Introduction

In a recent court case Phillip Dennis escaped conviction for a speeding offence detected by camera because he had not signed the form identifying the driver.

 

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the owner of a vehicle involved in certain traffic offences to identify the driver at the time or face a penalty.

 

However, it appears that Mr Dennis identified himself as driver at the time, but failed to sign the form. Because the form was not signed it was inadmissible as evidence. The court could not legally identify the driver and Mr Dennis was found not guilty.

 

The case was recently heard by Flintshire Magistrates at Mold in North Wales.

 

SafeSpeed has been reporting this loophole since 2001

 

Analysis

We assume that unsigned forms are going to become rather commonplace, and we wonder what the authorities are going to do about it. The current analysis is that they must change the law. In the meantime the standard legal advice appears to be: "Don't sign anything which you do not have to sign."

 

We'll have to wait and see what changes in law are proposed, and there's the chance that they will try and use another part of the law in the meantime. We've taken some advice, and so far no one has been able to identify and other law that could be used.

 

If they move towards "attempting to pervert the course of justice", then you would probably wish to provide evidence that you were not attempting to pervert the course of justice. It seems a simple matter to say: "My legal advisers told me never to sign anything that I do not have to sign."

 

If they asked you to court to defend a charge of failing to identify the driver, perhaps in the hope that you might make a legal admission that you were the driver at the time of the offence, the following appears to apply: "An accused who gives evidence loses his shield and must answer questions which may tend to implicate him of the offence charged (Section 1(e) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898). He may choose not to give evidence at all and, even when he elects to be a witness, he retains the right to silence when an answer may tend to incriminate him of another offence on which the court is not then trying him."

 

"Clerk finds speed gun legal loophole"

From the Daily Post: (click here) Filed 28th Feb 2003 by Elwyn Roberts:

 

A NORTH Wales driver was unaware last night he had escaped a motoring ban, after a legal loophole was discovered by a court clerk.

 

Police fear it could open the floodgates to thousands of motorists across the UK, caught by speed cameras and laser guns, also escaping driving bans.

 

Last night North Wales police admitted that a change in the law is needed to plug the loophole.

 

It was discovered by a magistrates' clerk dealing with speeding charges against Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, near Holywell, in his absence. Magistrates said that they had no option but to find the case against him not proved.

 

The loophole involves a form sent by police to the registered owner of a car caught on speed cameras. The form asks who the driver was at the time. It is an offence not to fill in the form and name the driver - but significantly there is no requirement to sign it. However, for it to be used as evidence in court, the form has to be signed, otherwise a court cannot take any notice of it.

 

Flintshire magistrates' clerk Paul Conlon realised Mr Dennis's form was filled in but not signed, and so could not be used as evidence. It was, said Mr Conlon, a loophole in the law. Magistrates said they were not happy but had no option but to find Dennis, 34, [address withheld] Whitford, not guilty.

 

Chairman John Beard suggested police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form. But he was advised that as the law now stood, the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.

 

One legal expert said later: "Yes, I can confirm that vehicle owners asked to confirm the name of the driver must complete the form but there is no legal requirement to sign the document. On the other hand it is true that it cannot be admitted as evidence unless it is signed. This will need a change in the law. Some people simply pay the fixed penalty and that is the end of it. This only affects those people whose cases go to court and where the prosecution are asked to prove their case. If the form is not signed then they cannot do so. It would be unfair for the police to go back and ask people to sign the form without first cautioning them that the law does not require them to sign it."

 

A spokeswoman for North Wales Police said later that there was no one available to comment at present.

 

But one police source said that the loophole had been known about for some time and there was concern that once it became known "it could open the flood gates. The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one had yet. We have basically been keeping our heads down. Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do. The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."

"Speed Camera Loophole Exposed"

From IC Wales: (click here) Filed 1st March 2003 by Rhodri Clark Rhodri.Clark@Wme.Co.Uk, The Western Mail - The National Newspaper Of Wales

 

MAGISTRATES' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver. Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday.

 

He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't accept the form as evidence. Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been expecting someone to spot the loophole.

