yes she knows the guy but only socially and has no address for him, she was told by him he had a liscence but has nowbeen told differently which explains him running off
there were no witnesses and the officers say that two off duty officers saw her outside the car. she was also asked a series of questions one of which was who the driver was. she was the driver
apoligies the above email was incomplete and the last part was meant to say she admitted to being the driver at the scene but gave a no comment interview. can this be challenged with out the other persons involvement
Well the difficulty is she admitted to being the driver.
If this was the case then the Officers evidence is going to be enough to convict.
Look at it this way, if she really was not the driver and there was a crash and she waited, why would she not say who was driving and why would she give a no comment interview? It makes no sense.
If someone was innocent they would put their side of the story in interview
And the fact she admitted to driving
Those things together certainly cause her difficulty.
Sadly she could fight it but in reality the Court is going to believe what an officer says over this.
There are real problems
I am sorry if this is not the answer you want and certainly not the one I want to give you, but I have a duty to be honest
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?