On 21 Sep, 21:23, hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Sep 21, 9:02 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Ross"  wrote in message
>
> >news:o57dd4p2hhl6n8bmhrcbnjkomj13dl3lid@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
> > >  wrote:
> > >>I have no comment to make on that - I merely presented the legal
> > >>position which you totally misread and misunderstood, and I pointed
> > >>that out to you. My original submission quoted sections of the act
> > >>which, of course make it clear that that it is the Act which requires
> > >>'reasonable cause to believe', and that is therefore a pre-condiiton.
> > >>We do not know whether the police have enough evidence or information
> > >>for a court to agree they have 'reasonable cause to believe' and your
> > >>scenarios on what the police would need to do may or may not apply.
>
> > > I think we agree more than we disagree; we have no real idea what info the
> > > police may or may not have. We're speculating. But it does appear to me
> > > that the
> > > police have jumped straight from issuing a NIP to saying to the RK 'ok
> > > you've
> > > named a driver who lives overseas. YOU are now required to provide their
> > > insurance certificate'. The OP had a problem with that, and so do I.
>
> > I see no reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been comitted,
> > unless someone is saying that allowing a foreign resident to drive a car is
> > a reasonable cause, something I doubt any court would agree with.
> > What next?  If the driver was, say Japanese, would the OP be required to
> > provide a translation of his insurance in case the Police can't read
> > Japanese?
>
> > > (coupled with an invitiation to the OP to 'reconsider' their statement
> > > regarding
> > > the identity of the driver. I consider that tantamount to attempted PCJ by
> > > the
> > > police.)
>
> > I would be taking this further.
>
> What would you do? Email me if you wish - I'd be interested to know.
> At the moment, I have prepared a letter to the police, saying
>
> 1) that they appear to have acted beyond their powers in serving the
> producer, because they don't have "reasonable cause to believe", and
>
> 2) that in their letter to me (with producer enclosed) - a letter
> presumably meant to be included with their report up the chain
> recommending prosecution - they "forget" to mention that they wrote to
> me to encourage me to change my statement; and they also forget to
> mention how I replied to that encouragement. (I told them the facts
> hadn't changed).
>
> How might I tighten up 2)? I'm not sure I want to jump in and accuse
> them of trying to PCJ at this stage.

Why the hell don't you just produce the insurance. All you are doing
is making them more and more suspicious.

Ian