Nasty trick to play on courts re speeding and parking

Just suppose you get done for speeding or for a parking offence. You get a letter in the mail telling you pay or nominate the driver.

Unfortunately you panic a little bit and you nominate who you think it was because after all, it was some weeks ago now wasn't it, and it wasn't you so therefore it must have been your mate xyz.

You say in the paper work back to the police or council that you were "NOT IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE THAT DAY and nominate your mate who has been to court a few times and is not so fazed about going to court, (or someone you can trust) as the driver.

The court sends the paper work for your mate to appear in court, to you. You send it on to your mates address. It may work differently in the UK.

Your mate swears an affidavit (the highest form of attestation there is) that he was not in charge of the vehicle that day and did not drive your vehicle that day. He may even say he was elsewhere and he might even say that in his affidavit.

You both rock up to the court on court day. The mag calls the case up and might ask you questions about your side of the story. You state you were not in charge of the vehicle that day but as far as you know it was your mate xyz.

Your mate hotly denies he was in charge of the vehicle and hands up his affidavit to the mag and says he wants to put you on the stand and cross examine you. He puts you on the stand, you take the oath or affirmation and he asks you a few lead up questions and then asks you where were you on the day in question.

You say you were at home watching movies or whatever.

So; your mate has an affidavit saying he was not driving the car that day and you were at home all day watching TV ... so what is the court going to do??  What alternative does it have to dismiss the case?

WARNING - The risks

Swearing an affidavit knowing it to be false is a very serious matter and would likely incur a very heavy fine and it may even result in goal.

Get your mate to ask you some lead up questions when your on the stand. eg:

what is your name?
how old are you?
where do you live?
do you own a xyz car with rego of abc?

Then he'll ask you what were you doing on the day in question? This answer must come naturally and must be unbreakable.

Similarly; the mag would love to make an example of someone to deter others so any fine will likely be very heavy for giving false evidence and perhaps for conspiracy to defraud also, if it is what it is by definition.

RISK MANAGEMENT

If you were watching movies all day read up on them so when your mate asks you questions about them you can tell your mate under oath what movies they were, who starred in them and what the story line was.

Think your whereabouts on the day through from start to finish. Get your stories sorted long before you go to court.

If you were not at home; work on the basis that the mag might get the security camera footage for all cameras in the area you claimed to be in.

Write out what you were doing on the day in question in large letters and refer to these notes as you answer the questions on the stand.

Go over the questions your mate will ask you well before trial day so you can commit the answers to them to memory but still take your notes into court with you so you don't get nervous and stumble and give the game away.

try to foresee any questions the mag might ask either of you.

Arrive at the court waiting room at different times.

Don't acknowledge each other in the court waiting room or in the public gallery in the court room. Know there are security cameras in the waiting room and even outside the court building and the mag can get and review them. It wont take long for the mag to get suspicious so get everything sussed out before you go.

Maintain this approach until you are well away from the court house.

besta luck.

1) I think this is similar to the 'Hamilton Defence' where both husband and wife didnt honestly remember who was using the car. I think the courts will not accept this.
2) As for courts, not only is the waiting area cctv'd but actually microphoned. That is because witnesses should not talk to other parties and be "pursuaded" as trials go on.

How will they not accept this defence? what option would the court have but to dismiss the charge if the court could not pin it on either person?

For the court to pin it on one or the other they would have to be certain which one it was but if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of either then they have no option but to dismiss.

I know a bloke in Perth who has done this for 3 people and won 3 out of 3, He offered to do it for me if I get done for speeding or parking. When thats happened then I will start helping others like he does by using this technique.

Hi ausk,

Your logic is spot on. I guess the reason it may not work in the UK is because its nothing more than a revenue stream designed to extort .We all know its only about the money.

daveiron wrote:Hi ausk,

Your logic is spot on. I guess the reason it may not work in the UK is because its nothing more than a revenue stream designed to extort .We all know its only about the money.  

daveiron; I think the whole government industry knows its only ever about the money. We've got it and they want to get it off us so they have more to give their rich corporate mates who will in turn give them back their annual revenue bonus.

They only people who don't know its about the money is naive, media believers, sheep and goats who believe its only about road safety and the state caring about them.

What the hell makes people think the state cares about them when they cant even work out for themselves what is that makes the state care about someone they do not even know exists??