Pepipoo, NIPs and PACE

[JonRB]

I'm not sure I understand what the PACE response that Pepipoo are currently advocating is all about.

Can anyone enlighten me? Specifically, what are the risks in using it? Could I end up in court with more points and a bigger fine?

I have just less than a week to go on my 28 day response to a NIP and I'm not sure what to do at present.

For background, see this PH thread

Thanks in advance
Jon

>> Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 2nd August 14:53

[JonRB]

Actually, I think I'm getting a fair idea now having spent a while reading various threads on the Pepipoo fora.

[MrsMiggins]

OK. Long story, not much chance of a short reply. This is my take on the situation, IANAL.

The feds want your £60. To achieve this they want a confession. Conveniently, if you fill in their NIP and return it, they have a confession they can use in court if you decide to plead not guilty since they transform the information you are forced to provide into a confession.

www.pepipoo.com suggest that this is somewhat at odds with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' basis of law in this country, and have drafted the Pace reply to provide the information in a format which should preclude it being used as evidence as you insist in the letter you return that you are merely providing a witness statement and not evidence.

Does it work? Who knows? I do think that the CPS are running scared, because they know they are on shaky ground. What other crimes are they allowed to insist on a confession for? Have you heard of any high profile PACE letter cases where the accused was found guilty? No? Me neither!

I believe that anal enforcement of speed limits does nothing for road safety. Until TPTB realise that as well I will continue to support both PePiPoo and SafeSpeed, safe in the knowledge that they are both, at least, facing the right direction!


Have a look at www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24456#24456 over on SafeSpeed for an idea of the levels of complication involved. (thanks to Observer for his very detailed post)

It's worth noting that the receipt of the pepipoo reply does not stop the Feds from interviewing the named driver and attempting to obtain the evidence required to prosecute for the heinous crime involved. It's just that, in the cold light of day, if the prosecution process is not automated, it's just not worth the trouble!

[moosepig]

Now I'm confused... I understood the PACE defence to be that since information obtained in accordance with s.172 is not provided under caution, it is considered inadmissible as evidence. Observer (in the SafeSpeed forum linked above) implies that there is specific legislation that means this written evidence IS admissible.

Can anyone clarify the situation?

[Dwight VanDriver]

Going to keep this short as I don't like cold toast...

The PACE argument is as stated above. A signed 172 document naming the driver can be used as written evidence of the fact of the driver in any Court proceedings.

The fact that 172 is not given under caution leads to the argument that it is inadmissable in proceedings and also a breach of human rights as one incriminates oneself.

There had been a whole load of case law on this and in the Brown case was held in the publioc interest that 172 is OK. Likewise in relation to human rights at ECJ in WEeh v Austria 2004 under similar cirstumstances to name it was held that the request was primarily merely to establish the driver.

Understand that there are a number of cases of similar nature awaiting hearing/decision at European Court and these will not be resolved for some time.

Now if this PACE arguement was so brilliant then it would have been picked up by the legal proffession/
media, advertised widely and system brought into such disarray that remedial legislation brought into play such as making the Reg Owner responsible for speeding infringements like parking.

Bugger - cold toast......

DVD

[puggit]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Going to keep this short as I don't like cold toast... ... Now if this PACE arguement was so brilliant then it would have been picked up by the legal proffession/ media, advertised widely and system brought into such disarray that remedial legislation brought into play such as making the Reg Owner responsible for speeding infringements like parking.

Agreed - but why then is it also widely reported on Pepipoo that no one has yet failed with this defence?

DVD said:

Bugger - cold toast......

[JonRB]

puggit said:

Agreed - but why then is it also widely reported on Pepipoo that no one has yet failed with this defence?

Indeed, although it could be that we are in that "early days" grace period as also enjoyed by the 'unsigned NIP' strategy a while back before it was closed off.

I will probably use the PACE response simply because there appears to be no harm in doing so - I can always accept the FPN later if I so desire. In the meantime, anything legal that can be done to make them work for their money has to be worth doing.

[puggit]

Of course, if you want to prevent the SCP getting the money then go to court. But in order to excersize your right to a court appearance you get shafted with a bigger fine and more points

[JonRB]

puggit said:

Of course, if you want to prevent the SCP getting the money then go to court. But in order to excersize your right to a court appearance you get shafted with a bigger fine and more points

Yes, well obviously my bottle will run out before that point.

[g_attrill]

The amusing thing about the PACE argument is the varying replies from the different SCP. There has been:

- A normal offer of a fixed penalty

- A letter thanking them for the information, saying they disagree with the argument and offering a FPN

- A letter saying that the information has not been provided as requested and saying that by law the form must be filled in (incorrect) and if it isn't then they "may" summons for failing to provide information.

Interestingly, examples of the latter two have been receieved from the *same* partnership!

Gareth

[Mr Whippy]

If only the million or so people who got FPN's this last year went to court instead, we'd be waiting until 2009 to get our points and fine

Use the pace/s172 thingy whatever. If they have to think for even 5 mins then it's worth your effort to make them have to work for their money!

Chances are if it's a marginal speeding offence they might just not bother!?

Dave

[Dwight VanDriver]

puggit said:

Of course, if you want to prevent the SCP getting the money then go to court. But in order to excersize your right to a court appearance you get shafted with a bigger fine and more points

Look at it this way Chris.

At Court the sentence for speeding is a fine of 1000 pounds or 3 to 6 points depending on how the Mags view the case.

But to you Sir, special offer; 60 notes and 3 points.

Whjich is the better bargain if you are Guilty?????

(Ducks under table)

DVD

[JonRB]

Dwight VanDriver said:

At Court the sentence for speeding is a fine of 1000 pounds or 3 to 6 points depending on how the Mags view the case. But to you Sir, special offer; 60 notes and 3 points.

I quite agree, in sentiment, DVD.

However, I also see it as being the difference between them making a profit or a loss on my (alleged) transgression. So if my PACE defence does nothing more than temporatily gum up the well-oiled wheels of fleecing thousands of motorists and negatively affects their bottom line slightly then I will be happy.

>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 27th July 16:02

[Godfrey H]

Got it in one JRB.

>> Edited by Godfrey H on Wednesday 27th July 18:17