Is this Police Entrapment

[truebluefox]

My sons car was parked on the public road, he was in college and saw a police officer looking it over. He went out and she said she was concerned about one of the tyres and wanted to call out the traffic police to have a word but did not inform him at that time that the tyre was below legal limit. Because he had a lecture to go to she said he could go back to college and she would meet him at the car by 3pm but also said if she was not there at 3 then he need not wait. He waited at the car at 3pm for 20 minutes, no sign of the police so he drove off. They were waiting down the road and pulled him over. They impounded the car pending a full MOTand issued a fixed penalty. This all seems out of procedure to me because she did not tell him initially that it was illegal but arranged a meeting at which point he was nabbed. Is this entrapment of some sort that we could appeal against? He was genuinely unaware that the tyre was below legal limit as it was the spare that a garage had fitted for him.

[Mossycat]

It is the responsibility of the driver of the car to ensure it is road legal before using a vehicle on the public roads. Your son should not have driven the car with a tyre below the legal limit, and to be honest he should have checked it having had it brought to his attention earlier in the day.

 

This is in no way entrapment, (that is when you are induced into doing something and then arrested for it, which wasn't the case here).

 

Your son has no argument and no defence.

 

Mossy

[truebluefox]

thanks for the comment, doesn't look good then!

[crem]

 

This is in no way entrapment, (that is when you are induced into doing something and then arrested for it, which wasn't the case here).

 

Why wouldn't it be possible to consider it entrapment?

 

The officer had told him that she would get the tyre checked and would meet him at 3pm, but if she wasn't there he didn't have to wait. By implication that suggests the vehicle had been checked and, whilst low on thread, may not yet be illegal. By stating he didn't need to wait, clearly there would be the assumption he could travel home in the vehicle. ego, by knowing he would drive the vehicle at approx 3pm the police were watching for him doing so.

[Mossycat]

Why wouldn't it be possible to consider it entrapment?

 

The officer had told him that she would get the tyre checked and would meet him at 3pm, but if she wasn't there he didn't have to wait. By implication that suggests the vehicle had been checked and, whilst low on thread, may not yet be illegal. By stating he didn't need to wait, clearly there would be the assumption he could travel home in the vehicle. ego, by knowing he would drive the vehicle at approx 3pm the police were watching for him doing so.

 

OK entrapment is where you are induced into doing something illegal and the inducer then turns out to be an undercover officer.

 

That didn't happen here.

 

Yes a police officer looked at the car and highlighted a concern that the tyre may be illegal, the fact the police officer wasn't around again at 3PM has no bearing (they could have been attending an emergency or any other reason).

 

By stating he didn't need to wait was NOT giving him any confirmation the tyre was legal, and it remains the law that the roadworthiness of a car is the responsibility of the driver. Additionally, the police officer did not confirm the tyre had sufficient tread.

 

What the driver should have done was check the tyre for himself before using the car on a public road, especially since his attention had been brought to a possibly illegal tyre.

 

Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest the police were lying in wait, they could have simply been in the area, but, even if they were, it makes no odds, the car was been driven with an illegal tyre (police often wait and watch banned drivers to see if they are still using a car and if so they stop them and deal with it).

 

It is NOT the job of the police to examine a car and then advise the driver about whether a tyre is legal or not, that as I have said is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that it is road legal, the police suspected an offence was been committed, they investigated it and it was, accordingly they have dealt with it.

 

Mossy

[truebluefox]

Isn't the duty of the Police Officer to prevent the law being broken. She knew the tyre was illegal (it had strands of wire exposed) when she first saw it but did not do anything because there was nobody in possession of the car. She therefore set up a situation where she hoped he would drive it?

[Snefclarb]

"In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit." If he had tyres below the legal limit then he'd have driven on them regardless of whether the officer had ever been there or not.

[Mossycat]

Isn't the duty of the Police Officer to prevent the law being broken. She knew the tyre was illegal (it had strands of wire exposed) when she first saw it but did not do anything because there was nobody in possession of the car. She therefore set up a situation where she hoped he would drive it?

 

If there were strands of wire exposed then no way should the driver of the car have driven the car, with respect neither I nor you were there to hear what the police officer did or didn't say but there is nothing at all which would change the fact that an offence had been committed.

 

To be fair, if strands of wire were exposed then your son had already committed the offence by driving the car, so it could also be viewed that he was given an opportunity to change the tyre for the spare (it is a legal requirement that all vehicles carry a spare tyre in good condition) before using the car again.

 

I'll agree that something doesn't sound quite right here, usually the Police either report you for an offence or they give you a chance to rectify it (Vehicle rectification scheme), but, if this was to proceed to Court the fact remains that your son was driving a car with a defective tyre, and there is no excuse/reason or defence to that allegation.

