Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5056And then you would be required to offer evidence to show that it was elsewhere. i.e. You have to prove your innocence. What is there is no evidence? What if it had been sitting on...
Agreed. And if it was not your car then you have the opportunity of explaining where else your car was at the time of the offence. Here we are not talking about the offence of speeding - merely establishing whether a car suspected of being at the scene of an offence was actually there. Similar to a case of mistaken idenbreasty. A witness sees a person she thinks is you, throw a brick through a window. You are arrested for the offence and then have the opportunity of explaining just why the person the witness saw could not possibly have been you. Is this guilty until proven innocent also?
No, no, no. You are *not* admitting guilt - you are admitting (or denying - as the case may be) that you were driving the car at that particular time and place. This is *not* the same as admitting that you are guilty of the alleged offence!
See above. We have two separate matters here. The offence and who was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence. Being required to state whether or not you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence is not the same as admitting that you are guilty of that offence. It's the same as the brick throwing example above.
Kev
