• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

Frankly I think they deserved each other. Several people have suggested a six-month prison sentence apiece, to be served in the same cell. Not possible of course, but a tempting idea.

Rolfe.
 
Antony said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would it not make sense to find out some of the facts if you are going to comment on the case?

The prosecution were required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was not coerced. They did so to a standard that convinced every member of the jury.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-marital-coercion-thrown-out

"Mr Justice Sweeney decided there was no requirement for Pryce to prove that Huhne had coerced her. It was for the prosecution service to prove that he had not done so."
 
Antony said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about her behaviour in naming a completely innocent woman as the person who had taken the points? What does that tell us about her?

And lets be honest, this had nothing to do with highlighting the offence, this was all about revenge. She tried to do so without admitting her own offences (including by making false allegations about others), but she failed.

They will both get what they deserve.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
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?
.
Click to expand...

No, if the driver isn't identified they can't charge the speeding and go for the failing toidentify.

Sometimes the CPS 'Dual Charge' with the speeding and failing to identify giving the defendant a 'get out' with the option of copping for the speeding and saving 3 points by having a quick word with the CPS before they go in to court. Strictly speaking this is an 'abuse of process' as without the ID info they can't get a guilty on the speeding.
 
Antony said:
From what anyone can gather from the accounts we have, Huhne intercepted all the paperwork and filled it out as though on Pryce's behalf, then browbeat her into adding her signature.

...snip...
Click to expand...

You mean apart from the members of the jury?
 
Antony said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looking at the advances in camera tech and facial recognition software I give it ten years.

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.
Click to expand...

Is someone is in a situation with no way out duress kicks in

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.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know. People know high how the stakes are now.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No, if the driver isn't identified they can't charge the speeding and go for the failing toidentify.

Sometimes the CPS 'Dual Charge' with the speeding and failing to identify giving the defendant a 'get out' with the option of copping for the speeding and saving 3 points by having a quick word with the CPS before they go in to court. Strictly speaking this is an 'abuse of process' as without the ID info they can't get a guilty on the speeding.
Click to expand...

This site suggests that it is possible (although highlights that this is theoretical) to get convicted of both failing to identify and speeding for the same offence. It is also trying to sell its defence services so has an interest in highlighting worst possible case scenarios.

"The bad news is that if you lose and the court convicts you of the S172 failure to furnish information offence, it could - in theory at least - also convict you of the original motoring offence if it believes "beyond reasonable doubt" that you were also the driver of the car at the time."

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=85705
 
No, it can't convict of speeding if it gets an S172 conviction, there is no evidence of the driver.
If it gets the speeding it can't convict on the S172 as there is evidence.



There is only one reason for dual charging and that is to try and help out the defendant by giving him the option to cop for the speeding.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Would it not make sense to find out some of the facts if you are going to comment on the case?
Click to expand...

If everyone had to have 100% knowledge before contributing here, the forum would be of little value.
The prosecution were required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was not coerced. They did so to a standard that convinced every member of the jury.
Click to expand...

That makes it all the more mystifying that Pryce was found guilty. It's a mystery as to what possible "proof" the prosecution had at their disposal. As for "convinced the jury" - I'm not going to fall for that kind of appeal to authority.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-marital-coercion-thrown-out

"Mr Justice Sweeney decided there was no requirement for Pryce to prove that Huhne had coerced her. It was for the prosecution service to prove that he had not done so."
Click to expand...

Your reference illustrates your point but gives no clue as to how the prosecution "proved" their case: that Pryce supposedly was not coerced.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No, it can't convict of speeding if it gets an S172 conviction, there is no evidence of the driver.
If it gets the speeding it can't convict on the S172 as there is evidence.
Click to expand...

Is it not theoretically possible that they get evidence to identify the driver other than from the registered keeper?

Therefore the registered keeper is guilty both of failing to furnish info and of the speeding offence?
 
Moving on - they are to be sentenced tomorrow. Any bets? I am going for 12 months for him and 6 for her, suspended for two years in her case. Or maybe not. Too late. I said it and I'll stick with it.
 
Antony said:
Sorry, I'm not impressed by arguments based on appeals to authority.
Click to expand...

The authority here of course being those who have actually heard all of the evidence. And their opinion actually matters, because they are the people who decide on her guilt or innocence.
 
anglolawyer said:
Moving on - they are to be sentenced tomorrow. Any bets? I am going for 12 months for him and 6 for her, suspended for two years in her case. Or maybe not. Too late. I said it and I'll stick with it.
Click to expand...

12 for him, 14 for her.

She took it to trial and she tried to implicate a wholly innocent party.
 
Radio 4 this morning:

* speculated that although he should get a 10% credit for pleading guilty just before the trial, he may forfeit that because of the extensive litigation he pursued trying to get the whole thing thrown out. It seems the CPS want to recover substantial costs for defending that 'pre-trial'.

* a previous case of father/son point swapping resulted in 6 months each.
 
Oh Jeez. We have Jonathan Aitken on the radio telling us what's like being an upper class person in prison. This guy has made quite a celebrity niche for himself as a rent-a-quote guy whenever one of us nice middle class people have to go to jail and slop out with the unwashed.

In other news, it is reported that a body of opinion is coalescing round the view they should not go to prison at all. This is a legit POV but, unfortunately, failing to jail them would be seen as favouring the posh and would trigger the revolution, or at least several days of joyous rioting.

ETA I used to brief the judge when he and I were starting out. Does this mean I know what he will do? No.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom