A motorist’s plan to beat a driving charges backfi

A motorist’s plan to beat a driving charges backfired when police found the man he said was behind the wheel was in fact behind bars, a court heard.

Mark Love, 35, was banned from the road and got friend Andrew Kent, 19, to tell magistrates he had been driving the car.

But an officer at court investigated and found Kent was serving time for another driving matter on the date of the offence.

Love was jailed for six months for driving whilst disqualified and together with Kent given an extra year today (Fri) for ‘pulling the wool over the court’s eyes.

‘

Prosecutor Dennis Barry told the Old Bailey Love’s white Rover was seen driving erratically along Thames Road in Crayford on February 18 last year.

‘Mr Love was seen leaving the vehicle via the drivers door,’ he added.

But when police stopped Love shortly afterwards he told officers: ‘You never saw me behind the wheel.

You never saw me driving.

‘

He also refused to provide a breath test or sample for the police.

While awaiting trial, Love hatched his plan and offered Kent pnds stlg 150 and a second-hand car to lie for him, said Mr Barry.

‘On April 12 Andrew Kent went to Bexley Police Station.

‘He gave a statement that he was the driver of the car and claimed that he bought the car from Mr Love.

‘

At his trial at Bexley Magistrates Court in July, Love, who represented himself, called Kent to give evidence.

But his lies were undone after the officer checked the records and found Kent had been serving three months in Feltham Young Offenders Institute for driving whilst disqualified himself.

Love later told police: ‘I admit the wool was pulled over the court’s eyes’ explaining he feared hefty punishment after he was handed a drink-driving ban in March.

Kent of Birling Road, Erith, and Love, of Alexandra Road, also Erith, both admitted perjury.

Judge David Radford told the pair: ‘It is quite plain to me that but for the alertness of the police officer during the trial that the evidence you gave was such that the court might not have heard properly the true evidence to convict you for your offence.

But he added: ‘I take into account that no miscarriage of justice took place due to this perjury.

‘
ends