Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Most univerisities have halls and other student acomidation close enough to the university in order to negate the need for cars. Those that don't have bus routes that serve the same function. Throw in the high cost of car ownership and low student incomes and most get by without a car.

Yeah, I know. I went to Uni and my eldest is about to go. Let's shorten my bolding to make it more clear what I was saying 'What?' to:

'but they do then have to re-pass their test.'

I have often remarked that it's ludicrous that you could pass your test then not drive for several years (with the Uni scenario specifically in mind) and then claim 3 years no-claims for a lower insurance than someone who'd driven extensively for 1 year (yeah I know they ask how many miles you drive a year 'on average' so it's not as clean cut as this). Has there been a law change I've missed that says you have to redo your test if you don't drive for a while?*

*I'm aware the theory pass only lasts for a few years but that is then made permanent if you pass the practical.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If you get 6 points in the first 2 years of driving, your license is revoked and you have to retake the driving test, both theory and practical.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/new-drivers

 

[commandlinegamer]

The "marital coercion" defence is clearly unjust, since it applies only to wives - and in any case seems to have been worthless in this case. Far from being removed from statute, though, IMO it needs to be extended to cover any abusive relationship, particularly between 2 people living at the same address.

In common law you have the defence of duress, though it might have been a bit of a stretch to establish it in this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

In common law you have the defence of duress, though it might have been a bit of a stretch to establish it in this case.

It's interesting and worth remembering the 1925 law containing the statutory defence of marital coercion merely reversed the burden of proof of what was there before. Prior to the change the wife was legally presumed to be acting under coercion of her husband if present when a crime was committed unless the contrary was shown. Afterwards, the burden passed over to her to show on a balance of probabilities that she was coerced. After this case, I wouldn't mind betting the next Criminal Justice Act repeals the section entirely. It's a simple reform and entirely in keeping with current social norms. I'm actually impressed her defence team knew it existed. I certainly wasn't taught it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Registered keeper gets a request to identify the driver at the time of the offense.
Person nominated (if not the keeper) then gets their own S172 Form.
They can either nominate themselves, another person or say it wasn't them.
If they nominate another person they will in turn get their own form. If they say they know nothing about it then it goes back to the RK.

If the police think someone is messing them around they will issue a summons for failing to identify the driver then it can be argued out in court.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I heard of a case where an unlicensed driver impersonated an acquaintance when stopped by police. The innocent man came on a radio phone-in programme afterwards; it seems that in spite of the fact that he at no time played along with this, he ended up with 9 penalty points and a heavy fine, apparently for "allowing his name to be used".

Sorry I can't report the details of this as I didn't note them at the time, but it is the reason that I have no confidence in the law allowing Pryce a way out of the situation, once Huhne had given her name as the offending driver.


Your lack of empathy appals me.


Of course, he wasn't charged with bullying his wife. I don't know all the sordid details that came out about their marriage.


The principle needs to be there to cover situations where an individual is dragged into a cover-up without their agreement.

If someone was stopped at the time of the offense by the police and couldn't show identification and their driving license they would have got a request to produce it within 7 days at a police station.

Obviously the named person couldn't do that as they wouldn't have known about it.
Unless they were speeding going at something like double the speed limit they would in any case get through the post an offer of a fixed penalty which they would obviously query or dispute when it would go to court and they would put forward the defense that it was someone else.
If they weren't the owner of the car that was stopped then the RK would get the paperwork.

Whatever happens it goes to court and you get chance to defend it.

Maximum number of points for failing to identify the driver is 6.

Either someone on the phone in was telling fibs, got mixed up, was incredibly stupid or you have remembered it wrong.

 

[Rat]

Your lack of empathy appals me.

I do indeed have a lack of empathy, in that I don't identify with someone who lied about a crime and was caught out; nor am I sure why I should have.

Of course, he wasn't charged with bullying his wife. I don't know all the sordid details that came out about their marriage.

The principle needs to be there to cover situations where an individual is dragged into a cover-up without their agreement.

The principle is there, but is not applicable in this case unless there are some facts I haven't heard about. She certainly wasn't dragged into a cover-up without her agreement, since she signed the document to say she was the driver, thereby taking an active role in the cover-up.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's a bit weird reading that Pryce hoped to remain anonymous when telling this story to the press. She and, apparently, her friend and adviser, Constance Briscoe (barrister and judge) allegedly said the person who agreed to take the points was a constituency aide who, in fact, had no driving license at the time.

I am surprised Briscoe didn't warn her that the name of the person who took the points would be held on police records and that the consequences of exposure would be so serious. She really should have found another way to get revenge.

 

[catsmate]

But as I think someone asked earlier, if the law stays, how will it apply to gay marriage? Although it is only women that can claim marital coercion, I suspect that the belief if anything is that it is that it is only men who can coerce, rather than only women being capable of being coerced. So will two married women be able to coerce each other?

I suspect that a suitable section repealing the defense would be included.

I heard of a case where an unlicensed driver impersonated an acquaintance when stopped by police. The innocent man came on a radio phone-in programme afterwards; it seems that in spite of the fact that he at no time played along with this, he ended up with 9 penalty points and a heavy fine, apparently for "allowing his name to be used".

Seriously? We're supposed to accept this?

It's interesting and worth remembering the 1925 law containing the statutory defence of marital coercion merely reversed the burden of proof of what was there before. Prior to the change the wife was legally presumed to be acting under coercion of her husband if present when a crime was committed unless the contrary was shown. Afterwards, the burden passed over to her to show on a balance of probabilities that she was coerced. After this case, I wouldn't mind betting the next Criminal Justice Act repeals the section entirely. It's a simple reform and entirely in keeping with current social norms. I'm actually impressed her defence team knew it existed. I certainly wasn't taught it.

Yeah I'd be surprised too if the next omnibus or miscellaneous provisions bill doesn't repeat it.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

If you get 6 points in the first 2 years of driving, your license is revoked and you have to retake the driving test, both theory and practical.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/new-drivers

Thanks for the clarification. I had seen that earlier but didn't twig that was what geni was referring to - I had read it as 'If you go to Uni, you don't really need a car and end up having to retake your test as you haven't driven for so long.

Apologies to geni for the misunderstanding.

 

[Rolfe]

I have no sympathy for those idiots who go on to be banned for cumulative speeding points, how stupid and incapable of self control do you have to be to not get the message by the time you have 9 points...

This. I've been in that situation twice. The first time it was even worse than that because I racked up 11 points in almost no time at all. I had bought a new car which turned out to be a cop magnet, and I was pulled over three times in quick succession on the motorway doing speeds that weren't really all that out of the ordinary. One of these times I got five points, although I was pulled out of a string of traffic all going at the same speed. (The second time it was a couple of unforunate camera incidents.)

I learned. The first time, I learned that the way to avoid these points was to stop driving with all my attention on the road, the other road users and the road conditions, and to become paranoid about both my speedometer and things that might be unmarked police cars. I don't imagine I was any safer, but I didn't get any more points. I had 11 points for three years, then none.

The second time, I bought a Road Angel.

I've had a clean licence for the last five years or so.

It is absolutely inexcusably stupid, especially for someone in politics, not to take a lesson from the first 9 points. And I gather that the idiot lost his licence anyway shortly afterwards, through being caught talking on a mobile phone while driving.

Is there some sort of Darwin Award that covers this?

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

This. I've been in that situation twice. The first time it was even worse than that because I racked up 11 points in almost no time at all. I had bought a new car which turned out to be a cop magnet, and I was pulled over three times in quick succession on the motorway doing speeds that weren't really all that out of the ordinary. One of these times I got five points, although I was pulled out of a string of traffic all going at the same speed. (The second time it was a couple of unforunate camera incidents.)

I learned. The first time, I learned that the way to avoid these points was to stop driving with all my attention on the road, the other road users and the road conditions, and to become paranoid about both my speedometer and things that might be unmarked police cars. I don't imagine I was any safer, but I didn't get any more points. I had 11 points for three years, then none.

The second time, I bought a Road Angel.

I've had a clean licence for the last five years or so.

It is absolutely inexcusably stupid, especially for someone in politics, not to take a lesson from the first 9 points. And I gather that the idiot lost his licence anyway shortly afterwards, through being caught talking on a mobile phone while driving.

