Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

Marital coercion

From the BBC's coverage
The jury of eight women and four men heard details of email exchanges between Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott and Ms Pryce from 1 March 2011 as they discussed how to publicise the crime.

Ms Oakeshott told her a "major two-part article" would inflict "maximum and perhaps fatal damage on Chris if you are prepared to be open", Mr Edis told the court.


Chris Huhne admitted perverting the course of justice on Monday
Mr Edis said Ms Oakeshott told her it would fulfil her dual objective - "bringing Chris down without damaging your own reputation in the process".

Ms Pryce responded in email: "I definitely want to nail him. More than ever, I would love to do it soon."

Ms Oakeshott later replied: "The bottom line is that this story will bring Chris down if you are prepared to go on the record, with the minor risk this carries.

"I think you can make yourself out to be very much the honourable one, saying it has very much been on your conscience ever since, saying you knew it was wrong but you were bullied into it."

Mr Edis went on: "Mr Huhne was charged, he did resign, yesterday he pleaded guilty, he's not a cabinet minister any more. The plan worked."

I have looked up the defence of 'marital coercion'. It derives from s.47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925:

Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.
So this shifts the burden of proof onto the wife. She has to prove coercion on a balance of probabilities. It does not need to involve force or threats of force but the wife must prove her will was overborne by the husband's.
 
From the BBC's coverage


I have looked up the defence of 'marital coercion'. It derives from s.47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925:


So this shifts the burden of proof onto the wife. She has to prove coercion on a balance of probabilities. It does not need to involve force or threats of force but the wife must prove her will was overborne by the husband's.

So does the marital coercion defence not apply if it is the woman who has coerced her husband? Hmmm
 
Looking at the difference between marital coercion and duress... other than only applying to wives,

The burden of proof is on the defence to prove marital coercion on the balance of probabilities, whereas the burden is on the prosecution to disprove duress beyond reasonable doubt.
Duress requires a threat to kill or cause serious harm to a person. The Court of Appeal held in R v Shortland [3] that marital coercion need not involve physical force or the threat of force. (However mere loyalty to her husband does not suffice.)
Section 47 requires the husband to be present when the offence is committed. The defence of duress does not require the presence of the person who issued the threat, provided that the threat is still effective.
 
What if the registered keeper is XYZ Corp.?
XYZ Corp doesn't have a driving licence, nor was it behind the wheel when the alleged offence occurred. If XYZ Corp is the RK of the car, and fails to nominate the person who was driving the car, the company will be hit by large fines and the directors could be prosecuted for PCoJ.
 
I don't understand how vehicle insurance works elsewhere. Here I go to a licence issuer when I get a vehicle and I pay for insurance for a set period (from one month to indefinitely), they give me a licence plate and the vehicle is insured and can be driven by anyone holding a valid driver's licence. Regardless of the driver, the vehicle is insured, unless it is used to commit a crime. It seems that elsewhere, you must state who will be using the vehicle, and no one else may drive it. Is this so? What do you do when you take your car for service and a mechanic must test drive it?
 
I don't understand how vehicle insurance works elsewhere. Here I go to a licence issuer when I get a vehicle and I pay for insurance for a set period (from one month to indefinitely), they give me a licence plate and the vehicle is insured and can be driven by anyone holding a valid driver's licence. Regardless of the driver, the vehicle is insured, unless it is used to commit a crime. It seems that elsewhere, you must state who will be using the vehicle, and no one else may drive it. Is this so? What do you do when you take your car for service and a mechanic must test drive it?
He probably drives it under his or his employer's policy.
 
In the UK, licence plates are assigned to a particular vehicle when it is first registered (when it is delivered to a dealership as new). The plates currently go in the pattern LL62 LLL, where the L is a letter and 62 denotes it was registered between 1 September 2012 and 29 February 2013. There are two registration changes a year, on 1st March and 1st September, and for vehicles registered between 1 March 2013 and 31 August 2013 the pattern will be LL13 LLL. For vehicles registered after 1 September 2013 but before 28 February 2014 they will have the number 63, from 1st March 2014 to 31 August 2014 will be 14 and from 1 September 2014 they will be 64 and so on. This system began in 2001, prior to that it was a different system but it is still possible to tell the age of the car from the plate. The exception to this is people can buy 'vanity' or 'cherished' plates, which may have a different year indicator (though it's illegal to make a car seem newer than it is with a vanity plate) or none at all. The registration document and the vehicle's history as kept by the DVLA will show the original plate as well as the chassis number.