 

Mossy

[Conniff]

There is no offence unless the car is driven. Worn tyres in themselves are not illegal. It only becomes an offence when the car is driven.

 

 

The law in Great Britain is very specific when it comes to tyres. It's such an important part of car maintenance to ensure that all tyres are in good condition that to drive with defective tyres carries a high penalty; currently a fine of £2,500 and a 3 penalty point endorsement per defective tyre (that's £5,000 and 6 points for 2 defective tyres, and so on).

 

I'm not sure about the 'impounded' part. That is not normal unless there is no insureance and how can you get an MoT if the car has been impounded.

 

This all sounds a bit iffy to me and I don't think we are being told the full story.

[green_and_mean]

Ignorance of the law is not a defence it is the drivers responsibility to ensure the tyres are legal. I cannot see how this is entrapment the officer didn't trick him into fitting a bald tyre, the law had already been broken when the officer observed the tyre.?

[crem]

 

To be fair, if strands of wire were exposed then your son had already committed the offence by driving the car, so it could also be viewed that he was given an opportunity to change the tyre for the spare (it is a legal requirement that all vehicles carry a spare tyre in good condition) before using the car again.

 

No it is not. Cars fitted with run RunFlat tyres are not supplied with any spare wheel at all, so there is no opportunity for the "spare" to be in good condition or not, it just ain't there!

 

I believe the law states that IF a spare wheel is carried, then it must be in good roadworthy condition.

[truebluefox]

It wasn't impounded (sorry for confusion). It had a prohibition notice placed on it and was taken to a garage to be MOTed to remove the prohibition notice.

[Mossycat]

No it is not. Cars fitted with run RunFlat tyres are not supplied with any spare wheel at all, so there is no opportunity for the "spare" to be in good condition or not, it just ain't there!

 

I believe the law states that IF a spare wheel is carried, then it must be in good roadworthy condition.

 

Sorry, you are quite correct I phrased my sentence extremely badly and meant to say it is a legal requirement that all vehicles that carry a spare tyre must be in good condition.

Mossy

[Turk]

I would say that the Police have acted fairly here. An opportunity to rectify under VDRS (Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme) wouldn't be given in this case. The tyre is extreemly unsafe to drive on if the wires are showing.

 

I think the best thing your son could have done in this situation, after being notified that the tyre may be illegal, would have been to swap to the spare once he returned to the car. If the spare wasn't in good condition then he should have taken this to a Tyre fitters before fitting to and moving his car. The offence was committed as soon as they caught him driving.

 

Police have done their job by taking a dangerous car off the roads. It could have been that he had a blow out and been injured himself or a member of the public as a result.

 

As far as I know, you would be allowed to rectify your car under the VDRS for things such as a number plate light blown, poor number plates etc up to Four items. Over four I think you would end up with a Fixed Penalty as it shows a disregard for maintenance and safety.

 

 

Turk.

[crem]

It wasn't impounded (sorry for confusion). It had a prohibition notice placed on it and was taken to a garage to be MOTed to remove the prohibition notice.

 

This situation is getting confusing I think. I am now confused as to what action the police have actually taken.

 

If they only issued a rectification notice, (which can include up to 4 items as Turk points out), then all he has to do is have the item(s) fixed and take the car to an MOT testing station to confirm the correction. He does not need to have a full MOT carried out at that stage. He then sends the MOT stamped corection notice to the police within 14 days and that is the end of the matter. No points, no fine, nothing.

[Conniff]

This situation is getting confusing I think. I am now confused as to what action the police have actually taken.

 

If they only issued a rectification notice, (which can include up to 4 items as Turk points out), then all he has to do is have the item(s) fixed and take the car to an MOT testing station to confirm the correction. He does not need to have a full MOT carried out at that stage. He then sends the MOT stamped corection notice to the police within 14 days and that is the end of the matter. No points, no fine, nothing.

 

Do you want to start again truebluefox and tell us exactly what was issued? It says at the top of the form what it is.

[truebluefox]

Thanks for all the inputs guys. On the balance of comments it does look that procedurally the police were not out of order. That was all I needed to judge, because tmy son was a bit of a wally by getting in the car at the end of the day. As a young driver though I would rather he got a good telling rollocking (and fix the problem) from the Police than 3 points, the effect would have been more. I am going to let him read all these useful comments so he can get the benefit of others view apart from his dad. Great website, first time I have used it and it is now firmly in my Favourites file.

[crem]

So are you saying he definately got an FPN and not just a Rectification Notice?

[truebluefox]

He got both.

[truebluefox]

It was a FPN and a PG9