European Grand Chamber to announce findings

[SpitfireTriple]

I think we can probably all agree we're going round in circles on this thread. As some of us have already stated, maybe we should hold fire till after the verdict. But, hey, speculation is fun.

Can I though, at the risk of being accused of self-interest (I still haven't decided whether to appeal my "Guilty" and need more insight) ask if anyone else has any ideas about what was recently reported in MCN: That some forces have recently started sending out NIPs but without mentioning the alleged speed?

My own view is that this news suggests the govt has already seen the verdict that will be made public on 29 June, and that the verdict is that the govt has lost. In Weh vs Austria, the reason quoted for Weh losing was that in Austria, the NIP does not mention the alleged offence. So, the govt's logical initial response to losing is to move towards the Austrian system. Which means I should be able to appeal successfully?

[SS2.]

SpitfireTriple said:

Can I though, at the risk of being accused of self-interest (I still haven't decided whether to appeal my "Guilty" and need more insight) ask if anyone else has any ideas about what was recently reported in MCN: That some forces have recently started sending out NIPs but without mentioning the alleged speed?

I'd perhaps be a little careful of putting two and two together and making five - AIUI, there is nothing in statute which specifically requires the alleged speed to be stated on a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

[SpitfireTriple]

I too am unaware of anything in statute that requires the offence to be mentioned in the NIP. But that's how it has been for years and years. And then suddenly, just a few weeks before the ruling will become public, police forces change tactics.

Is this coincidence or is it significant, and if significant can I and others like me use it in their defence/appeal?

[flemke]

SpitfireTriple said:

I too am unaware of anything in statute that requires the offence to be mentioned in the NIP. But that's how it has been for years and years. And then suddenly, just a few weeks before the ruling will become public, police forces change tactics.

Is this coincidence or is it significant, and if significant can I and others like me use it in their defence/appeal?

If the Police were to demand that the RK provide the name of the driver without disclosing the purpose for their question, could one file a FOI request seeking to learn their purpose?

With >99% of all 172 queries being for the purpose of serving an NIP for a minor traffic offence, I shouldn't think that they could refuse all FOI requests on the basis of national security.

[SS2.]

SpitfireTriple said:

I too am unaware of anything in statute that requires the offence to be mentioned in the NIP.

The nature of the alleged offence requires to be stated to comply with S.1 RTOA 1988. AIUI, the specifics (such as alleged speed) do not.

S.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 said:

1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
.
.
.
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

....[served on him]...

Edited by SS2. on Saturday 16th June 14:35

[fluffnik]

flemke said:

With >99% of all 172 queries being for the purpose of serving an NIP for a minor traffic offence, I shouldn't think that they could refuse all FOI requests on the basis of national security.

That would grind the s down.

[havoc]

fluffnik said:

flemke said:

With >99% of all 172 queries being for the purpose of serving an NIP for a minor traffic offence, I shouldn't think that they could refuse all FOI requests on the basis of national security.

That would grind the s down.

I love it!