Due in court tomorrow for speeding and not providing the police with details who was driving at the time of the offence. This was 11days before she rolled the BMW whilst drunk and banned from driving.
As she was banned at the time, surely she should have to prove (beyond doubt) that it wasn't her driving. How can she get away with failing to name who was?
Is that how it works? I assumed the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was driving?
Not sure how it could work like that. How would you ever prove who was driving any vehicle unless it was stopped? Not sure how speeding offences work if not a physical stop - maybe a photo from the camera?
Katie Price won't face jail for speeding just days before drink drive crash: she won't appear before magistrates today as case is dealt with under 'single justice procedure' that rules on minor driving offences
Would be from a speed camera, the police can probally put KP in the car by phone records etc, a couple of MP's lost their jobs for wrongly identifying who was driving their car.
Katie Price won't face jail for speeding just days before drink drive crash: she won't appear before magistrates today as case is dealt with under 'single justice procedure' that rules on minor driving offences
But is it a 'minor driving offence'? Wasn't she disqualified at the time and therefore also uninsured?
Katie Price won't face jail for speeding just days before drink drive crash: she won't appear before magistrates today as case is dealt with under 'single justice procedure' that rules on minor driving offences
But is it a 'minor driving offence'? Wasn't she disqualified at the time and therefore also uninsured?
Would be from a speed camera, the police can probally put KP in the car by phone records etc, a couple of MP's lost their jobs for wrongly identifying who was driving their car.
Even if they analysed the phone data, it would only be sufficient to put her in the car, not what seat. Unfortunately
Would be from a speed camera, the police can probally put KP in the car by phone records etc, a couple of MP's lost their jobs for wrongly identifying who was driving their car.
Even if they analysed the phone data, it would only be sufficient to put her in the car, not what seat. Unfortunately
But as she was in the car she knows who was driving, it is an offence not to disclose that, she has had more than 6months to say who was driving at the time.
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
I completely agree. That's why in many cases, for example doping in sport, failure to provide a sample is treated as seriously as providing a sample that tests positive for a banned substance. In this case, you take a look at the penalty for non-disclosure then take a look at the penalty for whatever offence you're likely to be charged with if you disclose you were the driver and decide which you prefer. Which in turn strongly implies that whatever she was doing at the time would have resulted in more than 6 points and a fine, which means it was pretty serious.
Would be from a speed camera, the police can probally put KP in the car by phone records etc, a couple of MP's lost their jobs for wrongly identifying who was driving their car.
Even if they analysed the phone data, it would only be sufficient to put her in the car, not what seat. Unfortunately
But as she was in the car she knows who was driving, it is an offence not to disclose that, she has had more than 6months to say who was driving at the time.
In theory true, but she's obviously come up with some BS about not remembering who it was etc. as advised by someone legal (despite being bankrupt, I doubt it's Legal Aid). She's in the media so much, surely someone can look back at whatever cr@p she posted on the day or the speed camera photo must be conclusive with her identifiable features'. Maybe even the metadata from her endless photos.
Despite being so offensive herself, it seems offences don't apply to her.
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
It is not as straightforward as that. There are statutory defences regarding a S172 RTA offence. The NIP arriving more than 14 days after the date of the offence is likely to get proceedings chucked out, for example. But let's say the NIP arrived in time but that the vehicle in question is a family run-around. Would it actually be possible to Identify who was driving at a particular time/date? (It seems this defence is more likely to work if the offence took place near to a home address.) And then there are company-owned vehicles, how do you ban a company from driving?
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
It is not as straightforward as that. There are statutory defences regarding a S172 RTA offence. The NIP arriving more than 14 days after the date of the offence is likely to get proceedings chucked out, for example. But let's say the NIP arrived in time but that the vehicle in question is a family run-around. Would it actually be possible to Identify who was driving at a particular time/date? (It seems this defence is more likely to work if the offence took place near to a home address.) And then there are company-owned vehicles, how do you ban a company from driving?
Maybe not for most people but a quick check of her social/'work' diary/'social engagements' and social media posts should make it a lot easier than for most people
e.g. she launched her clothing brand and was on Loose Women the day before she rolled her car - one disadvantage to chronicling your every move on social media
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
It is not as straightforward as that. There are statutory defences regarding a S172 RTA offence. The NIP arriving more than 14 days after the date of the offence is likely to get proceedings chucked out, for example. But let's say the NIP arrived in time but that the vehicle in question is a family run-around. Would it actually be possible to Identify who was driving at a particular time/date? (It seems this defence is more likely to work if the offence took place near to a home address.) And then there are company-owned vehicles, how do you ban a company from driving?
