Speeding fine over-turned

[El Cid 214]

Michael Howard, the former leader of the Conservative party, has been convicted of failing to say who was driving his car when it was caught breaking the speed limit in south-east London.

 

But today, his conviction has been over-turned, he is in the clear. His claim that got him off, was that he could not remember who was driving.

 

Not sure if they believe him because he is a Lord or because he is 76. Would this defence work for me, I am 56, but I have a terrible memory.

He seems to live a active life, holidaying in Granada and public appearances, would you believe him?

 

https://www.millarssolicitors.co.uk/lord-howard-convicted-failing-furnish-driver-details/

[hagrid 10]

MP's being forgetful surely not. The Old Boys Club comes to mind.

 

No this defence would not work for you.

[Lockdoctor 10]

Michael Howard, the former leader of the Conservative party, has been convicted of failing to say who was driving his car when it was caught breaking the speed limit in south-east London.

 

But today, his conviction has been over-turned, he is in the clear. His claim that got him off, was that he could not remember who was driving.

 

Not sure if they believe him because he is a Lord or because he is 76. Would this defence work for me, I am 56, but I have a terrible memory.

He seems to live a active life, holidaying in Granada and public appearances, would you believe him?

 

https://www.millarssolicitors.co.uk/lord-howard-convicted-failing-furnish-driver-details/

If more than one person drives the same car along the same route, then it is believable someone might not know who was driving the vehicle at a particular time. If the authorities are to use cameras and not stop speeding vehicles, then it is not a surprise people can not be sure who was driving a vehicle at a particular time. It seems reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.

[El Cid 214]

If more than one person drives the same car along the same route, then it is believable someone might not know who was driving the vehicle at a particular time. If the authorities are to use cameras and not stop speeding vehicles, then it is not a surprise people can not be sure who was driving a vehicle at a particular time. It seems reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.

 

A 50% chance of the right person getting the fine, many courts would be pleased with those odds.

[parkydave 10]

that excuse didn't work with me when I ran an engineering company and van driver got caught speeding , tried that driver bit but still had to pay .

[Lockdoctor 10]

A 50% chance of the right person getting the fine, many courts would be pleased with those odds.

Surely the issue is the points on a alleged offender's driving licence rather than the fine.

[peak4 263]

Michael Howard, the former leader of the Conservative party, has been convicted of failing to say who was driving his car when it was caught breaking the speed limit in south-east London.

 

But today, his conviction has been over-turned, he is in the clear. His claim that got him off, was that he could not remember who was driving.

 

Not sure if they believe him because he is a Lord or because he is 76. Would this defence work for me, I am 56, but I have a terrible memory.

He seems to live a active life, holidaying in Granada and public appearances, would you believe him?

 

https://www.millarssolicitors.co.uk/lord-howard-convicted-failing-furnish-driver-details/

 

I'd suggest that may be a misunderstanding of what's happened; The speeding fine was not overturned, as no-one was convicted for speeding since the CPS had no evidence of who was driving.

He was subsequently convicted of failure to furnish the driver's details at the time of the alleged offence.

It is that which had been overturned, seemingly as the form on which he replied, was not correctly worded; If I've read the report correctly, the instructions on how to fill out the form, if one didn't know the driver, were incomplete/incorrect.

[Ontarian1981 10]

When they had photo radar on the main highways in the mid nineties in Ontario, the owner of the vehicle that got pictured speeding got the ticket in the mail Who was driving was not an issue, therefore it was no defence. If the owner had a beef he had to seek recourse from whoever he had allowed to drive it. There were no demerit points , so well off people could basically speed at will, then pay the fine. However if a patrol car pulled you over it was a different matter.

[El Cid 214]

I'd suggest that may be a misunderstanding of what's happened; The speeding fine was not overturned, as no-one was convicted for speeding since the CPS had no evidence of who was driving.

He was subsequently convicted of failure to furnish the driver's details at the time of the alleged offence.

It is that which had been overturned, seemingly as the form on which he replied, was not correctly worded; If I've read the report correctly, the instructions on how to fill out the form, if one didn't know the driver, were incomplete/incorrect.

 

Fair point, but if he could not remember if someone else was driving; HE was driving.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Fair point, but if he could not remember if someone else was driving; HE was driving.

 

You said in your first post that he couldn't remember who was driving.

[El Cid 214]

You said in your first post that he couldn't remember who was driving.

 

It just seems that if you have enough money, you can side-step most court cases.

Perhaps the registered keeper should be held responsible, unless proven otherwise.

[SnailyBoy 10]

It just seems that if you have enough money, you can side-step most court cases.

Perhaps the registered keeper should be held responsible, unless proven otherwise.

 

He didn't side-step, as you put it.

 

You even conceded that point in #9, the form was worded incorrectly.

 

You could argue that was a technicality.

 

As for money being the reason 'you can side-step most court cases', really, such as?