Failure to Identify the Driver of a Vehicle

The introduction of the Single Justice Procedure and centralised courts dealing with certain non-imprisonable summary offences (speeding, traffic signal contravention, fare evasion, TV licence evasion and the like), means that very few traffic offences appear before the Magistrates' Court in normal session.

Certainly in the courts that I frequent we are only likely to sentence those offences in the rare event that a defendant has been convicted without their knowledge, makes a Statutory Declaration to set aside the original conviction and then admits the offence when the charge is put to them afresh. You might question the logic in doing that, but the court will invariably give them full credit (e.g. 1/3 off their fine) if they admit an offence in such circumstances, whereas they would have received no credit on the first occasion they were convicted without their knowledge.

We do handle quite a lot of trials when the defendant has denied an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - namely that they have failed to provide information as to the identity of a person driving a vehicle at the time of an alleged traffic offence.

Briefly, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the system, suppose a vehicle was clocked by a camera exceeding the speed limit or jumping a red light. For the police to prosecute the driver they would first need to identify who the driver was at the time of the offence. This is achieved by sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 Notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle. These documents must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence and the registered keeper has 28 days from the date of service to provide the information requested. Under subsection 172(3) of the Act, an offence is committed if no information is forthcoming.

The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act is a fine at level 3 (£1,000 maximum) and 6 penalty points. Current Sentencing Guidelines indicate the most appropriate penalty is a Band C fine and 6 penalty points.

If the registered keeper knows they were driving at the time of the offence, they should identify themself as the driver. If they were not driving, but they know who was, they should nominate that person as the driver. The police will then get in touch with that person with a view to prosecution for the offence. Providing a false declaration - e.g. falsely nominating someone as the driver - is a very serious offence, as former MP Fiona Onasanya will no doubt testify.

Occasionally, despite having used reasonable diligence (e.g. checking records and asking questions) to ascertain who was driving at the time of the offence, the registered keeper is genuinely unable to confirm who was behind the wheel. This could happen, for example, in the following circumstances:

• A vehicle hire company is registered keeper of a vehicle which was clocked speeding. On consulting its records the hire company sees that a husband and wife had joint permission to use the vehicle at the time of the offence. On making enquiries with the hirer, they are unable to confirm who was driving at the time of the offence as they are unfamiliar with the camera location. In this case, unless there was further evidence pointing towards a particular driver, it is unlikely the police would pursue a prosecution.
• A car was clocked speeding close to the family home. In addition to the policy holder (the father of the household), there are two named drivers on the policy (his two grown up children). As each person uses the car every day, the registered keeper can't remember who was behind the wheel at the time of the offence. In this case, unless there was further evidence pointing towards a particular driver, it is unlikely the police would pursue a prosecution.
• A small business (referred to as a "body corporate" in the legislation) has a van that jumped a red traffic light close to its premises. Each member of staff is insured to use the van and it is regularly used for running errands during the day. The manager can't remember which of the four members of staff working that day was behind the wheel at the time of the offence. In this case a prosecution could be brought against the company instead of an individual driver, but clearly there would be no penalty points on conviction. It should also be noted that companies are legally obliged to maintain accurate driver records for this very reason, so further action might follow in that regard.

In any of the situations described above, the obligation is on the registered keeper to provide as much information as they can in response to the Section 172 Notice, even if that is a list of possible drivers.

In order to prove an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act, the prosecution will need to satisfy the court of the following:

• That the NIP and Section 172 Notice were correctly served on the registered keeper within the 14 day time limit. Normally a Certificate of Service is signed by the police staff member responsible for sending out the documents, which confirms they have been posted first class to the address of the registered keeper as shown on the DVLA database. In the absence of a Certificate of Service, it is unlikely the court would convict the registered keeper.

Possible defences against a charge under subsection 172(3) of the Act:

• The registered keeper denies receiving the NIP or Section 172 Notice. This defence will be more credible if the registered keeper has previously complained to Royal Mail about their post being misdelivered, damaged etc.
• The registered keeper claims to have returned the completed Section 172 Notice within time, but it has not been received by the police. This defence will be more credible if a witness is available who can confirm the documents were completed and returned. In the past, registered keepers have presented photocopies of the completed forms and Royal Mail proof of postage certificates to support this defence.