I'm sure there was a case recently where the vehicle owner couldn't or wouldn't say who was driving at the time and therefore the registered owner had to take the points & fine. I'm pretty sure it doesn't just "go away" because the NIP isn't replied to or the registered owner just replies "don't know guv" - otherwise we can all start doing that.......can't we
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
That makes me feel great having just had to fight to keep my license in birmingham magistrates court after being nicked doing 64 on the M6 where the stupid smart motorway bit is and apparently the speed limit at the time was 40. I admited it obviously pleased in court and basically begged to keep my license and apparently was treated kindly by the magistrates when they gave me 6 points and an £840.00 fine !
Everyone is different and people may react in alternative ways to specific problems, but I don't see how bad mental health and drink driving are directly linked together. Drink driving is careless arrogance.
It may be a case that she no longer cares about her own life because she is mentally unstable. She drinks to soothe her pain and then decides to drive when she is clearly over the limit.
Perhaps she is incredibly unhappy and a part of her wants to die...so she can escape the torment of her undignified life. She is addicted to media attention. It is something that she needs - and she's a tad ashamed.
She can afford to pay for a high standard high quality psychologist who would be able to help her.
Likely to be more of a case that she is cunning and good at generating money...simply just by behaving like a tart.
This will be her get out. Refuse to name the driver and the only charge will be failure to disclose. Just a fine.
Failing to provide drivers identity carries 6 penalty points on your licence and up to £1000 fine. Not sure how a judge would see that in the circumstances of her already being banned however.
Personally i think the law is pretty stupid here. It's bizarre that you're basically able to say to a court 'yes i know who it was but i'm not going to tell you'.
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
It is not as straightforward as that. There are statutory defences regarding a S172 RTA offence. The NIP arriving more than 14 days after the date of the offence is likely to get proceedings chucked out, for example. But let's say the NIP arrived in time but that the vehicle in question is a family run-around. Would it actually be possible to Identify who was driving at a particular time/date? (It seems this defence is more likely to work if the offence took place near to a home address.) And then there are company-owned vehicles, how do you ban a company from driving?
I'm sure there was a case recently where the vehicle owner couldn't or wouldn't say who was driving at the time and therefore the registered owner had to take the points & fine. I'm pretty sure it doesn't just "go away" because the NIP isn't replied to or the registered owner just replies "don't know guv" - otherwise we can all start doing that.......can't we
What a load of bollocks. Delay after delay to Let the dust settle and soften the public outcry. Give her time to come up with some more lies or excuses. A chance maybe to have a drama with Harvey that she can leverage in her favour.
just fucking lock her up and throw away the key. She’s an embarrassment, a criminal and she has no regard for the law. She mocks every single one of us.
What a load of bollocks. Delay after delay to Let the dust settle and soften the public outcry. Give her time to come up with some more lies or excuses. A chance maybe to have a drama with Harvey that she can leverage in her favour.
just fucking lock her up and throw away the key. She’s an embarrassment, a criminal and she has no regard for the law. She mocks every single one of us.
And more and more court time. Didn't plead guilty initially?
Comments
Katie Price won't face jail for speeding just days before drink drive crash: she won't appear before magistrates today as case is dealt with under 'single justice procedure' that rules on minor driving offences
She's also in court tomorrow for something else (breaching a restraining order).
If you don't disclose who was driving the car then it should come with a penalty of a fine plus an automatic ban.
Despite being so offensive herself, it seems offences don't apply to her.
And then there are company-owned vehicles, how do you ban a company from driving?
e.g. she launched her clothing brand and was on Loose Women the day before she rolled her car - one disadvantage to chronicling your every move on social media
Edit. Christine Hamilton might know the answer.
Drink driving is careless arrogance.
It may be a case that she no longer cares about her own life because she is mentally unstable. She drinks to soothe her pain and then decides to drive when she is clearly over the limit.
Perhaps she is incredibly unhappy and a part of her wants to die...so she can escape the torment of her undignified life.
She is addicted to media attention. It is something that she needs - and she's a tad ashamed.
She can afford to pay for a high standard high quality psychologist who would be able to help her.
Likely to be more of a case that she is cunning and good at generating money...simply just by behaving like a tart.
Get the right lawyer and many things are possible. Of course it is unlikely that Ms Price would have the competence to do that.
just fucking lock her up and throw away the key. She’s an embarrassment, a criminal and she has no regard for the law. She mocks every single one of us.