Multiple driver defence to speed camera evidence: the so-called Christine Hamilton defence

I have had letters from the police, including a picture of the rear of my car doing 62mph on a recently changed duel carrageway previously 70mph. I am the car owner but was not driving. They have asked me identify the driver. I have told them I don't know who it was that was driving, It would have been one of two. I have asked can I see the video footage they claim to have, they say they do not have to provide me access to this. They have referred it to the Magistrates Court, where they say the video evidence will be made available. Do you know what is likely to happen at the court, with regards cost, if I go, and the identity of the driver is clear and I identify them, will there be extra costs incurred after taking it further? Or will it be cheaper for those concerned to decide who is going to 'carry the can' take 3 points and a 60 point fine. Why would the ticket office refuse to show me the video personally and refer it to court? Will they make more money, or would they call my bluff, could the video evidence not exist,and if so will I have to prove my alibi for that time or will the police have to prove I was driving? Also they quote Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 saying I should know the nominated driver on that date.

My inclination would be to defend this. I would view it as extremely unlikely given that the evidence was a rear shot of a numberplate that the police would have video footage from the front which would enable the driver to be identified and in any event you are entitled to have access to any evidence which is available prior to trial. Should the police not be able top produce what they claim, you should be able to cast sufficient doubt on the accuracy of the rest of their information.

In this you are effectively seeking to mount a "Hamilton" defence, so called after Christine Hamilton was informed of an alleged speeding offence when she claimed she did not know which of the couple - her or disgraced husband and former Conservative MP, Neil - was actually driving the car at the time the offence was committed.

The "Hamilton defence" tends to be more successful the greater the number of people have access to the car who are insured to drive it and magistrates certainly seem to view it more sympathetically when it is accompanied by an offer by the registered keeper of the vehicle to "admit" the offence and pay the fine/accept the points even when he/she deny they were the driver.

That said, on the costs issue, having been set at the Magistrates Court level the Hamilton case does not set a precedent and you are at risk of incurring greater costs and a higher fine if you seek to take it further.

With regard to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is true that you are required to reveal the identity of any driver.
The appropriate subsection (2) states:
    * Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
    *        (a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
    *        (b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

However subsection 3 provides for a defence as follows:

    (3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

In your particular case the precise nature of the incident (and indeed your personal circumstances, particularly with regard to possible other points on your licence) merit some investigation.

One other thought on this. What had they dropped the limit to? ACPO recommends speed limit plus 10% + 2mph which means you would fall into the guidelines for a 50mph revised limit, but certainly not one at 60mph which would open the possibilities of a challenge on the accuracy of the equipment.

On the face of it I believe you have a good chance of a sound defence but if you wish to take further advice, please call us on 0800 066 99 07.

Free legal advice direct to your inbox: Ask Law Answers your road accident or traffic offence legal question.