KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
In this month’s edition we feature more road traffic issues relevant to the trade supplied by Patterson Law. These questions are based on real enquiries that we have received from professional drivers. If you need any advice on motoring matters please email
e.patterson@
pattersonlaw.co.uk or call 01626 359800 for free legal advice. For regular updates on road traffic law follow us on
facebook.com/PattersonLawMotoringSolicitors or
twitter.com/Patterson_law_
Q
I have just received a Single Justice Procedure Notice for driving with a defective tyre. I have 21 days to plead guilty or not guilty and I need ad- vice what I should do.
About a week before I was stopped by the police. I took my car into the garage as I knew that the tyre was get- ting low on tread. They didn’t have time to change it so they booked me in for the following week and said it was just about road legal for now. But when the officers stopped me they said the tread was already below the legal limit. I took it back to the garage that following week and they changed the tyre, and said it seemed fine to them. I do have a letter from them saying that in their opinion the tyre was road legal but is that enough to challenge the case?
A
The first thing to check is whether the tyre was actually defective. It must have a minimum tread depth of 1.3mm around the whole circumference of the tyre. That very much depends what the of- ficer and the garage are saying.
If the garage is correct, then we need a formal witness statement from them and it’s likely the mechanic would need to attend Court to give evidence. A letter will not be enough.
If they are sticking to their guns and are willing to com- mit in writing, and again under oath that the tyre was roadworthy then my advice would be to respond to the Single Justice Procedure Notice entering a not guilty plea, which will cause the matter to be listed for trial. Then at the trial both the officer and the mechanic will give evidence.
The benefit for us is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond doubt, that the tyre was defective – in other words so the court are 90 per cent sure. All we must do is cast doubt on their case. So if after hearing from them both, the court isn’t sure then they must ac- quit you.
But if the garage is not willing to do that then it will be 72
your word against the officer’s word and without sup- porting evidence it’s likely that we would lose, especially if he is a specialist vehicle examiner. So here I would go down a different route. My advice would be to respond to the SJPN to enter a guilty plea but inform the court that we intend to present an argument under section 48 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Section 48 states that the Court need not endorse penalty points if the driver “proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person.”
The negative of going down this route is that the burden is on us (rather than the prosecution) to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you didn’t know the tyre was defective. But the benefit is that we’re not necessar- ily going into the depths of saying the officer was wrong; we’re only asking the court to consider that you were misled by the garage, so we have more chances of winning if we don’t have that supporting evidence.
take. I’ve never been to Norwich and have no connection with that car at all. Am I safe to ignore the letter?
A Q
No. Do not ignore the letter.
When a person is asked to give details of the driver of ANY vehicle (not just your car but any
car at all) the law puts people into two categories – the “keeper” and “any other person”.
The “keeper” of the vehicle must nominate the driver. “Any other person” need only give information in their power which may lead to the driver’s identity.
Clearly if the car is not yours and you had no connection to it then you would be classed as “any other person” and so you still must give information in your power to give. The case of DPP v Grant states that even if you have no information to give – i.e. if the car is not yours – you must give that minimal information to the police as it may lead them to go back to the person that nominated you or may lead them to investigate further and identify the driver.
So you must respond to the police and inform them that the car is nothing to do with you and that you have no connection to it. You must sign the letter and I would also advise sending it by recorded delivery to make sure they get it.
JANUARY 2021
I have just received a letter from Norfolk Police asking me to nominate who was driving a car in Norwich on Boxing Day. I have no idea whose car it is, I think they must have written to me by mis-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
