Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE
Discussion
KevinA3DSG32 said:
By filling in the S172 you are 'admitting' to being the driver at the time the speeding offence occured and are therefore guilty of the charge.
Being confirmed as the person driving at the time does not make you guilty of the speeding charge (or any other). Driving a car is not an offence in itself.fluffnik said:
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
The whole SCP racket and the entirely pernicious S172 on which they depend are entirely incompatible with a free and just society; they should be purged without mercy.
Oh dear...Do you know how crazy you sound
However the notion that the S172 is entirely incompatible with a free and just society, IMHO, marks you out as a liar or a crazy person.
I think people object to the S172 because they want to get away with speeding, IMHO it's as simple as that. This rubbish about free and just society is BS to divert attention from the fact that you object to the state catching and punishing people for breaking speed limits.
So, on balance, not crazy really, just dishonest, IMHO of course
KevinA3DSG32 said:
stemll said:
fluffnik said:
Yes it is if it identifies you as the driver, no other evidence identifying the driver is presented.
No it isn't, not even remotely. The proof of the offence of speeding is completely separate to the identification of a driver.The speeding is proved by the camera, it does not prove who the driver is. By having to complete a S172 naming yourself as the driver you have to provide proof of your identity as the driver. Without this they cannot proceed to the speeding charge. By filling in the S172 you are 'admitting' to being the driver at the time the speeding offence occured and are therefore guilty of the charge.
By extension would you be happy if you received a S172 because your car (and no other) was seen parked near where an offence such as burglary took place. No other evidence of identity was required? You were then charged with the burglary?
KevinA3DSG32 said:
By extension would you be happy if you received a S172 because your car (and no other) was seen parked near where an offence such as burglary took place. No other evidence of identity was required? You were then charged with the burglary?
A similar daft analogy was shot down by Von a few pages ago. To be comparable, the car would have been seen leaving the scene of the burglary loaded with clearly visible items the same as those stolen.stemll said:
Zeeky said:
The Gidden case implies unequivocally
Is that possible? Surely by definition an implication has to be equivocal? Deva Link said:
...There's a vaguely similar case being referenced in another thread which shows how annoyed Judges (this was at appeal after conviction) can get if they think you're taking the piss:
There's an important difference. Whereami? asserts that the defendant cannot be believed if his witness evidence states that the NIP arrived late or did not arrive at all. This is, of course, nonsense.I don't have a report of the Defoe case but to quote the BBC report.
"It was also argued that the court could not be sure Defoe had received speeding notices."
If the notices are sent correctly they are presumed to have been served. The court does not need to be sure they were actually received to convict.
If the defendant introduces evidence to rebut that presumption, that is a different matter and he is clearly entitled to do that. The judge should not accuse the defendant of wasting the court's time by introducing evidence to rebut the presumption of service where the law is clear that he is entitled to do so.
Of course the court may not be convinced by the defendant's oral evidence but they certainly must not dismiss it as being irrelevant or that the defence is misconceived because it is not supported by independent corroborating evidence.
Edited by Zeeky on Monday 21st May 12:05
Firstly, I consider speeding to often be a relatively trivial offience.
So, for the sake of argument I’m going to use the example of someone driving at 200mph past a school for children and kittens.
That’s a bad offence.
The camera has taken the photo.
We know an offence occurred.
We know it was a bad offence.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that the driver can be identified.
There should be no question at all of being able to dodge prosecution based on avoiding the postman or not returning a letter.
Further to this, there should be no way to avoid prosecution because the letter was sent 2 days late. The crime was still committed. (however, I accept that this is slightly different)
I’m glad that in the high profile case (linked above by another poster) the Judges agree with me (or I agree with the Judges).
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
Tell me where I'm wrong and why.
You're not wrong, you gave an opinion and there's no such thing as a wrong opinion. However the notion that the S172 is entirely incompatible with a free and just society, IMHO, marks you out as a liar or a crazy person.
Devil2575 said:
I think people object to the S172 because they want to get away with speeding, IMHO it's as simple as that. This rubbish about free and just society is BS to divert attention from the fact that you object to the state catching and punishing people for breaking speed limits.
So, on balance, not crazy really, just dishonest, IMHO of course
No dishonesty either.So, on balance, not crazy really, just dishonest, IMHO of course
If you look back through my posts you'll find that I consistently oppose all arbitrary laws, every sort of administrative oppression, the criminalisation of victimless actions and restrictions on free thought.
I consider speeding, if done safely, to be much, much more morally defensible than working for an SCP...
stemll said:
fluffnik said:
Yes it is if it identifies you as the driver, no other evidence identifying the driver is presented.
