A Polish friend of my wife back in the UK has received a NIP for speeding in an area in which he has never been, in a car which he has never driven. The car is owned by a garage where he was employed illegally some time ago to wash cars etc. He was never permitted to drive any of them. If the circumstances are to be believed it appears someone working at the garage with access to his details has used him as a scapegoat.
What's the best course of action? He was about to pay up just to make it go away, but I suggested that this might get him in even deeper doo doo with insurance and who knows where it might end.
How serious an offence is it to knowingly pervert the course of justice in this way?
|
He was about to pay up just to make it go away >>
I hate this attitude that some people have!!
But in asnwer to the query, he'll have to plead Not Guilty with a Statutory Declaration, sworn in front of a solicitor to the effect that he has never driven the car, in an area he has never been, etc. and let the Court decide on the balance of probabilities.
|
">> He was about to pay up just to make it go away >>
I hate this attitude that some people have!!"
Absolutely but I think he's nervous about his status in the UK, rightly or wrongly, and doesn't want undue attention drawn to nimself
|
|
|
OP uses the phrase "Some time ago". Was the NIP served within the required 14 days? You can't please "Not Guilty" to a NIP SFAIK - it is a request for information, not a court hearing for the determination of guilt or otherwise. DVD please advise!
|
Dave, I think what will have happened is that someone at the garage will have nominated him as driver. If that's the case, then the 14 days doesn't apply - for obvious reasons - and he should send back the NIP, saying he has never driven the car but explaining his connection with the vehicle.
Were he to accept the offer of a fine, he wouldn't be perverting the course of justice - nor if he were to plead guilty at court - but he'd be foolish to do so in the circs you describe.
A statutory declaration wouldn't be appropriate in this situation, even if the matter went to court - again obviously, since the court could simply hear his evidence. But if there is a rabbit away here, and someone is trying to frame him, then they certainly need to be investigated for an attempt to pervert.
|
The car is owned by a garage where he was employed illegally some time ago to wash cars etc
Surely, this sentence provides the hook on which to hang his coat. Is the garage (owner) more willing to admit employing someone illegally (presumably that means cash-in-hand mode) than take due punishment for a speeding offence?
Before anything else, why doesn't he ring the garage, explain his 'unfortunate' position re the NoIP & advise them he'll vigorously deny the accusation, and in so doing, would have to give the fullest possible details about his employment history with them? Important he makes no direct threats to expose them, simply asks their opinion about the situation, adopting a 'butter-wouldn't-melt-in-mouth-mode'.
It would be entirely an reasonable thing to do (even in the eyes of a court) to clarify with them what had happened & no way could be construed as blackmail.
The garage might 'discover' they made a mistake with their driving log & someone else was in fact driving, sorry DVLA, you understand etc. etc..
|
Further to my earlier post, if there is some reason why 14 days to serve the NIP, doesn't apply to the driver, was it on served on the Registered Keeper within 14 days? I am a bit puzzled by woodbine's comment re DVLA; SFAIK they are not involved in the issue or handling of NIPs.
|
I am a bit puzzled by woodbine's comment re DVLA; SFAIK they are not involved in the issue or handling of NIPs.
I may well be wrong about DVLA - but amend the 'nominated driver' with whomever one does. The issuing court? CPS?
|
|
|
AS, sorry for any confusion I've caused.
I mean that the 14 days only applies to the first NIP, and then in a limited way. If the RK nominates A, and A nominates B, then B won't be able to say, "Aha! But I received this 21 days after the alleged offence, therefore I'm in the clear."
|
BBD
Sorry to hear of this, AFAIK most Poles can work here legally, although I won't enquire further as to how this may not be the case in this instance.
Given the "whirling" nature of this thread I suggest you head over to Pepipoo.com to ask your question, the advice given there is likely to be more concise.
A link here
tinyurl.com/2jok5r
As always
Mark
|
Given the "whirling" nature of this thread
What do you mean? Can you identify whom you think has been unhelpful (if that's what "whirling" means)?
I suggest you head over to Pepipoo.com
Other inferior fora are available. But I have to say that the advice I've seen on Pepipoo has reminded me usually of the taproom (barrack room?) at my local. The advice to argue in response to an NIP because you haven't received a caution and PACE says you must is one fine example (though it didn't originate there, I concede).
|
Never mind Pepipoo.
This poor guy has been framed.
His problem seems to be that he is unsure of his civil status here. Perhaps he entered informally or something. And his job with the garage is described by BBD as illegal.
The problem for anyone who is here illegally is that although a court may ffind in their favour, it may also note that they are illegal in some way and come down on them for that.
