the 3 for speeding.

I don’t know how many drivers have followed this advice and got themselves into a big mess.

Let me make it clear. The words above in red are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and dangerous. They highlight why you should not trust non lawyers to give legal advice, it’s like letting your mate down the pub operate on your kidneys.

For proper legal advice call us anytime on 01623 397200

Speed ticket loophole for notice of intended prosecutions caught in postal strike

Posted on: November 2nd, 2009 by motoringlawyers

A recent court case – Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside, has effectively changed the law in relation to notice of intended prosecutions.The law is that for most motoring offences, including speeding, the motorist should be warned that he or she is going to be prosecuted. This warning, called a notice of intended prosecution must arrive within 14 days of the offence.

Until last week provided that the notice was sent in time for it to NORMALLY arrive within 14 days that was enough. So if the police post a notice on 8th June in relation to a speeding offence that happened on 1st June then that would count as good notice, even if it arrived on 16th June.

The recent case, which arose out of the last round of postal strikes has now changed the law. If the motorist can show that the notice arrived after the 14 day period then the police are out of time and cannot prosecute the driver for speeding.

The Judge, Lord Justice Elias said “This case raises an issue of some topicality given the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest,”

“I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.

“The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.”

No doubt specialist motoring solicitors will receive many calls relating to this. The advice is that you will need to return the Notice of intended prosecution saying you were the driver but that it was received out of time. You will then need to be able to convince the court at a later date that it arrived late.

This may make a huge difference to the way the police deal with Notice of intended prosecutions. Only last week I had a case where someone had been asked to tell the police who was driving. the problem was that the first Notice of intended prosecution did not arrive so she was sent a reminder and was then asked to remember who was driving some 6 weeks earlier. A simple recorded delivery would have prevented this problem.

Will the police now be forced to use recorded delivery?

Motoring Advice Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Failing to disclose drivers details defence.’

Failing to Disclose Drivers Details

Speed ticket loophole for notice of intended prosecutions caught in postal strike

Forrest Williams TV