Dodgy Sue

[JonathanM]

He was convicted for not responding "But police said they did not receive a reply - identifying the driver of the vehicle - within the required time limit", not for the speeding offence.

Thanks. It makes total sense, now. It was something obvious after all I hadn't realised there was such a stiff penalty for that. In fact, I don't think I had ever really understood the process.

 

[motorbiking]

This is nothing to do with the Home Secretary, but it is about a famous person speeding. I'm very confused by this article about Noel Gallagher, in the Evening Standard. It seems he was given 6 points and a fine for speeding, even though his chauffeur was the one driving. The chauffeur was also prosecuted and got a fine and penalty points. I am hoping @motorbiking will have a quick look I know there must be something obvious I am missing. But to me, it would be against natural justice, for two different people to be prosecuted for the same speeding offence. (The article says Yahoo News but it's really the Evening Standard.)

Noel Gallagher convicted of driving offence despite never having learned to drive

Noel Gallagher has been prosecuted for a driving offence and handed a fine plus six penalty points - despite never having learned how to drive. The Oasis star and High Flying Birds frontman was taken to task by the Metropolitan Police after his chauffeur-driven Range Rover was caught speeding...

uk.news.yahoo.com

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

Requires the registered keeper, not the driver to respond. However, 5 mins of lawyer time could have got the driver off the offence. Since he was not the registered keeper he was under no obligation to confess to being the driver. The RK should have pleaded guilty and left it at that.

Means tested fine, would have smarted a bit.

41 in a 30 on the A40 is hardly the crime of the year.

The points for failing to identify were increased as obviously, if you were facing a 100 in a 70, you'd opt for the 172, rather than the driving ban.

 

[motorbiking]

edit: wrong thread

 

[securespark]

Huh?

 

[Brigadier]

Huh?

Elvis impression, or was that your Tom Jones?

 

[securespark]

I wasn't quite understanding MBs post but it turns out he did what I do in WhatsApp all the time....posted a message in the wrong thread (group).

 

[JonathanM]

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

Requires the registered keeper, not the driver to respond. However, 5 mins of lawyer time could have got the driver off the offence. Since he was not the registered keeper he was under no obligation to confess to being the driver. The RK should have pleaded guilty and left it at that.

Means tested fine, would have smarted a bit.

41 in a 30 on the A40 is hardly the crime of the year.

The points for failing to identify were increased as obviously, if you were facing a 100 in a 70, you'd opt for the 172, rather than the driving ban.

Thank you. It's all very clear now. I wonder why the driver confessed. Maybe for Noel's public image.

 

[motorbiking]

probably an attempt to protect his employer and his job from the prosecution.

 

[Andydevon]

The smart thing would have been to offer a guilty plea for the speeding if the CPS dropped the 172?

 

[motorbiking]

No the 172 was proven by the lack of response. For that you accept the 172 and deny receipt of paperwork as mitigation, via statement. The Speeding offence was not proven at that point and could not proceed. The RK simply denies being the driver.