Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Being done for driving no insurance in 1994

Issues arising from our actions on the roads - including Transport.

Re: Being done for driving no insurance in 1994

Postby peckerwood » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:56 pm

The solicitor that dealt with it closed his firm in 2003. I'll have to self represent and ask the court to dismiss the allegation because I no longer have the insurance document from 1994.

At the same time, I have not seen what evidence the prosecution has to say I was not insured, and I understood it was the prosecution that has to prove a case.

I'm not asking an ombudsman to investigate proceedings. It's about the behaviour of an employee of a government agency.
peckerwood
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:20 am

Re: Being done for driving no insurance in 1994

Postby atticus » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:04 pm

You would be unwise to assume that the prosecution will not have some evidence.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18858
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Being done for driving no insurance in 1994

Postby DannyJP » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:42 am

Somewhere in the back of my mind is something about "no insurance" being a rare instance with a reverse burden of proof. You have to prove you were insured. Perhaps someone can confirm? Again the standard the defendant has reach is that they were probably insured.

Proof of insurance for many years might convince a bench even if there was no data for 1997..
User avatar
DannyJP
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: Being done for driving no insurance in 1994

Postby shootist » Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:32 pm

DannyJP wrote:Somewhere in the back of my mind is something about "no insurance" being a rare instance with a reverse burden of proof. You have to prove you were insured. Perhaps someone can confirm? Again the standard the defendant has reach is that they were probably insured.

Proof of insurance for many years might convince a bench even if there was no data for 1997..


The prosecution first has to prove you were in a situation where you required insurance, E.G. driving a car on a public road. Once that is proven the burden is on the driver to either prove he was insured or that he did not require insurance. In the OP's case I would be tempted to require the prosecution to prove the identity of the alleged driver, perhaps by way of video ID parade by the officer alleging the driving evidence.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Previous

Return to Road Traffic Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest