Phil W Lee wrote:
MrCheerful considered Sat, 06 Feb 2016
17:37:14 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On 06/02/2016 17:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the
council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to
say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence,
merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you
"think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of
committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an
acceptable standard of proof?

Is that really what you mean?

No.

What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice.


And in a case where quite genuinely the owner does not know?
Should he/she be liable to a max. sentence of life imprisonment?

It is the absolute responsibility of the registered keeper of a
shotgun to know where it is at all times and to ensure that it does
not fall into the hands of someone not authorised to use it.
The same should be true of motor vehicles.

In the case under discussion, the vehicle is known to have been driven
by one of two people. Now, if both had claimed the other was driving,
that might be problematic under current legislation.
That is not the case though - both claimed not to know, which shows
that they are conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
The person driving knows perfectly well that they were driving. The
person not driving knows perfectly well that it was the other
authorised driver. Therefore, both must be lying, and there is no
dichotomy involved as there would be if both had claimed the other was
driving, when one would be innocent and the other guilty, but there is
no way of knowing which without the police looking at other evidence -
like the original footage. I'm quite certain that if that was
properly analysed, it would determine if the driver were male of
female, which would be all that would be sufficient. You can almost
tell from the version that's been folded, spindled, and mutilated by
Youtube's compression, so it should be trivial on the original
footage. Additionally, the whole area is awash with CCTV cameras, and
given that the time of the assault is known, it should be trivial to
search them for evidence.
But as usual, the police couldn't give a **** when it's only a pleb on
a bike. In not giving a ****, they have become a party to the
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Exactly correct.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))