Thanks for your unhelpful comment, I have seen the image it's a rear view of the vehicle!,

I am not trying to avoid anything I'm trying to tell the truth!

Edited by Kernal Panic on 27/07/2012 at 07:40

Thanks for your unhelpful comment,

All comments like that will achieve will be to ensure you will get no help whatsoever.

Don't do 49 in a 40 is the answer.

Wot thunderbird says. Iffy did his best to offer you some constructive advice. IIRC the guy's a court correspondent with a regional paper and no doubt sees these things on a regular basis.

There was nothing in your OP to suggest it was a rear picture.

I believe when the driver cannot be identified then the registered keeper of the vehicle takes the hit.

I don't think that can be right. If there are cases providing authority for such action I'd be interested to read them. What happens if, as can be the case, the RK is a non driver for example an elderly parent or a disabled child?

I dont think Ifithelps meant to accuse the OP of attempting to evade. Rather, he was saying that attempts by others to do so mean the court sets a very high bar in such cases. Having said that Neil Hamilton and his wife did persuade a court they were unsure re a commute either of them might drive. Chutzpah not in short supply with that pair though!!

If you think back to the day in question and the time of offence is there any clues as to who might have been driving and who was at home or at the office? For example phone call, IT logon records, checking in/out of a building with security or from on site CCTV?

If an exercise of that type suggests strongly that one or the other of you was driving then I suspect that would be enough for the police or SCP. Difficulties arise when you conspire, in the style alleged against Mr Huhne and his ex, for one of you to take the rap knowing it to be false, for example to evade a ban or to avoid one of you being on 9 points and the other on nil.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 27/07/2012 at 18:26

If you really don't know, the most helpful thing I can suggest is that whichever of you has fewer points on your licence should take the hit - or if equal, whichever of you does less annual mileage.

Therein lies the 'perverting the course' trap. If you make an honest factual assessment of who was driving you're legally reasonably clear. As soon as factors like fewer points or mileage come in then there's prima facie evidence of conspiracy to pervert.