Insurance policies are sold by insurance companies, and are almost always in the name of the registered keeper (the person or corporation whose name appears on the registration document, the v5). The policy will vary in price depending on the type of vehicle, the use the person is going to make of the vehicle, the driving history of the person and any other drivers including points and accidents, and whereabouts in the country the main driver lives. The insurance policy generally lasts a year but most people pay for them month by month so a failed payment may mean that the policy is no longer in force, although the insurer does have to follow some steps before they void the policy.

All these insurance policies are kept on a database to which the police have access. Anyone who owns a car can check the insurance for free on ASKMID; non-owners can check on a vehicle for £4.

Many police cars are fitted with ANPR (automated number plate recognition), so uninsured vehicles ping up a warning and can be stopped. The police can also check, if someone is stopped for another reason, whether that person is insured to drive.

Mechanics, detailers etc who would need to drive a customer's car for a short while would be covered by a blanket policy taken out by the owner of the garage, this will provide them with insurance as long as they are driving the car in connection with their employer's business. Mostly, the mechanic's driving history, points etc wouldn't be checked but the blanket policy might specify no driver under 25, or no driver with more than 6 points (for example)

Company cars are mostly insured similarly under a fleet policy, but in the case of fleet insurance the person who will be driving the car may have to declare their driving history in terms of points and accidents.

Every vehicle has to display a 'tax disc'. These last for either six months or a year, vary in cost from nothing to £lots depending on the year of first registration (if that date is prior to 01/01/1973 the car is exempt), whether the driver is severely disabled (exempt) and the amount of emissions from the car. The more polluting the car, the higher the tax disc. The discs are different colours every year so it's easy to spot an expired one at a glance. In order to get a tax disc, you have to have insurance and (for cars over three years old) a current valid MOT certificate. Even if the vehicle is exempt from paying for a tax disc, you still have to display one, it just costs nothing.

The MOT is a test done to ensure that the car is roadworthy, once a year on all cars three years old or older. MOT certificates are also on a database, so it's not always necessary to present all the documents at a post office to get a tax disc, you can get a new disc online.

That's not completely comprehensive but it gives an outline of how motoring law wrt to insurance, number plates and tax discs works here. Any questions, just ask.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, Agatha. Here in Texas, I carry insurance on my '13 TDI Passat and The Dolly's '07 Rabbit. We're both on each vehicles list of insured drivers, but we can let anybody else drive the car and as long as he/she has a valid driver's license, he/she is covered under my insurance. We have no points system, nor do we have any speed cameras. The Dolly had a problem when she first started driving on judging stopping distances, so there were two wrecks where she rear-ended people and our insurance doubled for a while... Accidents and tickets drop off after three years, so our insurance is back to a manageable $323 a month. (I say manageable. We live in Harris county which has a really high insurance rate risk!)

I pay a yearly registration fee on each car (around $60 a year) and a yearly inspection fee ($35ish for the Rabbit, $13 for the Passat because it's a diesel and therefore exempt from pollution testing). The inspection is done by any mechanical with the proper licensure and involves making sure the car is road-worthy - horn honks, lights work, brakes working, etc. The registration fee is accessed by the county that I live in and can vary significantly from county to county.

In order to decrease how much I pay in car insurance, I would basically have to move to another county and I'm seriously thinking about it. Houston does have multiple counties in and around it.

And back on topic - no, I wouldn't take any points for anybody else. I've only had two speeding tickets in my 36 years of driving.
 
Last edited:
I would.

Here you get points for as little as 3kms per hour over the limit. if one of my kids faced the prospect of losing their license and subsequently their job, I would hardly hesitate.

Where I live, you are not allowed to be ticketed for doing 5 mph over the speed limit. Reason: Not all speedometers are perfectly calibrated, so the state gives you a 5 mph leeway.
 
