Mr M will probably have this one to hand:-
Cloned Vehicle----The Burden of Proof
2220717836 Basil Sawyers v London Borough of Croydon
Mr. Sawyers attended the adjourned hearing along with his daughter. In the meantime, as I had directed, he had uploaded in good time some further evidence in support of his case. The evidence comprised photographs of his vehicle and an e-mail from the Metropolitan Police concerning Mr. Sawyers' complaint that the registration mark of his vehicle had been copied and applied to registration plates on a different vehicle. That is to say, his registration plate had been 'cloned'. The enforcement authority (EA) had not provided any response to this evidence.
Mr. Sawyers argues that the vehicle involved in the contravention was not his but was, instead, the vehicle with the 'cloned' registration plate. A person who wishes to 'clone' a registration plate will almost invariably apply that registration plate to a vehicle that is almost identical. That is because the purpose of the cloning is primarily to pass liability for civil road traffic contraventions like this, and possibly road traffic offences, onto the genuine holder of the registration mark for a different vehicle. That objective is much less easily achieved if the 'cloning' is easy to detect because the vehicles are obviously different. For the 'cloning' strategy to be harder to detect and frustrate, the vehicles must appear identical. Indeed, as the evidence shows, the type and colour of Mr. Sawyers' vehicle is the same as the vehicle involved in the contravention.
Mr. Sawyers has shown, however, with his photographs, that there are positive dissimilarities between his vehicle and the contravening vehicle. The contravening vehicle has inbuilt roof-rack retainers that his vehicle does not. The lower grilles of the two vehicles are different colours. The offside rear wheels have different types of wheel trim. Mr. Sawyers has complained to the Police about 'cloning' and he has received other PCNs for which he says he is not liable, including one in Oxfordshire.
For the reasons I gave in the case of Khader v. LB Tower Hamlets (2180375573, 27 October 2018), in my view there is no reverse burden of proof placed on an appellant in a case in which the issue is the identity of a vehicle rather than the identify of its owner. Rather, the burden is on an appellant merely to raise the issue of the identity of the vehicle. The outcome of this case would, however, have been the same no matter who bore the burden of proof.
The EA has failed to prove that the two vehicles are probably the same. Indeed, I find the contravening vehicle is probably not the same as Mr. Sawyers' vehicle.
I note the response of the Metropolitan Police in the e-mail of 1 July 2022. The complaint "was not recorded as a crime". If the Police take the view that no crime has been committed, or that it is of no consequence, they are completely wrong on both points. Forgery or fraudulent use of a registration mark is a criminal offence contrary to section 44 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. It can have significant impact on the victim, who may find themselves wrongly held liable for civil road traffic contraventions and may find themselves wrongly investigated for road traffic offences committed in the vehicle with the 'cloned' registration plate. The Police should, in my view, have investigated this matter.
___________________________________________
Mike
