Or license points in this case, what a prick:
For each of the 11 occasions he was caught speeding [on the same bridge], he was given three points on his licence. He then received an additional six points for each occasion for failing to tell police information about the driver.
I wouldn’t really call that a hardened criminal. The article doesn’t even mention how fast he was going. 5mph, 50mph over the speed limit?
Magistrates in Ipswich found Ciuca guilty in his absence of the offences, which happened in October and November. He was also convicted of failing to tell police who the car's driver was.
I don’t really know the standard procedure, but could it be that he is not aware of the fines and of the request to name the driver, because he moved and forgot to change his address with DVLA (or something along those lines)?
There’s many folk out there with high point counts on their paperwork and they all amass such points in the same way, Section 172.
Once upon a time we had a fit and proper system where it was the Police who had to provide the identity of an alleged offender. Now we have Section 172, where it seems as if you’re automatically guilty of one thing or another as soon as a camera has captured the registration number of a vehicle registered to whilst an alleged offence is being committed.
As far as I’m concerned this case only highlights what an absolute farce Section 172 is.