PING-PONG with a Nip
Discussion
My brother got a Nip. He waits awhile and names me, so then I get one. After a bit I send it back and say it was my brother. This has gone back and forth and I'v just recieved the third one(my brother, obviously, has had three too). The origonal offence was on 09/04/2004. How long can this go on?
Martin.
Martin.
Doesn't it go something like this:
A identifies(ID) B as driver and then B ID's A as driver.
So A hasn't ID a driver as B says it is A.
So B hasn't ID a driver as A says it is B.
Either that or summons both for speeding and use the other a witness against the other. First one convicted loses, the other wins?
DVD
A identifies(ID) B as driver and then B ID's A as driver.
So A hasn't ID a driver as B says it is A.
So B hasn't ID a driver as A says it is B.
Either that or summons both for speeding and use the other a witness against the other. First one convicted loses, the other wins?
DVD
BliarOut said:
Surely they have both satisfied the NIP as stated. It would then be down to BiB to do some good old fashioned detective work and prove who was driving.
Mind you, if they add one more person in the loop they might just string it out for six months
Interesting - so in theory a NIP could be bounced around several friends/family etc
anyone fancy starting the ball rolling with the NIP that I have got on my desk right now - I havent got the slightest clue who was driving at the time
Dwight VanDriver said:
Doesn't it go something like this:
A identifies(ID) B as driver and then B ID's A as driver.
So A hasn't ID a driver as B says it is A.
So B hasn't ID a driver as A says it is B.
Either that or summons both for speeding and use the other a witness against the other. First one convicted loses, the other wins?
DVD
If/when it goes to court both plead not guilty,unless there is a very good photo the crown will have to prove who the driver was
mattd said:
if thats the case then maybe i spot a business oppertunity to start a website with a list of people willing to bounce it about for 6 months for a modest fee
Im thinking bounce it around my staff a few times
after all it might have been one of them driving and they might want to admit to it. 
which one has peed me off the most this month 
BliarOut said:
But once it's back to the RK after 6 months, the speeding has timed out so no case can be bought.... Err, I think!
The information has to be laid within 6 months of the date of the offence. I would suggest that if after a couple of months to-ing and fro-ing, the prosecution department are not satisfied with the answers they are getting, they will issue the summons to all those instigated for one or other offence. The summons does not have to be served within 6 months of the offence. It can be served even years later as long as it is validated properly!
Pies said:
Be careful; the offending driver is also committing perjury, which the courts take very seriously.
Perjury can only happen in court,the defendant does not have to give evidence
Perjury is lying in court on oath in the witness box. Nothing more, nothing less!
The offence I think you are aiming at is attempting to pervert the course of justice ( Maximum of 7 years if found guilty
)Pies said:
supraman2954 said:
Be careful; the offending driver is also committing perjury, which the courts take very seriously.
Perjury can only happen in court,the defendant does not have to give evidence
My bad, maybe I should have said 'perverting the course of justice'.
Hmmm, would failure to give evidence be considered to be failure to name driver?
They've already have given their evidence (3 times), which I guess would be used as evidence in court proceedings. I would also guess that, even when in court, they will still stand by their claims, otherwise they would have to come clean.
Stuart Harding will tell you something about perverting the course of justice, but that is another thread!
>> Edited by supraman2954 on Saturday 3rd July 22:16
As far as a prosecution for S172 goes, Mohindra v DPP is essential reading for both V6GTO and his brother.
In particular,
14. <...> Where a defendant asserts, in response to the information, that he is not the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, the prosecution will be required to prove that the information which he has failed to give was information which was in his power to give and which may lead to identification of the driver. <...>
21. <...> It makes no sense to ask that question in the context of an offence the crux of which is keeping silent. In that context no such adverse inference can be drawn or need be drawn. <...>
23. <...> If the defendant wished to contend that the information required was not in her power to give then she should have raised that issue by asserting that she was not the keeper. The prosecution would then have to disprove that she was not the keeper, if it challenged that fact and if it mattered. The prosecution would, also, have to prove the information was in her power to give. <...>
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Sunday 4th July 05:26
In particular,
14. <...> Where a defendant asserts, in response to the information, that he is not the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, the prosecution will be required to prove that the information which he has failed to give was information which was in his power to give and which may lead to identification of the driver. <...>
21. <...> It makes no sense to ask that question in the context of an offence the crux of which is keeping silent. In that context no such adverse inference can be drawn or need be drawn. <...>
23. <...> If the defendant wished to contend that the information required was not in her power to give then she should have raised that issue by asserting that she was not the keeper. The prosecution would then have to disprove that she was not the keeper, if it challenged that fact and if it mattered. The prosecution would, also, have to prove the information was in her power to give. <...>
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Sunday 4th July 05:26
They haven't got to give evidence. They could both write a statement for the magistrates to read. This way they couldn't be cross examined and the prosecution might have some difficulty. The statements aren't evidence but the magistrates will still take them on board. What do you think?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff