Why do you say that? If she? loses the case, presumably she'll have to pay the costs of her appeal. OTOH if she wins it will show it is bad law.
I don't care about the result either way, but it seems to me that the principle of innocence until proven guilty is gradually evolving into, guilty unless you can prove innocence, especially for driving offences.
I don't know how the law regarding drivers cauaght speeding by cameras is specifically worded, but I doubt it says the owner of the car is guilty unless they can prove they were not driving it at the time, because if it did there would be no cause for an appeal. The owner would have a simple choice. Accept the presumption of guilt and pay the penalty. That is unless they appeal on some other grounds. Incorrect identification or camera error etc. Or tell the court who was actually driving.
I'm buttuming that the law at present, says something to the effect that the owner of the car has to, by law, say who was driving it, but never having been caught by a camera I don't know for certain. Either variation would still be bad law IMO, but at least the first suggestion removes any compulsion to name the driver, which is apparently the basis for the appeal. Mike.