No it isn't, not even remotely. The proof of the offence of speeding is completely separate to the identification of a driver.Where the driver is the RK this is de facto self-incrimination regardless of all the wriggling used to argue that it is not, de jure.
The system is nasty, petty and unpleasantly authoritarian and does nothing of worth; we should be shot of it.
Zeeky said:
There's an important difference. Whereami? asserts that the defendant cannot be believed if his witness evidence states that the NIP arrived late or did not arrive at all. This is, of course, nonsense.
I asserted no such thing. The court will listen to the evidence and make it's own judgement and they may feel that the defendant put forwards convincing evidence even if that is only their personal statement.However it is not likely. A magistrate will look at the evidence in total including the date on which the NIP was sent and in practice so long as the NIP was sent in plenty of time they are unlikely to take a statement from the defendant as being sufficient evidence that the NIP was out of time.
That view is supported by the suggestion that if the defendant putting forwards this argument tended to be believed then it would be an argument put forwards by a lot of defendants, often untruthfully. The reason it is not and the reason why the legislation has not been changed to prevent it is because magistrates are looking for more solid evidence than a statement by the defendant and/or related parties before they accept that on the balance of probabilities the NIP was out of time.
fluffnik said:
If you look back through my posts you'll find that I consistently oppose all arbitrary laws, every sort of administrative oppression, the criminalisation of victimless actions and restrictions on free thought.
You ARE consistent I'll give you that. What exactly you're being consistent at is sometimes not always that clear not does it (for some) have the ring of sincerity, but rather seems focussed in putting proverbial cats amongst proverbial pigeons.But if you didn't act that way we'd think you were ill...so carry on Fluff your audience awaits your next bout of consistency.
WhereamI said:
Zeeky said:
There's an important difference. Whereami? asserts that the defendant cannot be believed if his witness evidence states that the NIP arrived late or did not arrive at all. This is, of course, nonsense.
I asserted no such thing. The court will listen to the evidence and make it's own judgement and they may feel that the defendant put forwards convincing evidence even if that is only their personal statement.WhereamI said:
...So long as the date on the NIP is within, say, 12 days of the offence (not counting the day of the offence) then the magistrate really isn't going to be interested in any claims that it took longer. OK, a sworn statement from someone totally independent might work, but they hear this stuff every day, simply claiming that you know it was Thursday because it was the day the cat died, or whatever, doesn't work.
That reads differently to the following.WhereamI said:
However it is not likely. A magistrate will look at the evidence in total including the date on which the NIP was sent and in practice so long as the NIP was sent in plenty of time they are unlikely to take a statement from the defendant as being sufficient evidence that the NIP was out of time.
That view is supported by the suggestion that if the defendant putting forwards this argument tended to be believed then it would be an argument put forwards by a lot of defendants, often untruthfully. The reason it is not and the reason why the legislation has not been changed to prevent it is because magistrates are looking for more solid evidence than a statement by the defendant and/or related parties before they accept that on the balance of probabilities the NIP was out of time.
This is simply speculation. I have given other reasons, equally likely, as to why lots of defendants are not doing this. You have no evidence that the magistrates are looking for more 'solid' evidence than the oral evidence of the defendant and related parties. That view is supported by the suggestion that if the defendant putting forwards this argument tended to be believed then it would be an argument put forwards by a lot of defendants, often untruthfully. The reason it is not and the reason why the legislation has not been changed to prevent it is because magistrates are looking for more solid evidence than a statement by the defendant and/or related parties before they accept that on the balance of probabilities the NIP was out of time.
The fact is we know magistrates are prepared to accept the uncorroborated oral evidence of a police officer on a charges of traffic offences, even when controverted by the defendant and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Witness evidence can be convincing.
The defendant only needs to prove the NIP was delivered late on the balance of probabilities and it is not possible for the prosecution to provide witness evidence that conflicts with this.
Your speculation appears to be based on the premise that police officer witness evidence is convincing, in fact very convincing. Correspondingly, defendant witness evidence is rarely convincing.
oldsoak said:
fluffnik said:
If you look back through my posts you'll find that I consistently oppose all arbitrary laws, every sort of administrative oppression, the criminalisation of victimless actions and restrictions on free thought.
You ARE consistent I'll give you that. What exactly you're being consistent at is sometimes not always that clear not does it (for some) have the ring of sincerity, but rather seems focussed in putting proverbial cats amongst proverbial pigeons.I've sought an end to the UK all my adult life, so I suppose I do indeed want to put the merciless spiky cats of liberty and free thought amongst the smug complacent pigeons of establishment.
I really do utterly despise those who assert authority for its own sake and would cheerfully hand each and every one their jotters...
oldsoak said:
But if you didn't act that way we'd think you were ill...so carry on Fluff your audience awaits your next bout of consistency.
Fear not, I fully intend to outlast the established order. 
Zeeky, we are going round in circles.
If you honestly believe that a magistrate will give much weight to a defendant's statement that the NIP was out of time without any other corroborating evidence then good luck to you, give it a try and see how you go.
Personally this is a subject I know something about, I am closely related to a serving magistrate and through her I know quite a number of others. I live on the edge of their world, I hear their views, thoughts and troubles regularly, I think that I have a good insight into how they think. Of course I can't predict how an individual magistrate will react in an individual case and obviously the ones I know are a small sub-set of the whole, but I have no reason to suppose that the views of the ones I know are much different from the norm.
If you honestly believe that a magistrate will give much weight to a defendant's statement that the NIP was out of time without any other corroborating evidence then good luck to you, give it a try and see how you go.
Personally this is a subject I know something about, I am closely related to a serving magistrate and through her I know quite a number of others. I live on the edge of their world, I hear their views, thoughts and troubles regularly, I think that I have a good insight into how they think. Of course I can't predict how an individual magistrate will react in an individual case and obviously the ones I know are a small sub-set of the whole, but I have no reason to suppose that the views of the ones I know are much different from the norm.
What you are asserting is well known. Magistrates on the whole tend to be biased against defendant's evidence and in favour of police evidence. It is unfortuante but there is evidence of this occurring.
What I honestly believe is not relevant. What I know is. It is ultimately down to credibility. If the magistrates find the defendant to be a credible witness then the reliability of his evidence needs to be tested in terms of whether he could know when the NIP was delivered and that he hasn't made a mistake.
Your assertion requires the magistrates you know to label all defendants as not having credibility on the basis that they are defendants. Then they make a finding of fact that the individual defendant lacks credibility regardless of what they actually think. Consequently he has not proved his claim.
Prejudice is effective where there is conflicting evidence. There cannot be conflicting evidence in this situation so it boils down to credibility and reliability of the defendant. The magistrates, if they possess a modicum of integrity, will struggle to find a witness's evidence that they think is credible as not being credible.
If they state that independent evidence is necessary then they are quite simply wrong in law. If they don't articulate this then they lack integrity. Perhaps you know more about the integrity of magistrates than me.
What I honestly believe is not relevant. What I know is. It is ultimately down to credibility. If the magistrates find the defendant to be a credible witness then the reliability of his evidence needs to be tested in terms of whether he could know when the NIP was delivered and that he hasn't made a mistake.
Your assertion requires the magistrates you know to label all defendants as not having credibility on the basis that they are defendants. Then they make a finding of fact that the individual defendant lacks credibility regardless of what they actually think. Consequently he has not proved his claim.
Prejudice is effective where there is conflicting evidence. There cannot be conflicting evidence in this situation so it boils down to credibility and reliability of the defendant. The magistrates, if they possess a modicum of integrity, will struggle to find a witness's evidence that they think is credible as not being credible.
If they state that independent evidence is necessary then they are quite simply wrong in law. If they don't articulate this then they lack integrity. Perhaps you know more about the integrity of magistrates than me.
Edited by Zeeky on Monday 21st May 20:12
WhereamI said:
That view is supported by the suggestion that if the defendant putting forwards this argument tended to be believed then it would be an argument put forwards by a lot of defendants, often untruthfully. The reason it is not and the reason why the legislation has not been changed to prevent it is because magistrates are looking for more solid evidence than a statement by the defendant and/or related parties before they accept that on the balance of probabilities the NIP was out of time.
And the whole thing could so easily be avoided and laid completely to rest if the SCPs simply used registered post instead of whooping up every last penny of profit.10 Pence Short said:
KevinA3DSG32 said:
By filling in the S172 you are 'admitting' to being the driver at the time the speeding offence occured and are therefore guilty of the charge.
Being confirmed as the person driving at the time does not make you guilty of the speeding charge (or any other). Driving a car is not an offence in itself.KevinA3DSG32 said:
10 Pence Short said:
KevinA3DSG32 said:
By filling in the S172 you are 'admitting' to being the driver at the time the speeding offence occured and are therefore guilty of the charge.
Being confirmed as the person driving at the time does not make you guilty of the speeding charge (or any other). Driving a car is not an offence in itself.But you could in theory admit to being the driver, then mount a defence that you were not actually guilty of speeding, which with camera evidence is not easy.
KevinA3DSG32 said:
Please explain how you can be found not guilty of speeding in these circumstances if the speed evidence is 100% correct? Ignoring any technicalities, exemptions in place and abnormal circumstances.
Erm, if the speeding evidence is 100% correct, and you've confirmed you're the driver, are you not guilty of speeding?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff