In article , "Harvey Van
Sickle" says...
On 22 Dec 2004, John Rumm wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the
day in a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of
disabled receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm
happy to be proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to.

Given that our legal system still loosly clings to the ideal of
"innocent until proven guilty", one might expect that it would be
up to the authorities to prove that you were using it in violation
of the licensing terms, not that you could if you wanted.

One might expect that, but I think one would be expecting too much.

cf. You have a car that can exceed 70 mph, therefore you are nicked
for speeding.

There are, sadly, many cases where one is required to prove that one
didn't do something. (For example, I think it's still the case that if
a car registered in your name is caught by a speed camera, the onus is
on you to prove that you weren't driving it at the time of the offence,
rather than on the police to prove that you *were* driving it.)

As the registered keeper, you are responsible for the car - if it
wasn't you driving you should know who was.