Just to draw this article to a close, it should be noted that an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act invariably attracts a far greater penalty than the original offence would. That being the case, it would be foolish of a registered keeper to think they can beat the system by being coy about the identity of the driver.

Fiona Onasanya Refused Permission to Appeal Conviction

Disgraced politician Fiona Onasanya has been refused permission to appeal her conviction for perverting the course of justice.

Onasanya, 35, represented herself at this morning's Court of Appeal hearing before Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice William Davis and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb.

The main thrust of Onasanya's appeal, which is actually no basis for appeal at all, was her argument that "I didn't do it".

The MP for Peterborough also argued that negative press coverage had inferred her guilt at the retrial.

An appeal can only be allowed when there is some legitimate suggestion that the trial verdict is unsafe due to procedural errors or those in law. Disagreeing with the jury's decision isn't sufficient grounds for an appeal on its own.

The Appeal Judges didn't take very long to conclude that Onasanya's appeal was "misconceived" and "not based on valid grounds".

Sir Brian said: "This applicant was tried fairly by the jury who rejected her evidence.

"There was no error in law in the guidance of the judge whose directions in law were clear and accurate. Neither was there any other irregularities at the trial.

"It is a tragedy that she has damaged, probably irreparably, a promising political career, but there is absolutely no basis for challenging the safety of her conviction."

Addressing the matter of press coverage, Sir Brian added: "The courts are very used to dealing with adverse publicity. The jury were warned at the beginning of the trial that they had to focus only on the evidence."

Onasanya, who was released from prison last week, appeared in court this morning without any notes. In one comedy moment the lawyer-turned-politician had to ask prosecutor David Jeremy QC if he could help answering a question by the court.

Leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, Onasanya made no comment on the court's decision.

A recall petition can now go ahead. A by-election, which will undoubtedly mean the unseating of Onasanya, will be triggered if at least 10 percent of constituents vote for one.

Fiona Onasanya Jailed

The disgraced former Labour, now Independent MP for Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya, has been sentenced to three months imprisonment for perverting the course of justice.

Onasanya was found guilty of the offence by a retrial jury on 19th December 2018. You can read a lot more about her journey through the court system in our earlier articles (here, here and here for starters).

Her younger brother Festus Onasanya, who pleaded guilty to three similar charges prior to trial, was sentenced to ten months imprisonment.

Mr Justice Stuart-Smith said: "It's a tragedy that you have found yourselves here and in this predicament but it's a tragedy that you have brought on yourselves."

Christine Agnew QC, counsel for Onasanya, said the case had had a disastrous impact upon her client's life. "She continues to stand as an independent MP and her only reason for that is because it is her only source of income," she said.

Presumably it's for that reason that Onasanya is now planning to cling on as an MP. She will continue to draw a monthly Parliamentary salary of £6,500 until the outcome of her appeal hearing. That could be towards the end of the year.

Both the main political parties have called on Onasanya to do the "decent thing" by resigning and triggering a by-election, but it appears that she's simply not hard-wired that way.

I must say that I am slightly surprised at the apparent leniency of the sentence, but am sure His Lordship had sound rationale behind his decision.

Update (5/3/19): Onasanya has been refused permission to appeal her conviction.

Fiona Onasanya Sentencing

Shameless MP Fiona Onasanya, pariah of both the Labour Party and her Peterborough constituency, will be sentenced for perverting the course of justice on 29th January 2019.

Onasanya, you might remember, was convicted of dishonestly trying to pass her speeding points to her former Russian lodger. To coin a phrase, she told more lies than a cheap watch. You can read our damning appraisal of her crime in an earlier article.

The sentencing date has been confirmed by the media.

The former solicitor - an ardent Corbynista, selected on the most tenuous of criteria - is looking at a significant custodial sentence, which will invariably mean an end to both her political and legal careers.

It will also mean a by-election for the good people of Peterborough, who will hopefully elect a more worthy local representative.

There has also been speculation about whether or not Onasanya would try to eke out her time on the Westminster gravy train by appealing the conviction.

According to media reports she had until today to lodge an appeal, but there has been no news of her doing so (although we could still hear otherwise).

Update (17/1/19): It would appear that Onasanya has lodged an appeal. Should have expected as much really.

Cornish Aristocrat Tried to Palm Off Speeding Points

A Cornish aristocrat has been convicted of perverting the course of justice after trying to pass the blame for his speeding offence.

Count Alexy van Kimmenade, 36, of the Colquite Estate near Bodmin, was caught speeding on the A30 at 12.14 pm on 30th April 2018. He was driving his own vehicle, a Mercedes Sport, when it was caught by a police mobile speed trap.

As in the case of disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya, who was convicted of a similar offence earlier this week, a combined Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 Notice were delivered to the registered keeper of the vehicle, Alexy van Kimmenade. Those documents sought to establish who was behind the wheel of the vehicle at the time of the alleged speeding offence.

Barrister Philip Lee, for the Crown, told the sentencing judge: "On May 18 a reply was received nominating the defendant's father Wim Van Kimmenade, requesting they receive photographic evidence of the offence.

"A further letter from his father said that neither he nor his son could remember who was driving and asked if the prosecution could be split.

"However, photo evidence shows the defendant as the sole occupant of the vehicle and he can be seen raising his finger in anger at the mobile device.

"The defendant was questioned on 5th July when he accepted his guilty. He said he never thought it would go this far and was worried about the consequences. He told officers he tried to pass the blame when he shouldn't have."

Crucially, it was evident from photos of the offence that Alexy van Kimmenade was driving, was aware he had been caught by the mobile device and was the only person in the vehicle.

Jason Beal, representing van Kimmenade, said: "He admitted the offence when interviewed and has spent the last month or so very much fearing today after being told what happens to people who commit these offences.

"He has learned a harsh lesson and the fear of going to prison has been a punishment in its own right."

Sentencing a visibly distressed van Kimmenade, Judge Robert Linford, at Truro Crown Court, said: "You were the driver of a car speeding on the A30 and you had no doubt you'd been spotted by a mobile speed camera.

"The notice came and you then effectively conspired with your father to try and deflect the consequences of your behaviour but when a photograph was produced it showed you making an abusive gesture. It is quite clear you were the driver.

"You are a person of good character, you have no relevant convictions and no points on your licence. That makes the fact you tried to avoid the penalty points all the more inexplicable.

"This was all done to avoid a few points and a fine and it has very nearly got you locked up.

"These cases routinely come before Crown Courts and in the majority of cases result in prison sentences as there has to be a heavy deterrent.

"However, there is a combination of features that leads me to the conclusion your sentence can be suspended."

Van Kimmenade was sentenced to three months imprisonment suspended for two years. He must also complete 300 hours of unpaid work, pay a £100 fine and £250 towards prosecution costs. His driving licence was endorsed with 3 penalty points.

Member of Parliament Convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice

Fiona Onasanya, the 35 year-old Labour MP for Peterborough, has been convicted of a single count of perverting the course of justice following a week-long retrial at the Central Criminal Court in London.

The jury in Onasanya's first trial, held last month, was discharged when it failed to reach a verdict after almost three days of deliberations.

Members of the retrial jury decided unanimously that Onasanya dishonestly tried to pin the blame for her speeding offence on Russian man Alex Antypow, who was a previous tenant of the same property Onasanya and her brother Fetus had rented in Cambridge.

The court heard how the recently elected politician's Nissan Micra was snapped by a camera as it sped through the village of Thorney in her constituency. The vehicle was recorded at 41 mph in the 30 mph zone at just after 10 pm on 24th July 2017.

As is routinely the case, a combined Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 Notice, were delivered to Onasanya's address only 9 days after the speeding offence took place. The Section 172 Notice required the registered keeper of the vehicle, Onasanya, to provide details of whoever was driving it at the time it was clocked speeding through Thorney.

During the first trial, Onasanya initially claimed she couldn't remember who was driving, despite receiving the documents only 9 days later. She offered the rather convenient story that lots of people had access to the vehicle and permission to drive it. That being the case, according to her, she left the NIP and Section 172 Notice at her mother's house for the driver, whoever that was, to deal with. Festus, she said, offered to deal with it, so it must have been him who filled in the dodgy details on the Section 172 Notice. To add insult to injury Festus, the disgraced politician would falsely claim, actually forged her signature on the paperwork.

In the retrial Onasanya would claim that Festus was driving at the time of the speeding offence. He had told her as much in the intervening time since the first trial. She maintained that she could not possibly have been driving, because she would never drive using her mobile phone.

Onasanya returned the Section 172 Notice falsely stating that Mr Antypow was driving the vehicle at the time. Unable to trace Mr Antypow from the details provided, the police went back to Onasanya for clarification. Having been given the run around, the police eventually invited Onasanya for an interview at Bedford police station. During the interview she responded with "no comment" to the questions posed, later claiming she was "bamboozled" by them.

Of course the truth was very different. In reality Onasanya couldn't provide a response to the police's questions, as doing so would incriminate both her and Festus. By this stage the siblings had cobbled together an arrangement that would see Festus act as fall guy, whilst the MP rode away into the sunset to resume her fledgling political career.

As a lawyer, Onasanya knew fine well the requirement to complete the Section 172 Notice accurately to the best of her knowledge and belief. She had correctly completed a similar document only a few weeks earlier when she was involved in an entirely different episode of speeding.

On this occasion, for whatever reason, she provided false contact details for Mr Antypow, with the deliberate intention of hindering the police investigation and escaping punishment. Unfortunately for her, the police persevered in their investigation, which saw her lies start to unravel.

It transpired that Festus, who had earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of perverting the course of justice, had tried exactly the same scam using Mr Antypow's details on a previous occasion.

Police enquiries revealed that Mr Antypow was actually at his parents' home in Russia at the time Onasanya dishonestly placed him behind the wheel. Furthermore, cell site data placed Onasanya herself in the Thorney area at the time the speed camera was triggered and her former aide, who had a house in the area, confirmed that she drove the Micra to his property late that evening.

It would appear that the prosecution had a very strong case against Onasanya from the outset, so it beggars belief that the first trial jury was unable to see the patently obvious.

Having been thrown a lifelife via the dithering of that first jury, you would think Onasanya would be at pains to get her story straight. Not a bit of it. If anything, her account the second time around was even less plausible than the first. There were so many contradictions; so many snippets "remembered" at the eleventh hour; so many questions that remain unanswered.

Onasanya has been cold and calculating in her dishonesty, attempting to frustrate the police investigation and hinder justice at every turn. She is not an accomplished liar, because her deceit has been obvious to many of us for a long time. She has told lie after lie from the moment she wrongly named Mr Antypow to the moment she left the witness box.

In these circumstances the only appropriate punishment is a significant period of imprisonment.

Some people have drawn parallels with the case of former Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne, who was imprisoned for 8 months for a similar offence. Huhne eventually "came clean" and confessed his crimes at the start of his trial.

Unlike Huhne, and despite the overwhelming weight of evidence against her, Onasanya has maintained her dishonesty right to the bitter end. She has arrogantly and unashamedly played two juries for fools; the taxpayer has incurred the cost of two trials; witnesses have been inconvenienced on two separate occasions.

For that reason she will be looking at years in prison. Not months. And justifiably so. Onasanya is a disgrace. She is embarrassment to the decent, honest people of Peterborough who she is meant to be representing at Westminster.

Words cannot express how loathsome I find her conduct.

Update (29/1/19): Onasanya has now been sentenced.

Fiona Onasanya Retrial: The Missing Pieces of the Jigsaw

The jury has begun its deliberations in the retrial of Fiona Onasanya.

The 35 year-old Labour MP for Peterborough stands accused of perverting the course of justice by dishonestly identifying a Russian man as the driver of her Nissan Micra at the time it was clocked by a speed camera on the evening of 24th July 2017.

You will find much more background to the case by searching our earlier posts.

The reporting of the case has been a little bit sparse, but the Peterborough Telegraph's Stephen Briggs has been tweeting regular updates. BBC News reporter Simon Dedman has also been watching events down at The Old Bailey.

Until yesterday there was an important piece of the jigsaw missing: Who was driving Onasanya's Nissan Micra at the moment it triggered a speed camera on The Causeway in Thorney?

During the first trial she denied that it was her, but eventually conceded that it might have been. She also claimed that several people had access to the vehicle and permission to drive it, but she fell short of pointing the finger of blame at any individual.

There appears to be no dispute that cell site data places both of Onasanya's mobile phones in the locality of the speed camera at the time it was triggered. According to her that means she could not have been driving, because she never drives using her mobile phone.

So who actually was driving then?

According to Onasanya it must have been her brother Festus, who has already pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and therefore, by implication, is a bit of a dishonest chancer.

So how could Dr DeFeo have seen Onasanya alone in her car on the evening she triggered the speed camera?

He must be mistaken about the time, says the MP. According to her diary, which clearly has all the precision and accuracy of a quality Swiss timepiece, the meeting at Dr DeFeo's home actually started at 4.30 pm. She did drive to that meeting alone, so she says.

Presumably, as sunset was at 8.58 pm that evening, Dr DeFeo was also mistaken about his claim that she arrived when it was dark and stopped late enough that he offered her a bed for the night.

If Onasanya's account is accurate, then she drove her Nissan Micra away from Dr DeFeo's property, but for whatever reason must have returned to Thorney later that night as a passenger in the vehicle.

We know from the speed camera image that the vehicle was travelling eastbound (e.g. approaching Thorney) when it was caught exceeding the speed limit at 10.03 pm, so the only obvious explanation - assuming the accuracy of Onasanya's story - is that it must have been making a second visit to the village in the space of a few hours.

Hopefully, having heeded warnings from the trial judge, the jury will not be reading this article, but if they were we'd remind them of Lord Denning's observation on the standard of proof required to convict: "It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a big degree of probability.

"Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice.

"If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence 'of course it is possible, but not in the least bit probable', the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short will suffice."

Update (19/12/18): Fiona Onasanya Convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice.

Fiona Onasanya Retrial

A few days ago the retrial of Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough, got underway at the Central Criminal Court in London.

Onasanya, 35, stands accused of perverting the course of justice. The Crown alleges that she was clocked by a camera exceeding the speed limit, but dishonestly named an unrelated third-party as the driver of the vehicle so as to avoid punishment. If you search our earlier posts you'll find a bit more background to this most fascinating of cases.

In November the jury in the first trial was discharged after failing reach a majority verdict. Normal convention is for the Crown Prosecution Service to seek a retrial if it believes there are evidential and public interest merits in doing so. Second retrials are virtually unheard of, so should this jury fail to reach a verdict the CPS will almost certainly abandon the prosecution.

We are now three days into the trial and the prosecution is winding up its case. Key prosecution witness Dr Christian DeFeo, who is Onasanya's former campaign manager, has repeated his earlier evidence that the newly-elected MP spent several hours at his home on the evening her vehicle was clocked by a nearby speed camera.

Under cross-examination the defence put it to Dr DeFeo that he was a tad too enthusiastic in "catching out" Onasanya, thereby implying there is some ulterior motive in his evidence. Dr DeFeo replied that he had no wish to see Onasanya go to prison, but had a moral duty to do the right thing by coming forward.

Jurors were shown screenshots of Facebook messages between Dr DeFeo and his wife, Caroline Earle, as they tried to piece together the movements of Onasanya on the night in question.

The prosecution has presented cell site data confirming that both of Onasanya's phones were in the locality of the speed camera at the time it was triggered.

Prosecution witness Martin Griffiths, a telecommunications expert, told the jury that cell site data could be used to ascertain the general location of a user's mobile phone at a particular time. Based on the information available to him he was able to ascertain that Onasanya's phones were east of the village of Eye, Cambridgeshire (e.g. west of the village of Thorney) at the time the speed camera was triggered.

The trial resumes at 10 am on Monday morning.

High Court Judge Sir Jeremy Stuart-Smith is presiding.

Onasanya Jury Fails to Reach Verdict

The jury in the trial of Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice, has failed to reach a verdict after 12 hours of deliberations.

It is the Crown's case that Onasanya, 35, dishonestly named Russian man Aleks Antipow as the driver of her vehicle at the time it was clocked exceeding the speed limit. Onasanya claims that her brother, Festus, who has already pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice, completed Antipow's details on the Section 172 Notice that was returned in relation to the speeding offence.

Last Friday afternoon the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, the Recorder of London, indicated to the jury that he would be willing to accept a 10-to-1 majority verdict.

Early this afternoon the jury passed the judge a note indicating that it would be unable to reach a verdict even if given more time.

Discharging the jury, HHJ Hilliard said: "Thank you very much for the evident care and attention you have given this case. The case will have to be retried in due course in front of a different jury."

That retrial will begin on Tuesday, 11th December 2018.

We have received a few emails about this case, but reiterate our stance that we will not be offering any opinion until its conclusion.

Onasanya Trial Update (3)

Yesterday morning the jury in the Fiona Onasanya trial retired to consider its verdict.

Defying the expectations of most commentators, deliberations have gone on for almost two full days.

Late this afternoon the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, the Recorder of London, told the jury that he would now accept a majority verdict. As one of the twelve original jurors has already been discharged on the basis of ill health, that means that ten of those remaining will need to reach a consensus.

This evening, with a state of deadlock remaining, the jurors were sent home for the weekend. They will resume their deliberations at 10 am on Monday.

We should be reassured that the jury is considering the evidence before them so carefully.

We are confident that the jury will deliver a verdict.

More commentary and opinion once we reach that stage.

Onasanya Trial Update (2)

We're now two days into the defence of Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice by falsely claiming that someone else was driving her vehicle at the time it was clocked speeding at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone.

There is a bit more background information in our earlier posts (see here and here) on this most interesting of cases. As with our previous Trial Update post, we shall keep the details very matter of fact, as reported by the national media. It is not appropriate to offer any opinion with the trial still in progress, but we shall do once the verdict is in.

The defence has offered the following evidence:

• Onasanya, having just been elected a week or so earlier, was under considerable strain as she settled in to her new role. She compared election to Parliament to being a swimmer dropped in the middle of the ocean - even if they swim very well, the task is still overwhelming. She told the court that she had been inundated with thousands of emails and really didn't know where to begin.
• The MP claims that when she received the Notice of Intended Prosecution, nine days after the speeding incident, she passed it to her brother Festus to deal with. Despite being the registered keeper of the vehicle, she really didn't think she was the person behind the wheel at the time it was caught speeding. She was of the mistaken belief that she was still at Westminster that day.
• Onasanya says that she left the paperwork at her mother's house for Festus to take care of. She told the court that she in no way intended Festus to act dishonestly.
• According to Onasanya, Festus completed incorrect details on the form and signed it in her name.
• Onasanya has said, even with the benefit of hindsight and having checked her diary/calendar, she cannot recall visiting the property of Dr Christian DeFeo on the evening that her silver Nissan Micra triggered the speed camera nearby. She claims that she had an engagement in Peterborough that day.
• She has told the court that she had a disagreement with Dr DeFeo's wife about a charity event that was being organised.
• Asked if taking 3 penalty points would have had any adverse impact of her position as an MP, Onasanya said "absolutely not".

Under cross-examination by the Crown:

• Onasanya has confirmed that she cannot be sure who was driving the Micra at the time it triggered the speed camera. She often left the car parked outside her mother's house and her brother, mother, distant relatives and friends all had access to the keys and permission to drive when she was at Westminster. She conceded that she could have also been behind the wheel, but didn't think that was the case.
• Asked why she gave a "no comment" interview to police, she said: "I was bamboozled with lots of questions. They said I had six months before any further action and they would be in touch."
• Onasanya admitted that she had not asked either her brother or mother if they had been driving the vehicle when it was clocked speeding.

The trial continues. A verdict is expected by the end of this week.

Update (3.30 pm): The trial is progressing at a very brisk pace today. Both prosecution and defence have completed their closing speeches and the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, is currently summing up. It is entirely likely that the jury will retire to consider its verdict within the next hour or so. It is entirely possible that verdict will be returned either this evening or tomorrow morning.

Update (4.30 pm): The judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, has concluded his summing up and adjourned until 10 am tomorrow, when the jury will begin its deliberations. Most commentators are still expecting a fairly quick verdict.

Onasanya Trial Update (1)

The trial of Fiona Onasanya - Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice - is currently underway at the Central Criminal Court in London.

This is an interesting case, the brief circumstances of which are as follows:

• A Nissan Micra registered to Onasanya was caught by a speed camera travelling at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone at Thorney, Cambridgeshire. The camera was activated just after 10 pm on the evening of 24th July 2017.
• Onasanya identified the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence as Aleks Antipow.
• The prosecution case is that Onasanya herself was driving at the time of the offence and has wrongly named Antipow as driver in order to escape punishment.

The prosecution has spent this first week outlining its case, brief snippets of which are:

• Mr Antipow was at his parents' home in Russia at the time Onasanya says he was driving her vehicle in Thorney.
• Cell site data places both of Onasanya's mobile phones in the Thorney area at the time her vehicle activated the speed camera.
• Onasanya's former aide, Dr Christian DeFeo, has given evidence to the effect that the newly elected MP attended his property, in the Thorney area, at about the same time as the camera was activated by her vehicle. He confirms that she was driving the vehicle and was alone when it arrived at his property.

The trial has been adjourned until 10 am on Monday morning, at which time the defence will start presenting its case. A verdict is expected by the end of next week.

It is definitely worth keeping an eye on this one.

MP Pleads Not Guilty to Perverting the Course of Justice

Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough, has pleaded not guilty to perverting the course of justice.

The 34-year-old appeared at the Central Criminal Court in London earlier this afternoon.

She faces two charges of perverting the course of justice.

A vehicle allegedly driven by Onasanya, a commercial property lawyer by trade, was caught by a speed camera on 24th July 2017, just four weeks after she defeated incumbent Conservative MP Stewart Jackson by the narrowest of margins.

The prosecution case is that Onasanya, together with her brother, falsely informed the investigating authorities, namely Cambridgeshire Constabulary, that Aleks Antipow was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

The second charge relates to a speeding offence alleged to have taken place on 23rd August 2017. It is claimed that Festus Onasanya was driving the vehicle on that occasion, but colluded with Fiona Onasanya to falsely identify a third party as the driver.

The pair were granted unconditional bail until the trial, which is scheduled for 12th November 2018 at the same court.

MP Accused of Perverting the Course of Justice

Labour MP Fiona Onasanya has been accused of perverting the course of justice, according to media reports today.

The 34-year-old, who represents the people of Peterborough, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 12th July to answer two charges. For the last fortnight she has been keeping very tight-lipped about it. Perverting the course of justice is an indictable offence, which can only be dealt with in the Crown Court. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

A vehicle allegedly driven by Onasanya, a commercial property lawyer by trade, was caught by a speed camera on 24th July 2017, just four weeks after she defeated incumbent Conservative MP Stewart Jackson by the narrowest of margins.

The prosecution case is that Onasanya, together with Festus Onasanya (her younger brother), falsely informed the investigating authorities, namely Cambridgeshire Constabulary, that Aleks Antipow was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

The second charge relates to a speeding offence alleged to have taken place on 23rd August 2017. It is claimed that Festus Onasanya was driving the vehicle on that occasion, but colluded with Fiona Onasanya to falsely identify a third party as the driver.

Festus Onasanya, a 33-year-old singer, faces a third charge in relation to an incident that took place on 13th June 2017.

Onasanya is due to appear at the Central Criminal Court in London on 13th August for a plea hearing. These are incredibly serious allegations. If convicted Onasanya will be guilty of the highest level of serial dishonesty and will undoubtedly lose her Parliamentary seat.

The Labour Party has refused to comment on the case.

The case against Onasanya, if proven, echoes that of disgraced former Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne and his estranged wife Vicky Pryce.

The couple were convicted of perverting the course of justice when they came to an arrangement over who would accept liability for a speeding offence. Pryce took the wrap on behalf of Huhne who had actually been driving. Pryce, an economist, occasionally gives economic soundbites on various TV news channels, despite her conviction for dishonesty.

We will be following this case very closely.

Update: Now that the cat is out of the bag Onasanya has tweeted the following: "I will be robustly defending all of these allegations, and strongly refute any suggestions that I have broken the law. As these proceedings are now ongoing, I will be making no further comment on the matter".