ADUK Archive

Red Herring wrote:All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public.

Note that animalkit states that other drivers just carried on. Not surprising, if getting involved results in having to produce documents. Not the best judgement in my view. If he did become a suspect he could always be asked to produce documents then.

Red Herring wrote:Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself.

To be fair the Police officers only have animalkit's word for that. It may transpire after speaking to the other driver that he wasn't as innocent as his witness evidence suggests.




I agree with breathylising as standard in an accident in order to clarify a possibly very significant fact which cannot be done in the future.

7db wrote:Can the officer demand production of the licence even though the person isn't a driver at the time when the production is required?

They can require production of the licence from someone who isn't a driver at the time of requirement where

1) They have reasonable cause to believe they were driving at the time of an accident due to it's presence on a road
2) They have reasonable cause to believe they have committed an offence in relation to a motor vehicle on a road
3) They are supervising either of those.

vonhosen wrote:

Red Herring wrote:Why does the driver have to produce both parts of their driving licence? All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public. I appreciate there is a power to require a driver to produce their licence, however the automatic use of this power when it is unnecessary suggests either laziness on the part of the officer or ignorance on the part of the organization. Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself. I accept there is a need to record all details, however there are ways of doing things....

You've said yourself the computer isn't always accurate, so you cross reference what is physically produced with what is believed through other channels. At the point the producer is issued the matter is still under investigation & all parties involved must be checked, just as all should also be breathalysed.

Your memory about what I may have said in the past is better than mine, I don't know if I should be flattered or worried... Computers, or rather the information held on them, is not always up to date, which is why it needs an informed individual to use it. In this example if the driver tells you they hold a licence and on checking the DVLA database this is confirmed there would be no need to issue a producer. What are you trying to achieve? If they told you they held a licence, the computer confirms this, yet for some reason the individual is unable to produce it would you seriously prosecute them for "failing to produce"?
If on the other hand the individual tells you they have a licence yet the DVLA database says not, then it would make sense to get the person to produce what they claim to hold. It may well be that the DVLA computer is inaccurate, but far more likely that their licence has been revoked (or expired to stay topical with recent press), or even that it is completely false.
Put it this way, if the driver produces a document to you at the road side would you accept it, or check back to the issuing authority? Just about any document you may need to produce when driving anywhere in the world is now readily available on-line, and not necessarily from the correct authority. I suspect quite a few officers are still getting regularly suckered....

Its is logical that everyone at the scene has their fitness to drive and documentation checked as two wrongs don't make a right. Just because this guy (According to your view) was to blame should they not check whether your all in order. I don't understand why this can't be done electronically at the scene via control or a phone call as we know if the police at the scene want to check your licence/insurance etc it is easliy done.

I can sympathise with good officiers that there is a wealth of paper work these days and their numbers have been thinned out and in some cases replaced with PCSO'S (Glorified traffic wardens). I was deffending my local force the other day to someone complaining they could not attend there shop out in the sticks after the windows where smashed one night.

BUT.....

Then this sat gone I dropped my partner at work and headed to the McDonaulds down the road when I saw 2 dvisional Focus police cars driving in a hurry without lights and sirens and I followed then to MD as I was going tehre anyway. They pulled up 4 officiers got out and went and sat in for breakfast. How I fight their corner when some officiers behave like that, I understand they have to eat but 4 officiers in a smallish town at the other end. Those 2nr cars must be most of community policing cover for taunton. I here from increasing numbers of people who complain they are told they dont have the resources to attend less serious crimes and when these people see this sort of behavour it breeds distrust and contempt for the police, Hardly proffesional.

Red Herring wrote:

vonhosen wrote:

Red Herring wrote:Why does the driver have to produce both parts of their driving licence? All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public. I appreciate there is a power to require a driver to produce their licence, however the automatic use of this power when it is unnecessary suggests either laziness on the part of the officer or ignorance on the part of the organization. Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself. I accept there is a need to record all details, however there are ways of doing things....

You've said yourself the computer isn't always accurate, so you cross reference what is physically produced with what is believed through other channels. At the point the producer is issued the matter is still under investigation & all parties involved must be checked, just as all should also be breathalysed.

Your memory about what I may have said in the past is better than mine, I don't know if I should be flattered or worried... Computers, or rather the information held on them, is not always up to date, which is why it needs an informed individual to use it. In this example if the driver tells you they hold a licence and on checking the DVLA database this is confirmed there would be no need to issue a producer. What are you trying to achieve? If they told you they held a licence, the computer confirms this, yet for some reason the individual is unable to produce it would you seriously prosecute them for "failing to produce"?
If on the other hand the individual tells you they have a licence yet the DVLA database says not, then it would make sense to get the person to produce what they claim to hold. It may well be that the DVLA computer is inaccurate, but far more likely that their licence has been revoked (or expired to stay topical with recent press), or even that it is completely false.
Put it this way, if the driver produces a document to you at the road side would you accept it, or check back to the issuing authority? Just about any document you may need to produce when driving anywhere in the world is now readily available on-line, and not necessarily from the correct authority. I suspect quite a few officers are still getting regularly suckered....

I'd want to check the signature on the licence/photo etc.

Thanks Von - does it seem that "check everyone" is inconsistent with "reasonable belief"?

7db wrote:Thanks Von - does it seem that "check everyone" is inconsistent with "reasonable belief"?

Every driver involved in a collision who has been given a producer would have satisfied the reasonable belief.

MGF wrote:

Your papers please...

.....Those who cannot remember the past.............?

vonhosen wrote:I'd want to check the signature on the licence/photo etc.

I seriously hope you are joking..... If you have got even the slightest doubt or reservation about a drivers identity the last thing you should be doing is sending them on their way with a producer.