How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 70416
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice.
12826847
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

Accused of speeding. Camera evidence concurs 50mph in 40 mph

Customer Question

Accused of speeding. Camera evidence concurs 50mph in 40 mph zone.
Notice of intended prosecution. Denied incriminating myself, could not remember driving at time and was ill in any case with bronchitis.
Defence: Cannot remember driving at time. burden of proof on prosecution that I was driving.
Notice of intended prosecution contains anomalies, i.e. is not an offence to decline to name driver as indicated if not known.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this
I am afraid that you misunderstand the law.
Section 172 of the Road traffic act reverses the onus onto you. It does not ask whether you know offhand who was driving. Of course you do not. It does, however, place an obligation upon you to investigate the issue using reasonable diligence and to identify the driver.
With personal vehicles that are usually fairly easy to do is because we can all say with reasonable efforts who was driving our own personal car on any particular day.
“Reasonable diligence" has been considered is by the higher courts and it means doing things like checking your diary, retracing the journey etc.
If you genuinely cannot do so then it is a defence to say that you had used reasonable diligence and cannot say. Sometimes haulage companies are in that position.
Generally speaking, “reasonable diligence" at the magistrates court means doing everything humanly possible. Any imperfection or failing will be used as an excuse to convict you.
Also, you should remember that the law reverses the burden of proof on to you to show, on the balance of probability, that you have used reasonable diligence.
The reversal of the burden of proof has been considered at Europe and has been held the within reasonable limits.
Can I clarify anything ?
Jo