All posts by Robert Bimpson
Failure to provide the police with driver identity is an offence which carries six penalty points and a fine.
Section 170 will the Road Traffic Act provides that when the police send a notice of intended prosecution/written request for driver details, the recipient is obliged to identify the driver. Failure to do so is an offence.
Many people plead not guilty to failure to provide driver identity upon the basis that they did not receive the notice from the police and therefore could not be held responsible in law for the failure to provide driver details. Obviously the law cannot hold you responsible if you have not received the written request.
There has been a recent change in the law in relation to people who have not received the notice of intended prosecution due to a house move and they have not notified the DVLA of the change of address. This means that when a speed camera is activated or other motoring offence is committed the police look on the DVLA database for the registered keepers details. If the old address is on the system as the keeper of the car has not notified the DVLA of the change of address, the police will obviously write to the old address.
It has recently been held by the Divisional Court that if this happens, the person to whom the notice was sent to does not have a defence.
As part of due diligence the motorist should notify the DVLA of change of address. If there has been a failure to provide driver identity because the notice of intended prosecution from the police was not received and the keeper had not either placed a divert on his post, notified the DVLA of the change or put in place other reasonable provisions that would ensure they receive the police request, then they will be found guilty of failure to provide driver details.
Posted by: Robert Bimpson on August 6th, 2015 @ 7:43 PM
Tagged with: change of address, fail to provide driver details, fail to provide driver identity, notice of intended prosecution, speed camers, speeding, speeding offenses, speeding tickets, traffic offences, traffic prosecution
A motorist recently appeared before the Cambridge magistrates court charged with drink-driving.
She pleaded guilty. She was disqualified from driving for a period of three years.
This was a very unusual case with a strange outcome. The circumstances were that the woman's partner had left her and the vehicle and walked to a nearby pub. He had previously been the driver. The car was in an unsafe position on the road and the woman then decided to push the car a short distance to safety. The police arrived and she was found to be over the drink drive legal limit.
The woman was prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol and she pleaded guilty. This was a surprising decision. She did have an argument to suggest that she was not driving the vehicle. Ordinarily there would have to be a more significant aspect of control, such as braking and steering. I have represented a number of drivers prosecuted for drink-driving in similar situations and they avoid a driving disqualification.
At worst she may have been guilty of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. She would have a statutory defence to this if she could show that she had not driven the car whilst over the drink drive
limit and she had no intention to drive it until she was below the limit i.e. the next day.
This decision is worthy of an appeal to the Crown Court in my opinion.
It was alleged that the driver of a van drove at 60 mph in the centre lane of the motorway. Other vehicles had to brake and take evasive action in order to avoid colliding with a vehicle.
The motorist failed to attend court and was convicted, in his absence, of driving without due care and attention
. This is a classic illustration of where a motorist should have attended court in person. Whilst the offence of driving without due care and attention
may have been made out if it was true that a number of motorists had to swerve to avoid him, 5 points on the driving licence and a fine of £1000 for driving without due care and attention
in this type of case is harsh. It may well have been that the motorist was initially offered a fixed penalty
which would have amounted to 3 penalty points on the driving licence and a fine of £100.
We have seen a rapid increase in the number of clients approaching as for representation in relation to prosecutions for drug driving
Up to half of the motorists pulled over by police in some regions are failing drugs tests, figures show.
In South Yorkshire, about 56% of drivers who were given the Drugalyser
test were found to have taken illegal substances. In London the figure for people failing the drug test was as high as 45%.
The positive drug test rate reached 42% in Warwickshire, West Murcia and Dorset .
The most common drug detected was cannabis accounting for 8 in 10 positive results. This is because cannabis stays in the system far longer than most other illegal drugs. These figures come two months after the first roadside drug testing kits were introduced.
The new "drugalyser" kits enable officers to detect cannabis and cocaine instantly. The process could soon be extended to cover other legal and illegal drugs which will increase further the number of people prosecuted for drug driving. One theory is that many drivers have, up untill now, taken drugs instead of alcohol because these could not always be detected. Only 1 in 20 people stopped for drink-driving
fails a roadside breath test.
It is anticipated that the courts will take a particularly harsh stance in relation to anybody who fails the new drugalyser test and faces prosecution for drug driving.
More than 3000 fixed penalty speeding tickets
totalling £300,000 have been issued only M-60 motorway through the roadworks.
Motorists were caught out by average speed cameras on a 17 mile stretch of motorway which were activated in February. The speed cameras had been dormant for the previous five months as there had been an ongoing row about the legality of the cameras.
Since greater Manchester police activated the speed cameras which enforce the temporary 50 mile an hour speed limit, over 3000 fixed penalty notices
have been served. In one week, 995 motorists face a prosecution for speeding.
The 50 mile per hour average speed cameras were put in place in November 2014 on the M60 from Junction 8 at Stretford through to junction 20 on the M62 at Rochdale.
This speed camera system is part of the new smart motorway project which is due to be finalised by autumn 2017. This will introduce approximately 200 new electronic speed signs which will warn drivers of the changes in the mandatory speed limit, lane closures and incidents ahead.
« View all Blog Posts