I just checked my bank statement. My truck costs $69 per month to insure, and the Corvette is $109 per month. In Saskatchewan, there are no inspections, unless you are registering a vehicle from out of province, or it's a taxi or something. I've never had a traffic ticket, so I'm not sure if there's still points here or not. The base fee for a driver's licence is $25 per year, and it goes up with every at-fault accident and traffic offense. It takes a lot to lose your driving privileges here. We get incidents like this: http://www.globalsaskatoon.com/char...tality+near+midale+sask/6442738444/story.html

If this guy is convicted, he'll probably lose his licence for a year and get a fine and probation. If he has no criminal record it's unlikely he'll see prison. If you want to kill someone in Saskatchewan, do it with a car. You'll pretty much get a scolding and not much else.
 
I just checked my bank statement. My truck costs $69 per month to insure, and the Corvette is $109 per month. In Saskatchewan, there are no inspections, unless you are registering a vehicle from out of province, or it's a taxi or something. I've never had a traffic ticket, so I'm not sure if there's still points here or not. The base fee for a driver's licence is $25 per year, and it goes up with every at-fault accident and traffic offense. It takes a lot to lose your driving privileges here. We get incidents like this: http://www.globalsaskatoon.com/char...tality+near+midale+sask/6442738444/story.html

If this guy is convicted, he'll probably lose his licence for a year and get a fine and probation. If he has no criminal record it's unlikely he'll see prison. If you want to kill someone in Saskatchewan, do it with a car. You'll pretty much get a scolding and not much else.

He'll be sued by her family too I expect.
 
Where I live, you are not allowed to be ticketed for doing 5 mph over the speed limit. Reason: Not all speedometers are perfectly calibrated, so the state gives you a 5 mph leeway.

In the UK it's your responsibility to ensure that your speedometer is correctly calibrated (or at least to understand that it isn't)
 
In the UK no Speedometer is allowed to under read. It is checked at the MOT, they are usualy set to over read. I know that mine will say 70 when I am doing 67 for example.
Enforcement of speeding is usually done at 2mph over plus 10% so 35 in a 30 limit for example.
This is just a 'guideline and sometimes they are more strict other times less so.

Mobile units in vans with human operators are the most variable. On a busy motorway they tend to go for those that are obviously far in excess of the limit. I have on a couple of occasions thought I have been 'done' when I have noticed a mobile unit on an over bridge and I have been over the 'threshold' but never heard anything.
A Mobile unit has a range of up to 1km so they usually see you before you see them anyway.
In a built up area you probably wouldn't get so much leeway.
Some roads and roadworks on the Motorways have a system of 'Average Speed' cameras, they use a series of linked cameras over several miles to measure average speed so you can't just slow down for the camera and then speed up again.
 
Last edited:
In the UK no Speedometer is allowed to under read. It is checked at the MOT, they are usualy set to over read. I know that mine will say 70 when I am doing 67 for example.

This is one of the reasons why it is very important to make sure that you don't significantly change the circumference of your tyre if you change wheels or tyres away from the manufacturer's specification.

The XJ-S original tyres are in the rocking horse excrement category (and weren't that great in any case). The most commonly recommended alternative has a slightly different width (10mm less) and lower profile. As a consequence there is a difference in circumference of around 1%. Some other people have gone as far as fitting different sized wheels and the difference in this case can be as big as 3%.

Enforcement of speeding is usually done at 2mph over plus 10% so 35 in a 30 limit for example.
This is just a 'guideline and sometimes they are more strict other times less so.

True that. Mrs. Don thought she was harshly treated when she got a fixed penalty notice for 33 in a 30 zone from a mobile speed camera. She avoided the points by taking the speed awareness course and is now a nightmare to be in the car with :D.

Mobile units in vans with human operators are the most variable. On a busy motorway they tend to go for those that are obviously far in excess of the limit. I have on a couple of occasions thought I have been 'done' when I have noticed a mobile unit on an over bridge and I have been over the 'threshold' but never heard anything.
A Mobile unit has a range of up to 1km so they usually see you before you see them anyway.
In a built up area you probably wouldn't get so much leeway.

I too have dodged a bullet from time to time but it seems that the older I get the slower I seem to drive.

Some roads and roadworks on the Motorways have a system of 'Average Speed' cameras, they use a series of linked cameras over several miles to measure average speed so you can't just slow down for the camera and then speed up again.

I love it when cars break suddenly to 50mph at the second average speed camera as it that would fix everything.
 

Back
Top Bottom