In the hierarchy of motoring offences, driving without insurance (contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) occupies a unique and dangerous position. It is known in law as a "strict liability" offence. This means that your intent is irrelevant to the verdict. The court does not need to prove that you intended to dri
The "Absolute" Offence: Fighting a driving without insurance Charge (Section 143) in the Surveillance Age of 2026
In the hierarchy of motoring offences, driving without insurance (contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) occupies a unique and dangerous position. It is known in law as a "strict liability" offence. This means that your intent is irrelevant to the verdict. The court does not need to prove that you intended to dri
The "Absolute" Offence: Fighting a driving without insurance Charge (Section 143) in the Surveillance Age of 2026
In the hierarchy of motoring offences, driving without insurance (contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) occupies a unique and dangerous position. It is known in law as a "strict liability" offence. This means that your intent is irrelevant to the verdict. The court does not need to prove that you intended to dri
The "Absolute" Offence: Fighting a driving without insurance Charge (Section 143) in the Surveillance Age of 2026
In the hierarchy of motoring offences, driving without insurance (contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) occupies a unique and dangerous position. It is known in law as a "strict liability" offence. This means that your intent is irrelevant to the verdict. The court does not need to prove that you intended to dri
The "Absolute" Offence: Fighting a driving without insurance Charge (Section 143) in the Surveillance Age of 2026
In the hierarchy of motoring offences, driving without insurance (contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) occupies a unique and dangerous position. It is known in law as a "strict liability" offence. This means that your intent is irrelevant to the verdict. The court does not need to prove that you intended to dri