It may be possible for him to regularise his status here. If not though, he's in a difficult situation.
|
Dave
As another poster has said, purjury has been committed.
You know it has happened - why not report it as a crime?
|
Seems that someone at the particular garage is banking on this individual being too frightened to do other than pay up.
Such a cynical attitude needs exposing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Why is this such a big deal? He just writes on the back of the NIP that he doesn't know who the driver was and signs that part.
The Police then will then go back to garage / RK.
|
Poland is in the EU, so said Pole has a right to be here if he wishes to. If he's employed in the 'black economy' he might be liable to some back tax etc, but so would the garage, so it's in their interests to co-operate with him and not put their head too much above the parapet.
If he goes along with this then IMO he is 'attempting to pervert the course of justice', because he didn't commit the offence and he's willing to say he was, which lets off someone else who should not be let off.
If he writes back to whoever has sent him the NIP and explains everything, inc the fact he suspects someone at the garage is using him as scapegoat, i'd put money on it the safety camera partnership will then put this matter on the top of the pile for investigation and the garage will get a hard time. He can be honest with the NIP sender because they're not going to be that worried about a car washer's lack of income tax payments.
|
Do I take it that the car involved was 'flashed' for a speeding offence? If so:
It is inferred that the vehicle was owned/in the charge of the Garage where he worked. In which case the SCP would send the NOIP (in 14 days) to whoever is the Reg Keeper. No arguement that NOIP not served then if this is the case. Along with the NOIP would be a request under Section 172 RTA 1988 for the Reg keeper to name the Driver in 28 days. Failure to do so offence - fine and NOW 6 POINTS.
It would appear that the Reg Keeper was named the Polish Gent as the driver. Could it be that they would expect him to take the rap because of the illegal employment/status in this country?
The position now is that he has a request to either
a) accept he was the driver, which he was not - pay £60 3 points on a Conditional Offer , or if he does not hold a UK Licence then it will have to go to Court on a Guilty plea), or
b) give any information he can as to who the driver was. He cannot.
He should consider writing back to the SCP stating that he has no connection with the car involved and that he was not driving and has no knowledge of who was, and the possiblity of a 'fit up' along with what evidence he can muster to these ends. Further, in an attempt to 'nail' who was the driver, request a photograph of the incident, from which he may be able to show who was driving. Whilst the majority of SCPs will acced to this request they are not bound by law to do so at this stage.
The SCP then have two options:
a) believe and drop proceedings or if assisted by photo go for who was driving. or
b) Summon for failing to name driver where at Court he will have to satisfy the bench on the defence to this charge of:
A person who fails to comply with the requirement is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle.
As to what enquiry the authorities would make in relation to illegal employment or status in UK I do not know, probably little until they get to know the person Nationality.
dvd
|
Thanks so much for your comments.
Just to clarify, yes he's legally in the country but employed on the black market.
It's very interesting what you say Westpig, that by admitting to a crime that he didn't commit he himself is perverting the course of justice. I hadn't thought about that.
Yes DVD the car was flashed at 93mph on an A road. Thanks for that I shall advise him accordingly.
Cheers all
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
someone working at the garage with access to his details has used him as a scapegoat.
How serious an offence is it to knowingly pervert the course of justice in this way?
Didn't a Mr Pericard get jailed recently for doing just that?
|
Didn't a Mr Pericard get jailed recently for doing just that?
It's normally a jail sentence, but some people (noteably a Surveyor from Manchester) got a huge fine instead.
The Police seemingly will go to the ends of the earth to get to the bottom of PCJ cases if they involve evading a speeding fine.
|
The Police seemingly will go to the ends of the earth to get to the bottom of PCJ cases if they involve evading a speeding fine.
i think you'll find that the majority of the day to day work in a SCP will be done by civilian support staff.... with the obvious law breaking stuff passed to a police officer to deal
that officer will then 'get their teeth into' anything that looks well dodgy, often in a most tenacious fashion, as has been reported in the press
|
If that Polish Gent was made the Reg Keeper by The Bad Employer it creates another interesting scenario. Since the Bad Employer clearly expects Polish Gent to take a fall for the former's wrong doing and in the process enourmously inconvenience Polish Gent who now has to go out of his ways to prove his innocence I don't see why Polish Gent, since he was made a register keeper, shouldn't retaliate with inconvenience and report the car, registered to him, stolen by The Bad Employer, perhaps even using speeding pictures as proof of someone else that registered keeper using the car without his knowledge....
--------------------
[ Anything I drive can and will be used against me ]
|
|
He wasn't made registered keeper - just named as the driver by the RK
|
|
|
|
