NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
OK, here goes..
Shortly after the adjournment, and with massive help from a PHer, (for which i am eternally grateful), i filed my defence.
The CPS's reaction was to go from letters telling me to "stop wasting time and pay up", to agreeing that my legal argument was irrebutable and that it was simply for me to provide sufficient evidence to the Court as to the date the NIP was received.
So, i and my postman trot off to Court. No mags. that day, but a District Judge.
I put my evidence, examined the postman etc. CPS cross examined.
Judge asked me a few questions relating to my occupation and motoring law knowledge etc and....
Said that whilst he accepted the evidence given by the postman, that since i had admitted my guilt via the S172, and that i appeared to have manipulated the law to my advantage, he was finding me GUILTY.
Fined £200 plus £255 costs.
I have taken advice and decided to appeal to the Crown Court. As i represented myself in this trial, i can represent myself in the Crown Court, saving lots of money.
It would seem the Judge chose to ignore the evidence given by my independent witness, and decided i was some sort of smart arse in a fast car and was guilty anyway.
So, not over yet.
Shortly after the adjournment, and with massive help from a PHer, (for which i am eternally grateful), i filed my defence.
The CPS's reaction was to go from letters telling me to "stop wasting time and pay up", to agreeing that my legal argument was irrebutable and that it was simply for me to provide sufficient evidence to the Court as to the date the NIP was received.
So, i and my postman trot off to Court. No mags. that day, but a District Judge.
I put my evidence, examined the postman etc. CPS cross examined.
Judge asked me a few questions relating to my occupation and motoring law knowledge etc and....
Said that whilst he accepted the evidence given by the postman, that since i had admitted my guilt via the S172, and that i appeared to have manipulated the law to my advantage, he was finding me GUILTY.
Fined £200 plus £255 costs.
I have taken advice and decided to appeal to the Crown Court. As i represented myself in this trial, i can represent myself in the Crown Court, saving lots of money.
It would seem the Judge chose to ignore the evidence given by my independent witness, and decided i was some sort of smart arse in a fast car and was guilty anyway.
So, not over yet.
herewego said:
So the judge took the view that, because you completed the S172, you knew who was driving so the 14 days is no longer relevant.
Basically, yes. Which is obviously outside his scope.As i said before, the CPS had agreed beforehand, and repeated in Court that my legal defence was irrebutable, and that all i had to do was prove to the Court (burden of proof lower than the prosecution's), and i produced my postman!
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Tuesday 4th November 11:25
Taita said:
Hang on, if he hadn't filled out S 172, but sent a letter saying that it was outside the 14 day rule, he would have been done for failing to comply with S 172.
Correct. And 6 points.He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? f
ked if you do fked if you don't!Taita said:
Hang on, if he hadn't filled out S 172, but sent a letter saying that it was outside the 14 day rule, he would have been done for failing to comply with S 172.
Correct. And 6 points.Taita said:
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? fked if you do fked if you don't!
Correct.ked if you do fked if you don't!Justice system is great, isn't it!
Keeping you updated and thanks to those who have PM'ed their support in pushing this as far as i can go..
Appeal in Crown Court set for January 8th. Will be representing myself as i did in the Magistrate's Court.
PS Are there any PHers who would like to spend a few minutes off the forum advising me how i could improve my presentation in Court? If so, please PM me.
Appeal in Crown Court set for January 8th. Will be representing myself as i did in the Magistrate's Court.
PS Are there any PHers who would like to spend a few minutes off the forum advising me how i could improve my presentation in Court? If so, please PM me.
fluffnik said:
Taita said:
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes?
Could this be evidence of S172 being self incrimination to take to ECHR?What is needed is some way of forcing the mags/judges to direct trials according to the charge, and to weigh the evidence as it is presented. Maybe more appeals is the answer...
Red Kite said:
It seems to me, the judge simply decided you had not submitted a defence against the speeding offence.
I don't have to.Red Kite said:
There was never any doubt that it was you who may or may not have been speeding.
Who was driving has not been discussed and is irrelevant in my case.Red Kite said:
There was never any doubt that you had notice
Correct. And having received it is an important part of my defence. As is the 16 days it took to get to me.Richard C said:
AJS- said:
I think you've shot yourself in the foot by admitting to driving. My understanding of the 14 day rule is that this is considered a reasonable time frame for you to remember who was driving the car at the time. In other words, 14 days does not absolve you of the speeding offence, but of the duty to tell them who was driving at the time, and this makes the speeding offence unenforceable.
Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
No thats incorrect. S172 is not time limited but service of NIP without caution at the time IS. Complying with the S172 requirement is independent of the accusation of speeding. Speeding is an absolute offence and so is the requirement on the authorities to serve an NIP in accordance with the law which was not done in this case. The judgement is therefore perverse and open to appeal.Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
Red Kite said:
PeterGUK,
it wasn't this, that was said, was it?
“irrebuttable presumption of service”
Actually, it was the opposite. My defence regarding the service of the NIP was accepted by the CPS as being irrebuttable, which only left me show the date the NIP arrived, to a level a lot less than the defence's "beyond all reasonable doubt". My postman gave evidence, which the Judge accepted. Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.it wasn't this, that was said, was it?
“irrebuttable presumption of service”
chr15b said:
i'm just not one for 'loopholes'
I suspect if you were up on a charge where due process had not followed you'd probably think differently.Andyuk911 said:
Good luck Peter ...
Cheers AndyEdited by peterguk V6 KWK on Wednesday 24th December 21:24
Red Kite said:
deeps said:
Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?
The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.
If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.
Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.
This is what I have concerns about, from PeterGUK's point of view. I don't feel confident (no offence meant Peter) that the court has in any way accepted that service was late. CPS, to my mind, have not agreed that it was. And in fact, have successfully averred that it was not late. The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.
If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.
Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.
Where they find that service was, in fact out of time, they withdraw the charges, as far as I'm told.
The 1st issue is satisfied. CPS have told me in writing, that my defence is irrebuttable. They told the Judge that my legal defence was irrebuttable. Even though he asked them three times
My postman stood up in Court and stated he saw me open my (in his words) my "speeding fine". He signed a statement for me to that effect a few days later to preserve historical facts. That should be adequate testimony in any Court.
Actual words in the letter to me from CPS were "in this case, there appears to be very little scope open to the mags. It therefore only remains for you to show the court the actual date of receipt of the NIP."
In court, the CPS said "the accused's defence is irrebuttable, we offer no argument against it." He explained to the Judge that my defence was well researched, covered decades of case law but was entirely valid and irrebuttable.
In court, the CPS said "the accused's defence is irrebuttable, we offer no argument against it." He explained to the Judge that my defence was well researched, covered decades of case law but was entirely valid and irrebuttable.
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 25th December 10:34
Red Kite said:
Basically, whats happened is: Although the court is satisfied as to the date you received it, they are also still satisfied that it was served correctly. You haven't addressed the issue of whether it was or it wasn't.
Check out my defence which i have emailed you. I believe the "serving" issue has been dealt with, and the CPS confirmed so by saying it was only the date i received it that had to be dealt with in Court.Furthermore, the Judge made no reference to any doubt in that area. He basically said that whilst i was most likely correct in law, that i was guilty anyway.
Had he looked at nothing but the evidence required, and the evidence i provided, he would have had no choice in his decision, which is why i am appealing.
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 25th December 12:17
Funk said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.
This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.
What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Funk said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.
This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.
What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Funk said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.
This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.
What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Red Kite said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Funk said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.
This is frankly outrageous. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the judge that - essentially - they rely on you being 'dumb' in order to confuse you into coughing for the cash.They wouldn't hesitate to prosecute on a technicality so neither should WE hesitate to DEFEND on a technicality. It works both ways. Sadly I'm not convinced you'll be successful Peter, the deck is heavily stacked against you.
What i fail to understand, is if i am so smart, is it not likely i will appeal??
I am reliably informed that the turkey was filled with chestnut stuffing, and i was frying sage and onion stuffing...
Red Kite - YHM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff