Lucifer Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Nice one, but you do not want a SP99 on your licence, which is what would have resuled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 think this would be better in members boys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 not guilty ha ha ha wot a result told the court that i was not the driver at the time because somebody came and tested it with veiw to buy.sale fell through so did not have details of the driver. but i did show "reasonable diligence" in identifying driver as i veiwed his insurance and licence just couldnt be expected to remember them as he was not freind or family this is the second time this has worked dont think it would again Well done son you made me proud. p.s I think this should be put in members only just incase the judge is surfing mkivsupra.net tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mk47 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 well done lambertpig, im proud of you, you old swine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Supra Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Can't be put up against the same crime twice though can you (saw the film Double Jeopardy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soop Dogg Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Can't be put up against the same crime twice though can you (saw the film Double Jeopardy) (And that's US law) But you CAN be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The 'friend from Mexico' routine is purely asking for trouble. A quick check with the passports database can verify either way. (try a non-english speaking country that doesn't need a passport:sly: ) The 'nutter test-driver' routine is not bad, as long as you have proof of the car being up for sale --- if they do ask you need to be prepared. Also never give a single name, always more than one 'potential' names, depending on the clarity of their pictures. If they are not front-facing and clear, you may not be able to help further with their enquiries. Always helpful though:D That way they can't do you for 'non-disclosure'. If they want to eliminate the "I'm not sure" defence, they should recruit more traffic police, not sack them and replace them with automated ticketing software... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terribleturner Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Thaat's a good result, good job mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 not guilty ha ha ha wot a result told the court that i was not the driver at the time because somebody came and tested it with veiw to buy.sale fell through so did not have details of the driver. but i did show "reasonable diligence" in identifying driver as i veiwed his insurance and licence just couldnt be expected to remember them as he was not freind or family this is the second time this has worked dont think it would again That is quite a result because I would expect you to still get done for not replying to the NIP. The argument of who was the driver shouldn't have anything to do with the case. You were charged with failing to provide details where it was in your power to do so, but from what you said, you just ignored the NIP. There's a section on the NIP form to say you weren't the driver/sold car/whatever isn't there? Anyway, good result! Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrivingTheDream Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yes brilliant result mate! One back for the team as far I'm concerned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambertpig Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 That is quite a result because I would expect you to still get done for not replying to the NIP. The argument of who was the driver shouldn't have anything to do with the case. You were charged with failing to provide details where it was in your power to do so, but from what you said, you just ignored the NIP. There's a section on the NIP form to say you weren't the driver/sold car/whatever isn't there? Anyway, good result! Well done! i did reply to the nip but stated i could not provide details of driver as i no longer had them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 i did reply to the nip but stated i could not provide details of driver as i no longer had them ah! I don't know why I assumed you ignored it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.