Is there some sort of Darwin Award that covers this?

Rolfe.

I am on 9 points now and for the next year and a half and I am driving like an old codger, usually with a string of traffic in tow. Huhne was (is) obviously a nut, bearing in mind he got banned a couple of weeks after not getting banned for this. He could have hired a chauffeur for six months and hardly noticed the expense.

Nice work surviving the pressure of 11 Rolfe, you maniac.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You don't have to keep your eyes glued to the speedo. Enforcement starts at 10% + 2mph over the limit. As long as you keep within a couple of mph you are ok.

 

[Agatha]

Set your cruise control if you have it, too. My Merc has a speed limiter which you can set to any particular speed, though I must confess I rarely use it and do exceed the limit on motorways.

 

[Antony]

You really expect this forum to accept half remebered radio phone-in claims as evidence?

No; I'm simply saying this is my reason for not having confidence that Pryce had a straightforward way of staying in the clear, in March 2003.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Maximum number of points for failing to identify the driver is 6.

Either someone on the phone in was telling fibs, got mixed up, was incredibly stupid or you have remembered it wrong.

Max is 6 for failing to identify driver, but I think that the registered keeper can also gets the points for the offence if they do not identify anyone else which could make 9?

However this probably shows why a half remembered, unverified story on a phone in is generally not considered a reasonable basis to judge the circumstances of a court case where the facts are clearly established and widely available in media reporting.

And lets not forget that Vicky tried to implicate a completely innocent person by claiming she had taken the points when she knew this was untrue. Hopefully she gets what she deserves.

 

[Antony]

You realise that given Pryce's background you've just given say aldermaston a valid reason never to employ a married woman?

Not relevant as far as I can see.

The trial was over a matter of points on a driving license not domestic abuse.

See above.

The courts are on the side of the law. And Pryce's as a victim is an odd choice. Check out her CV some time. Seriously responsible positions and was probably out earning her husband until around 2010. This is not someone would be easy to intimidate.

That's a big assumption to make.

In any case, it's the principles here that matter. Cases of point-swapping like this are basically impossible to detect unless one of the parties brings it out. What this latest verdict means is that the unknown number of similar cases can never be dealt with because the holder of a driving licence coerced into the situation has no way out. That's taking the general view, not one specific to this case.

The court, taking in your view "the side of the law", has reinforced a situation where the law will continue to be broken with little chance of detection.

 

[Antony]

It's interesting and worth remembering the 1925 law containing the statutory defence of marital coercion merely reversed the burden of proof of what was there before. Prior to the change the wife was legally presumed to be acting under coercion of her husband if present when a crime was committed unless the contrary was shown. Afterwards, the burden passed over to her to show on a balance of probabilities that she was coerced. After this case, I wouldn't mind betting the next Criminal Justice Act repeals the section entirely. It's a simple reform and entirely in keeping with current social norms. I'm actually impressed her defence team knew it existed. I certainly wasn't taught it.

Interesting information. What was in my mind when reading about this case was "burden of proof", and I assumed that the prosecution would have to prove that Pryce was not coerced into being the patsy. If it's the case that she had to prove the facts of her defence then she never had a chance.

 

[Antony]

Either someone on the phone in was telling fibs, got mixed up, was incredibly stupid or you have remembered it wrong.

I've already said that the story isn't one that can be regarded as evidence in this discussion, but that it is my reason for doubting that drivers finding themselves in this position are treated fairly.

I appreciate you providing details of how the system is supposed to work, alongside the bland assumptions of others that coercion doesn't exist. What I'd like to see are genuine reasons to believe that the system really does work this way, in that someone finding him/herself an unwilling patsy really does have protection.

 

[Antony]

It is absolutely inexcusably stupid, especially for someone in politics, not to take a lesson from the first 9 points. And I gather that the idiot lost his licence anyway shortly afterwards, through being caught talking on a mobile phone while driving.

My thoughts, very much. A lot's been said about Pryce's behaviour and judgement in highlighting the point-swapping offence, but the above is one of the things that tell us the kind of man she was married to.