 

Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500 motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case. "Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony Vickers. "The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local authorities. People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system."

 

He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine without quibble. "If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect, which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine. The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least."

 

Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read. "I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them anywhere."

 

"The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people who already had endorsements on their licences", said Mr Vickers. "They should bear in mind that if they fail, they will end up paying the full fine rather than the 50% they would pay if they put their hand up."

 

When a police camera takes a photograph of a speeding vehicle, the vehicle's registered owner is sent a form asking who the driver was at the time. It is an offence not to complete the form and name the driver - but the owner does not have to sign it. If the form has not been signed, the courts cannot take any notice of it.

 

Magistrates in Mold were asked to prove a case of speeding against Phillip Dennis, 34, of Gwibnant Farm, Downing Road, Whitford, near Holywell. But clerk Paul Conlon pointed out that the form naming the defendant as the driver was unsigned. The driver had provided the information required of him but there was no requirement under that section of the law for the form to be signed.

 

Magistrates said they were not happy but had to find the defendant not guilty in his absence. Chairman John Beard suggested the police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form. But he was advised that as the law now stood the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver, and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.

 

Nobody was available from North Wales Police to comment yesterday. But one police source said there had been concern that once the loophole was spotted "it could open the flood gates." He said, "The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one has yet. "We have basically been keeping our heads down. Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do. The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned."

 

RoadPeace, the charity for road-accident victims, said the loophole showed that cameras and computers were no substitute for a police presence on the roads. Chairman Zoë Stow said, "It illustrates that we can't just deal with these things as a bureaucratic issue and send forms through the post. It's disappointing that the law is poorly drafted and nobody seems to care enough to do it properly."

 

Speed cameras have proliferated in South and North Wales since the Home Office gave police permission to use fines to pay for enforcement, rather than sending the money to the Treasury. Latest figures show that in 2001 the number of speeding tickets issued by South Wales Police was 38% higher than in 2000. North Wales Police registered a 19% increase in 2001, although its Arrive Alive speed-camera campaign wasn't launched until late that year.

 

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988

To see the whole section or indeed the entire Act (click here)

 

Section 2 reads as follows:

 

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

 

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

 

There's clearly no mention of an obligation to sign or provide legal evidence.

 

What do I do?

If you receive a "notice to owner", you must fill it in in accordance with RTA 1988 Section 172 above. Present understanding is that you are under no obligation to sign the form. Return the form by recorded delivery and keep a copy if at all possible.

 

If you receive a summons you should plead not guilty. The unsigned form is not admissible as evidence, so there is no legal evidence of who the driver was at the time of the offence and the court must find you not guilty. We can't imagine that they are going to be sending out many summonses to owners who have not signed the forms. What would be the point?

Apparently if only 10% of those caught, contested their speeding fines, the process would grind to a halt....

 

Apparently...

Easiest way is to not get caught :p

But given the choice between a fine and points I'd try anything ;)

Anything????:D :D

F.T.

Originally posted by fat tony

Anything????:D :D

F.T.

 

Hope your not considering abusing you authority FT!!!:D :D :D

I'm sorry Tony, I'm not like that!

 

:p

OOOh Missus!!!:eek:

F.T.

I've heard all about your type...

 

Cavity searches...

 

Looking for drugs?

My arse!

 

 

Oops!

 

:p

Eric,

get yourself down to Brighton on the 16th then I'll show you cavity searches....enough to make the locals jealous!!:eek: :eek:

F.T.

You asking me out on a date Tony??? :eek:

 

(Just for the record I've got a girlfriend and I'm not Gay :p )

You'd better not get a silver Z then!!;)

Good luck tommorrow Eric, hope it all goes well.

Cheers,

F.T.

Well anyway guys, I'm knackered so I'm off to bed now...

Wish me luck for tomorrow :D

Originally posted by fat tony

Good luck tommorrow Eric, hope it all goes well.

Cheers,

F.T.

 

 

Whoooooh

Telepathy too :D

 

Thanks mate :)

 

I'll let you know how it goes.

 

 

P.S. There's nothing wrong with Silver Zeds, I think they look nice :)