Letter that can Save Your Licence?
Discussion
Read the following in MCN today. It advises that if you receive a NIP, and want to respond with a PACE statement, you should fill out the form by writing "Please see the attached" where it asks for the details. Then attach the letter below.
Their Ref here:
Your Reg here:
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence.
Insert details requested on NIP here:
As this statement is provided under the threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
Signature here:
Print Name here:
The argument is based on the law that says that before suspects are questioned they should be cautioned. Where you have been caught by a camera and sent a NIP in the post, no caution has been issued so any evidence you provide cannot be used as evidence. But you are still complying with the law that says you have to identify the driver.
This defence is due to be tested at the High Court in the summer.
Their Ref here:
Your Reg here:
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence.
Insert details requested on NIP here:
As this statement is provided under the threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
Signature here:
Print Name here:
The argument is based on the law that says that before suspects are questioned they should be cautioned. Where you have been caught by a camera and sent a NIP in the post, no caution has been issued so any evidence you provide cannot be used as evidence. But you are still complying with the law that says you have to identify the driver.
This defence is due to be tested at the High Court in the summer.
And that is the RK's dilemma too. In the strict legal sense surely the scamera pratnerships should formally caution anyone sent an S172... 
But then the automated fining machine would simply collapse 
That letter theoretically solves the problem though as the information supplied should be inadmissable in court?
But then the automated fining machine would simply collapse That letter theoretically solves the problem though as the information supplied should be inadmissable in court?
Last few months MCN have been proved right on a number of issues where others, e.g. ACPO, originally declared MCN incorrect.
How long before the S172 notices include a written caution and legislation amended to suit if required.
In other words, if a genuine loophole exists TPTB will stick a finger in the dyke sharpish.
This post was drafted without any intent or threat, real or imaginary to insert any finger anywhere, especially near members of the female gender who may be of a tendency........ Stop it FIF, hole! digging! .... oh you mentioned member and hole!..... shut up!.... shut up!
How long before the S172 notices include a written caution and legislation amended to suit if required.
In other words, if a genuine loophole exists TPTB will stick a finger in the dyke sharpish.
This post was drafted without any intent or threat, real or imaginary to insert any finger anywhere, especially near members of the female gender who may be of a tendency........ Stop it FIF, hole! digging! .... oh you mentioned member and hole!..... shut up!.... shut up!
Doesn't the caution include the immortal words
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Now if they include that wording then surely you don't have to complete the S172???
Got another spade handy FiF?
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Now if they include that wording then surely you don't have to complete the S172???
Got another spade handy FiF?
Dwight VanDriver said:
How can they caution when they do not know who the driver was/is which is why they send the 172 notice?
dvd
I concur that this may just about hold water for the very first NIP, sent to the RK ie they are not accusing anyone in particular of being the driver. But what about subsequent NIPs where a driver has been nominated by the RK. Does he not then become a 'suspect' in a criminal investigation ? If yes, then should PACE apply ?
The s.172 request for information is statutory and carries threat of criminal penalty for non-compliance. The magical mutation of this 'information' into 'evidence' using s.12RTOA1988 intrigues me. Was it really Parliament's intention to use s.12 in the widespread manner it is today ?
So far, the UK judiciary have fudged their way around the issue. Let's hope Europe, with much less of a vested interest, have something different to say on the matter..
Here we go Rob.....
Now I know that certain amendments were made to Codes and Practices under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and which came into being 1.1.06 but as far as I am aware they did not change that already published regarding Cautioning.
My legal reference states and my understanding a caution is not required if questions are put for other purposes, for example soley to
establish his identity,
his ownership of any vehicle or
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
So when SCP send out the 172 to Reg Keeper, whilst they have information of an offence, they do not have any clue as to who the offender was and have no resonable grounds for suspecting the Keeper of being the offender and are asking for the identity of the driver and in accordance with a statutory requirement. (This was held to be OK in the case at ECJ Weh v Austria 2004). If they knew who the driver was when they send out the 172 then yes the Caution should be included. They do not.
The 'Sting' is where the form is signed by the driver - a legal requirement established by High Court and that is then used as evidence in Court that he was so without any formal identification as being so. As I understand it this is being the subject of a number of cases at the ECHR on the question whether it infringes Human Rightsby having to incriminate oneself. Until such time as these cases are disposed of SCP go their merry way....
dvd
Now I know that certain amendments were made to Codes and Practices under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and which came into being 1.1.06 but as far as I am aware they did not change that already published regarding Cautioning.
My legal reference states and my understanding a caution is not required if questions are put for other purposes, for example soley to
establish his identity,
his ownership of any vehicle or
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
So when SCP send out the 172 to Reg Keeper, whilst they have information of an offence, they do not have any clue as to who the offender was and have no resonable grounds for suspecting the Keeper of being the offender and are asking for the identity of the driver and in accordance with a statutory requirement. (This was held to be OK in the case at ECJ Weh v Austria 2004). If they knew who the driver was when they send out the 172 then yes the Caution should be included. They do not.
The 'Sting' is where the form is signed by the driver - a legal requirement established by High Court and that is then used as evidence in Court that he was so without any formal identification as being so. As I understand it this is being the subject of a number of cases at the ECHR on the question whether it infringes Human Rightsby having to incriminate oneself. Until such time as these cases are disposed of SCP go their merry way....
dvd
The wording of that letter is identical to the PACE statement on pepipoo but as a letter and not a statement of witness. In the case of the first NOIP to the RK, then if the RK was the driver surely he should need to be cautioned? (at least that's the principal I'm currently working on and it seems to be having the desired effect)
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the High Court case.
I would imagine some sort of statutory caution will start to be included in future NIPs?
MCN pointed out that there is an existing loophole in the camera partnership's favour and they seek to close this.
Imagine if the same law was applied to other offences as applied to camera related offences. Where a suspect in a burglary case was 'identified' from CCTV footage they could send a letter saying "We think you commited this burglary on such and such a date so either admit to it, tell us who did it or face 6 months for failing to identify."
I would imagine some sort of statutory caution will start to be included in future NIPs?
MCN pointed out that there is an existing loophole in the camera partnership's favour and they seek to close this.
Imagine if the same law was applied to other offences as applied to camera related offences. Where a suspect in a burglary case was 'identified' from CCTV footage they could send a letter saying "We think you commited this burglary on such and such a date so either admit to it, tell us who did it or face 6 months for failing to identify."
Send it off and they will try to 'persuade' you to fill in their form. Do that and the form (which in actually fact is a blank Satement of Witness) is used as your confession to your henious crime. For 81 in a 70, you will almost certainly be offered the opportunity to take 3 points and a £60 fine instead of paying a Magistrate a visit and letting him decide how many years in stir he's going to give you.
The choice is yours, fill in the form and take the points or send the letter above and be prepared for a few months of argument (with an end result that may still be points and a fine) culminating in a day in court.
Hang on though, in your other post you mention Northern Constabulary, isn't that Scotland? Some laws, and the court process, are completely different up there.
The choice is yours, fill in the form and take the points or send the letter above and be prepared for a few months of argument (with an end result that may still be points and a fine) culminating in a day in court.
Hang on though, in your other post you mention Northern Constabulary, isn't that Scotland? Some laws, and the court process, are completely different up there.
Thats the way I had a NIP against me dropped. I basically told them in writing that I wouldnt sign it, because I have the right to remain silent, and by signing it, I would be waiving that right. If I had been pulled by a human, I would have been read my rights, but seeing as it was a camera (34 in a deserted 30 in Leicester in June 2002), I wasnt informed of my rights.
I explained that I was not being deliberately obtuse, but was using the same laws they uphold, to protect myself.
I had a letter telling me that the case would be going no further.
>> Edited by Tazfan on Saturday 8th April 17:53
I explained that I was not being deliberately obtuse, but was using the same laws they uphold, to protect myself.
I had a letter telling me that the case would be going no further.
>> Edited by Tazfan on Saturday 8th April 17:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff