Speeding ticket - unknown driver

[ALFAitalia]

I think you have made a wise choice.

Yes the police can access phone location data regardless of what options you have or dont have. They can get the cell tower data from the providers and pin point your phone simply with it turned on. Of course in your case that wouldnt help them if you and your wife were both in the car at the time.

Its a very very common mistake criminals make. They take their phone with them during the commision of a crime. They then deny it when caught and claim they were elsewhere. It all falls apart when the police say 'but sir we can place your mobile phone at that scene at the precise time on the incident!'.

In court that would just be circumstantial....anyone could have had your phone. It does not prove your location. But cameras and other CCTV could.

 

[Harrythedog]

Does this help ?

Noel Gallagher fined more than £1,000 for driving offence - but he doesn't have a licence

The singer failed to identify who was driving his Range Rover above the speed limit in October last year. Despite only having one driving lesson back in the 1990s, he was handed six penalty points.

news.sky.com

 

[ALFAitalia]

£1000 fine for a multi millionaire and 6 points on his non existent license......lol. Doubt he was that worried! Probably did not want to dob a mate in it.

 

[JHS]

If you are both nominated as the main driver on any of your cars, then I would suggest you 'grass up' the person with with the cheaper insurance premium, as it WILL be affected by a conviction.

FTFY

 

[markjay]

In court that would just be circumstantial....anyone could have had your phone. It does not prove your location. But cameras and other CCTV could.

I remember a case when someone was accused of being an accessory to murder, the evidence against him was that on the day of the murder there were several calls made to the murderer's own phone from a 'burner' phone that the accused person purchased a few months earlier (the receipt was found in his house), and the mobile phone provider's mast data showed that the calls were made from the accused person's home address.

In court, the defendant said that he gave the 'burner' phone to someone else months earlier, and his solicitor asked the mobile phone company's expert whiteness if the mast data was accurate enough to tell the exact location of the mobile phone when the calls were made, and in particular whether the phone was actually inside the house at the time - the answer was no, and the solicitor argued that someone else may have used the 'burner' phone while standing just outside the defendant's house. The defendant was acquitted on the grounds of 'reasonable doubt'....

 

[Bellow]

Theoretically, if the computing power exists, when a crime is committed at a known location and time, a trawl of all phones in the vicinity at that time would create a suspect list who could then be interviewed/interrogated with the strong possibility one of them is the perpetrator (assuming the perpetrator had their phone with them). How close/far are we from that being a reality?

BTW, the OP's course of action - guessing who was driving - carries a 50:50 chance of committing perjury.

 

[st13phil]

BTW, the OP's course of action - guessing who was driving - carries a 50:50 chance of committing perjury.

The reality is that unless there is a deliberate effort to shift the blame from one potential driver to another (for example if the actual driver would receive a totting ban, so names the other one to avoid the sanction), the Camera Partnerships couldn't give a monkey's. All they want is that someone "coughs" and pays them money with the least amount of effort on their part.

 

[Bellow]

The reality is that unless there is a deliberate effort to shift the blame from one potential driver to another (for example if the actual driver would receive a totting ban, so names the other one to avoid the sanction),

There will inevitably be an element of that here - least pain.

the Camera Partnerships couldn't give a monkey's. All they want is that someone "coughs" and pays them money with the least amount of effort on their part.

Yep, and perjury with its harsh penalty of imprisonment conveniently overlooked.

 

[markjay]

Theoretically, if the computing power exists, when a crime is committed at a known location and time, a trawl of all phones in the vicinity at that time would create a suspect list who could then be interviewed/interrogated with the strong possibility one of them is the perpetrator (assuming the perpetrator had their phone with them). How close/far are we from that being a reality?

BTW, the OP's course of action - guessing who was driving - carries a 50:50 chance of committing perjury.

I think that the offence - in the case of knowingly lying about who drove the car - is "attempting to pervert the course of justice", and not "perjury"?

 

[Dryce]

Theoretically, if the computing power exists, when a crime is committed at a known location and time, a trawl of all phones in the vicinity at that time would create a suspect list who could then be interviewed/interrogated with the strong possibility one of them is the perpetrator (assuming the perpetrator had their phone with them). How close/far are we from that being a reality?

It's not really about computing power but about cost.

So if you have a break in to a building with minor theft and no apparent witnesses and no major evidence then the police will shrug - too difficult to progress - not interested.

If the same break in resulted in a murder with no apparent witnesses and no major evidence then the response of the police will be more proactive and more likely get to a conviction from that same starting point.

Why? Money basically. Bigger budget to get a result results in substantially more effort - such as trawling CCTV, more forensics, extensive followups.

 

[Smitty1]

"sorry love you have been caught speeding"

sorted

 

[Bellow]

It's not really about computing power but about cost.

So if you have a break in to a building with minor theft and no apparent witnesses and no major evidence then the police will shrug - too difficult to progress - not interested.

If the same break in resulted in a murder with no apparent witnesses and no major evidence then the response of the police will be more proactive and more likely get to a conviction from that same starting point.

Why? Money basically. Bigger budget to get a result results in substantially more effort - such as trawling CCTV, more forensics, extensive followups.

Theoretically possible though. There'd been a time when no-one believed bobbies would have cars not bicycles....

 

[Bellow]

I think that the offence - in the case of knowingly lying about who drove the car - is "attempting to pervert the course of justice", and not "perjury"?

Indeed - my sloppy linguistics. You can tell I'm no lawyer.
The difference here is in the 'unknowingly' lying. But both know there's a 50:50 chance they are making a false declaration as to who committed the offence.

 

[JHS]

The OP could of course put "either/or" on the form.

 

[st13phil]

The OP could of course put "either/or" on the form.

...which would guarantee a Failure to Furnish charge because they haven't unequivocally named "a" driver.

 

[markjay]

Theoretically, if the computing power exists, when a crime is committed at a known location and time, a trawl of all phones in the vicinity at that time would create a suspect list who could then be interviewed/interrogated with the strong possibility one of them is the perpetrator (assuming the perpetrator had their phone with them). How close/far are we from that being a reality?

BTW, the OP's course of action - guessing who was driving - carries a 50:50 chance of committing perjury.

DOMINIC LAWSON: Stolen car part is a sad indictment of policing

DOMINIC LAWSON: The catalytic converter of Dominic Lawson's Lexus RX petrol hybrid was stolen and the thieves tore through the exhausts to remove it.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I bet that if it was the Chief Constable'd Rangie that had its cat stolen.... CID would have cracked it within 24 hours

 

[JHS]

The OP could of course put "either/or" on the form.

Which takes us back to post#2.
Ground hog day.

 

[ALFAitalia]

There really are some pedants on here.....if you really cant remember just give them one name or the other....then that will be the end of it. There will be no charges for pergury of perverting the course of justice or any other such nonsence.....pay the fine and move on!
Four pages of this nonsense!!

 

[Williamwoo]

There really are some pedants on here.....if you really cant remember just give them one name or the other....then that will be the end of it. There will be no charges for pergury of perverting the course of justice or any other such nonsence.....pay the fine and move on!
Four pages of this nonsense!!

Thanks - that's exactly what I said we'd be doing a few days ago!

 

[markjay]

Thanks - that's exactly what I said we'd be doing a few days ago!

Spoilsport! Just when I got the popcorn out.....