NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Chrisgr31 said:
vonhosen said:
It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.
For me the important bit is that it says:
'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.
It doesn't say is delivered in the post.
But it does go on to say "unless the contrary is proved".For me the important bit is that it says:
'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.
It doesn't say is delivered in the post.
Therefore the presumption is that it will have arrived in the ordinary course of the post and I believe thats now 2 days for 1st class post. However if you as recipient can prove it didn't arrive then you are in the clear. Mind you quite how you prove something didn't arrive is another thing, unless of course its late as in the OPs case.
Not even the higher courts in these islands all take the view that many are claiming here.
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC...
Judge said:
We would not be prepared to agree, however, that as the warning of intended prosecution is merely a formal requirement placed on the prosecution, then failure to observe it is not important. In our view, the terms of the section are plain; if service as we have described it is not properly effected in terms of the relevant provisions, then no conviction will follow.
Isn't that just typical? I can hear the CPS barrister saying, "the NIP is a mere formality. It doesn't really matter whether it arrives or not. In fact, it doesn't really matter whether we send it or not. (Then, under breath) We already know he's guilty so due process of law is irrelevant".peterguk V6 KWK said:
No postmark on envelope.
Devils advocate question.1. Why no postmark? Was it franked or was it a normal postage stamp?
If it was franked and I can't imagine even the back office of a scamership being so wasteful of labour as to employ somebody licking and sticking stamps, then why not dated? Is this deliberate, I don't think we even have the option on our franking machine to not date the printed result.
If it was a normal stamp then why not franked by Royal Mail? Typical sheesh.
2. Because if there were a frank, it would be interesting to see what the court and CPS would do if the franked date showed a discrepancy with the logged date on the back office log. It should introduce reasonable doubt.
Surely they don't somehow disable the date if they are posting outwith the 14 day rule. Surely.
/devils advocate mode
Puts tin foil hat back in wardrobe.
OK, so i have my trial date of 16th July
Today, i received a letter from CPS.
Basically agreeing with my quoting Sections 1 and 2 RTOA 1988. However, they are quoting Section 1a(c):
"by sending it by Registered post, Recorded Delivery or 1st Class post addressed to him at his last known address"
And that in effect, providing they can show it was posted within 14 days, it is deemed served within those 14 days, even if it was not received within those 14 days.
Case law is Groome v Driscoll 1969 (3 ER 245).
"And that in your case, it will be deemed to be given at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post which in your case it would have been, the notice having been sent by 1st Class post 5 days after the date of offence"
Last paragraph invites me to plead guilty.
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?.....
Today, i received a letter from CPS.
Basically agreeing with my quoting Sections 1 and 2 RTOA 1988. However, they are quoting Section 1a(c):
"by sending it by Registered post, Recorded Delivery or 1st Class post addressed to him at his last known address"
And that in effect, providing they can show it was posted within 14 days, it is deemed served within those 14 days, even if it was not received within those 14 days.
Case law is Groome v Driscoll 1969 (3 ER 245).
"And that in your case, it will be deemed to be given at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post which in your case it would have been, the notice having been sent by 1st Class post 5 days after the date of offence"
Last paragraph invites me to plead guilty.
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?.....
"It was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served."
Postwatch statistics show that only 85.2% of First Class mail was delivered next day (against a target of 93.0%), varying from 89.9% to 79.4% by area - see here for the 20 top and bottom figures by area.
That's some 400,000 letters each day that miss their delivery target.
In April this year following the strike, The Daily Telegraph conducted a small test involving batches of 10 letters sent to different addresses. Of the sample, 14 letters failed to arrive on time, 10 turning up a day late, two two days later and two were still undelivered four days after posting.
Streaky
That's some 400,000 letters each day that miss their delivery target.
In April this year following the strike, The Daily Telegraph conducted a small test involving batches of 10 letters sent to different addresses. Of the sample, 14 letters failed to arrive on time, 10 turning up a day late, two two days later and two were still undelivered four days after posting.
Streaky
streaky said:
Postwatch statistics show that only 85.2% of First Class mail was delivered next day (against a target of 93.0%), varying from 89.9% to 79.4% by area - see here for the 20 top and bottom figures by area.
That's some 400,000 letters each day that miss their delivery target.
In April this year following the strike, The Daily Telegraph conducted a small test involving batches of 10 letters sent to different addresses. Of the sample, 14 letters failed to arrive on time, 10 turning up a day late, two two days later and two were still undelivered four days after posting.
Streaky
So extracting that a bit further, despite the fact that not all letters arrive the next day, a Court is usually satisfied, (even with a Criminal matters with a higher standard of proof than Civil matters), that a NIP will be served provided proof is adduced that it was posted 1st class on the 13th day post alleged offence?That's some 400,000 letters each day that miss their delivery target.
In April this year following the strike, The Daily Telegraph conducted a small test involving batches of 10 letters sent to different addresses. Of the sample, 14 letters failed to arrive on time, 10 turning up a day late, two two days later and two were still undelivered four days after posting.
Streaky
RichBurley said:
So extracting that a bit further, despite the fact that not all letters arrive the next day, a Court is usually satisfied, (even with a Criminal matters with a higher standard of proof than Civil matters), that a NIP will be served provided proof is adduced that it was posted 1st class on the 13th day post alleged offence?
...unless the contrary is proved (where first class post is used).SS2. said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?
AIUI, Groome v Driscoll refers to (non) service by registered post. It does not apply where normal first class post has been used.EU_Foreigner said:
Freeman had a field day during the postal strike, so how could he use that one then?
And note that Andrew Flintoff, represented by NF, was recently acquitted of speeding where it was shown that the initial NIP was served on the RK of the vehicle more than 14 days from the alleged offence.SS2 said:
A notice which has been posted by recorded delivery is deemed as 'served' at the time when it would be delivered in the normal course of post, even if the notice is not delivered. So even if an accused does not receive a notice sent by recorded delivery, they cannot rely on non-service of the notice as a defence - RTOA '88 1. (2).
Fair and just...? My arse.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff