Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE

[Red Devil]

Snowboy said:

Aren’t there a few clauses about ‘reasonableness’ and ‘justice must be served’.

Is a letter arriving after 20 days instead of 14 unreasonable?
All else being equal, has the 6 days delay changed her guild or innocence?
Have any factors changed that make the 6 day delay have an unintended further impact?
If there is a case to answer based on speeding should it be dismissed due to a 6 day delay in the mail?

My opinions are.
I would suggest that 3 weeks instead of 2 weeks is not an unreasonable delay.
If the mother would have accepted the NIP had it arrived within 14 days then it’s reasonable to say she should accept it after 20 days.

The short delay causes no additional benefit or loss to any party.
It’s not like she got a new job in the 6 day gap that required a clean licence!?

I base this on a situation where I have returned legal financial documents several weeks late and all fines and penalties were waived because (to quote a man from the inland review) ‘it’s only a bit late, it’s not a big problem’.
I say that excusing a bit of a delay in sending mail is excusable for all parties.

Financial penalties imposed by DVLA and HMRC for late compliance are a poor analogy to a NoIP for a traffic offence. The latter can result in a conviction. Financial penalties do not. They are a debt and enforced accordingly.

You logic is flawed. Reasonableness has all to do with it. Parliament, by passsing the relevant legislation, has decreed that the period is 14 days End of. They didn't pick that figure out of a hat. It was chosen to ensure on balance that 'justice is served'. The Appeal Court in Gidden made a clear ruling on what constitutes proper service of a NoIP. The SCPs/Process Units can bluster as much as they like but it's all hot air. Post Gidden the CPS know it.

The only remaining issue is how the defendant can convince the court that it was late. In Gidden the postal strike was a key factor which TPTB were fully cognisant of but had not understood it required them to have a contingency plan in place.

As most defendants will not have any supporting evidence it entirely depends on their credibility and the mindset of the bench. It is usually the one in the middle you need to be concerned about.

[sinizter]

Snowboy said:

It’s not like she got a new job in the 6 day gap that required a clean licence!?

And what if she had ?

You conveniently skip over the fact that she could have been accepted or started at a new job in this time period.

[Snowboy]

sinizter said:

Snowboy said:

It’s not like she got a new job in the 6 day gap that required a clean licence!?

And what if she had ?

You conveniently skip over the fact that she could have been accepted or started at a new job in this time period.

I didn’t skip over the fact it could have happened. I was the one who bought it up.

If she had got a new job I can see a good argument about the 6 day delay causing a genuine problem.


I wonder what the consensus would be if the person who burgled your house got let off because an office worked was 6 days late in submitting a document.


Regardless of points of law, it is my opinion that a 6 day delay in a letter should not affect a court case.
It is a trivial administrative delay – and the judicial process should not be affected by such things.

[Ean218]

Snowboy said:

I wonder what the consensus would be if the person who burgled your house got let off because an office worked was 6 days late in submitting a document.


Regardless of points of law, it is my opinion that a 6 day delay in a letter should not affect a court case.
It is a trivial administrative delay – and the judicial process should not be affected by such things.

Snowboy,

Do you not read the papers or listen to the news?

Abu Hamza almost got himself off deportation to Jordan and out on bail because a bit of paper was filed 30 minutes too early.

[Snowboy]

Ean218 said:

Snowboy,

Do you not read the papers or listen to the news?

Abu Hamza almost got himself off deportation to Jordan and out on bail because a bit of paper was filed 30 minutes too early.

I think the key word there is ‘almost’.

I didn’t follow the case closely, but I believe the misfiled date argument was thrown out.

[sinizter]

Snowboy said:

Regardless of points of law, it is my opinion that a 6 day delay in a letter should not affect a court case.
It is a trivial administrative delay – and the judicial process should not be affected by such things.

With regard to points of law, it is my opinion that due process has not been carried out, making it invalid.

[Snowboy]

sinizter said:

With regard to points of law, it is my opinion that due process has not been carried out, making it invalid.

I googled ‘Due Process’ to see exactly what is meant by that, the first thing I found is that ‘Due process’ is not used in contemporary English law.

(assuming wiki is not lying to me)


I do however understand what you mean by your phrase.
I just disagree.
I don’t think a 6 day delay in a letter of this type is a breach of legal rights in this situation.

[blueg33]

Generally as far as I am aware, where legislation (or a legal agreement) states a time limit, then time is considered to be of the essence.

[Steffan]

Ean218 said:

Steffan said:

Clearly not the opinion of the prosecuting authority.

There is a point if law here to be tested. What circumstances constitute a reasonable certainly that the notice was delivered late. Gidden is silent on this.


I doubt the court will accept the uncorroborated word of the defendant. Otherwise surely, this would have been rumbled years ago as an excuse. Whether the defendant in this case can provide that defence to the satisfaction of the court remains to be seen.

But clearly, in the right circumstances, with adequate proof it would be a defence.

Does anyone know whether the provable, absence on holiday, of the defendant for example would constitute a defence and render the prosecution void? I rather doubt it but I do wonder?

Steffan,
I think you misunderstand the use of the word irrebuttable.

If the SCP use recorded delivery then service is complete and the accused has no escape clause.

If they use ordinary mail then, if it doesn't arrive and can be proved not to have arrived then it has not been served. How those levels of proof are arrived at is another matter, but irrelevant if sent recorded.

If this "loophole" was used more regularly and the courts accept the evidence then plan B would obviously just be to send the stuff out recorded in future.

I understand irrebuttable perfectly well, being concerned with the doctrine of conclusive presumption. What point were you trying to make?

[fluffnik]

The trouble is that the pernicious S172 has no place in a civilised society, none.

Those who depend on S172 are no better than the Stasi.

[Zeeky]

Snowboy said:

...I was saying that using a 6 day delay as a legal sticking point seems contrived and against the spirit of justice.

Something being against the spirit of justice is reason for the law to be amended to resolve that problem. Currently the law must be applied as it stands, not how justice or fairness or reasonableness would apply it. There is nothing in the legislation to give courts a discretion to accept a NIP sent by 1st class post as served in time if the court accepts that, in fact, it wasn't.

Snowboy said:

...I don’t think a 6 day delay in a letter of this type is a breach of legal rights in this situation.

You are almost certainly correct. If the law allowed some kind of discretion I would struggle to find the defendant's legal rights to have been breached in this situation.

As the law stands we are not discussing rights as against the legislation. We are discussing whether or not the court has any legal power to convict in this situation. It doesn't, regardless of whether it would be preferable in the interests of justice for it to be able to do so.

[Moogle]

Wow, lots of stuff.

Thank you ALL again for your help (and opinions).

Zeeky, whilst I DO think staying is a poor choice, I concede that trying to impress my opinion on you is a little uncalled for and as such I'll certainly apologise for that. Didn't you sort of suggest that my decision to move to the US in particular was a poor one as well though

As for the S172 (if I am correct in understanding that is the form for telling them who was driving) I do whole heatedly believe it is completely and utterly wrong, against human rights, completely against the spirit of innocent until proven guilty and having the right to remain silent, no matter how you cut it. How this has even been allowed to pass here I don't know, especially when we bang on about other places and their human rights, this has NO place here in our country.

It is self implicating/admitting guilt without any need for them to prove it. I'm sure there can be many analogies AGAINST my one but to me it's like being a member of an club (like a gym or something), the Police taking a photo of the outside of that gym currently being robbed and without doing ANY other further investigation, writing you a letter because you are a member of that gym asking you to tell them who robbed it or, they'll arrest you for robbing your gym regardless because they don't NEED any further proof?

And wasn't something recently passed that suggested that if you went to court, even if you were proven innocent you'd STILL be responsible for all the costs? Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaat?! Seriously wtf?! How are we not up in arms about this?!

As for all the whiny, if she's guilty she's guilty Gestapo, seriously, fk off Heed the phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword", I don't CARE if she is guilty regardless, they have ruled a situation that gives legal right to reject an NIP, end of argument. If you choose not to exercise that right then like I said, you've given up your choice to fight, don't try and fight your point here, I'm not interested.

And lastly, like I said, everything is factual, there is no 'if the OP is telling the truth', if the NIP WASN'T late, why on earth would I waste my time creating a thread? I would have told mother dearest to just sign the form and hope to god that they offer her the get out of jail free *COUGH* sorry, 'Speed Awareness Course', end of story.

[Red Devil]

Not sure if it has already been mentioned but AFAIK the lateness of the NoIP doesn't affect the S.172 requirement to name the driver. Your mother will still have to comply with that bit (within 28 days IIRC).

The late service will be her defence if she wants to decline the CoFP (for exceeding the speed limit?). The prosecution will either fold (unlikely) or she will have to rock up at court and try to persuade the magistrates that there is no case to answer.

[Moogle]

Yes, perhaps I should update, she has sent the form back naming herself as the driver.

In addition to sending that back she has written a letter noting that the NIP was delivered late. Whilst this is not proper procedure she on her own thought this couldn't hurt, she has also spoken to a solicitor.

Whilst in most cases people just want to vent and think they have a case against their speeding ticket/conviction/whatever, as I have done myself in the past but amounted to just signing off the forms whilst grumbling, my mum genuinely has a case since the letter was delivered outside of the 14 days. Whether or not this is something she is going to be able to prove is another matter entirely, hats off to her for having a spine though at 65, unlike quite a few people in here it seems.

[vonhosen]

Moogle said:

Wow, lots of stuff.

Thank you ALL again for your help (and opinions).

Zeeky, whilst I DO think staying is a poor choice, I concede that trying to impress my opinion on you is a little uncalled for and as such I'll certainly apologise for that. Didn't you sort of suggest that my decision to move to the US in particular was a poor one as well though

As for the S172 (if I am correct in understanding that is the form for telling them who was driving) I do whole heatedly believe it is completely and utterly wrong, against human rights, completely against the spirit of innocent until proven guilty and having the right to remain silent, no matter how you cut it. How this has even been allowed to pass here I don't know, especially when we bang on about other places and their human rights, this has NO place here in our country.

It is self implicating/admitting guilt without any need for them to prove it. I'm sure there can be many analogies AGAINST my one but to me it's like being a member of an club (like a gym or something), the Police taking a photo of the outside of that gym currently being robbed and without doing ANY other further investigation, writing you a letter because you are a member of that gym asking you to tell them who robbed it or, they'll arrest you for robbing your gym regardless because they don't NEED any further proof?

And wasn't something recently passed that suggested that if you went to court, even if you were proven innocent you'd STILL be responsible for all the costs? Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaat?! Seriously wtf?! How are we not up in arms about this?!

As for all the whiny, if she's guilty she's guilty Gestapo, seriously, fk off Heed the phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword", I don't CARE if she is guilty regardless, they have ruled a situation that gives legal right to reject an NIP, end of argument. If you choose not to exercise that right then like I said, you've given up your choice to fight, don't try and fight your point here, I'm not interested.

And lastly, like I said, everything is factual, there is no 'if the OP is telling the truth', if the NIP WASN'T late, why on earth would I waste my time creating a thread? I would have told mother dearest to just sign the form and hope to god that they offer her the get out of jail free *COUGH* sorry, 'Speed Awareness Course', end of story.

Sec 172 & the NIP are different things. Human rights courts have looked at Sec 172 & they don't agree with you. You don't have to tell them who robbed the gym, you have to tell them who was at the gym. They have to provide evidence of any robbing going on. Going gym isn't regulated, driving a car is. I've had lots of Sec 172's, I've named myself as the driver where I was, but that doesn't mean I was admitting an offence or guilty of it. It was still up to them to prove.

Re NIP, If she can rebutt the presumption of service to that satisfaction of the CPS/court then it's going no further, if she can't (to their satisfaction, not anyone else here) then that's a different matter.

[WhereamI]

People seem to be confusing different things.

The way this works is fairly simple. So long as the NIP has been send within the 14 days it is deemed to have been delivered in time unless you can prove otherwise.

We might disagree with whether the law actually says that, but until a case challenges that all the way through the system that is how the system works.

We might disagree with whether the law should say that, but if you want it changed you need to badger your MP.

[SS2.]

WhereamI said:

So long as the NIP has been send within the 14 days it is deemed to have been delivered in time unless you can prove otherwise.

That's not strictly true.

It needs to be issued in such time that, within the ordinary course of post, it would normally lead to it being delivered within 14 days.

For notices issued by 1st class post, and unless the contrary is proved, service is deemed to be effected 2 business days after posting.

[Observer2]

vonhosen said:

Re NIP, If she can rebutt the presumption of service to that satisfaction of the CPS/court then it's going no further, if she can't (to their satisfaction, not anyone else here) then that's a different matter.

I would expect CPS to take it to court where the evidence of non/late delivery is uncorroborated. Tribunal of fact is the court's primary role.

To those who don't believe that non/late delivery can't be proved by testimony alone - of course it can. Sworn testimony is powerful evidence, even if from a non-partial witness. Corroboration is useful but not essential. However CPS is likely (reasonably) to expect the reliability of the testimony to be tested under cross-examination.

[WhereamI]

SS2. said:

That's not strictly true.

It needs to be issued in such time that, within the ordinary course of post, it would normally lead to it being delivered within 14 days.

For notices issued by 1st class post, and unless the contrary is proved, service is deemed to be effected 2 business days after posting.

Sorry, yes you are correct, I was just trying to keep it simple.

[Moogle]

vonhosen said:

Sec 172 & the NIP are different things. Human rights courts have looked at Sec 172 & they don't agree with you. You don't have to tell them who robbed the gym, you have to tell them who was at the gym. They have to provide evidence of any robbing going on. Going gym isn't regulated, driving a car is. I've had lots of Sec 172's, I've named myself as the driver where I was, but that doesn't mean I was admitting an offence or guilty of it. It was still up to them to prove.

Re NIP, If she can rebutt the presumption of service to that satisfaction of the CPS/court then it's going no further, if she can't (to their satisfaction, not anyone else here) then that's a different matter.

No, you're missing mine and several other people's point. The semantics of it all is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to mine and the other people's view who can think for themselves.

I don't care for the fact they are two different things, nor do I care for the fact that the system has been fudged enough to get the court of human rights to agree with them, no matter how you cut it, it IS against human rights and it doesn't have a place in civilised society, just because it has become, doesn't mean to say it's right or... are you 'one of those' again

Sure 'in theory' you aren't telling them who robbed the gym they need to prove otherwise however, it's splitting hairs because as far as they are concerned they have already proved *someone* was robbing the gym, they're just making you tell them who and *purely* based on that and with NO FURTHER EVIDENCE they'll prosecute. Does that not sound even the slightest bit crazy to you? If not again, you scare me.

Without that knowledge and without them having implemented a system where by they can legally FORCE you to tell them, they wouldn't have enough to implicate anyone, it would never stand up in court, that's WHY they have created this system.

Do you not see that this entire thing has been engineered so that the house always wins? What other businesses work that way and use that term, there for purely making money out of people with no actual other purpose? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?