NIP Technicality
Discussion
My son has been issued with a summons for Careless Driving in a Car Park in May. The summons arrived last Friday (September).
The offence was alleged to have taken place on Wed 14th May and he was not apprehended at the time. CCTV evidence produced by the Council was provided to the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that. I believe that on both occasions he was spoken to it was in the back of a Police Car and under caution.
My question is whether a suitable NIP has been served. My internet research suggests that either he has to have been spoken to by a Police Officer at the time of the offence or served with a written NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Would the caution some 24 hours after the offence count as a NIP?
Can anyone shed any light please.
Thanks.
The offence was alleged to have taken place on Wed 14th May and he was not apprehended at the time. CCTV evidence produced by the Council was provided to the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that. I believe that on both occasions he was spoken to it was in the back of a Police Car and under caution.
My question is whether a suitable NIP has been served. My internet research suggests that either he has to have been spoken to by a Police Officer at the time of the offence or served with a written NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Would the caution some 24 hours after the offence count as a NIP?
Can anyone shed any light please.
Thanks.
There was no accident. The complaint was made to the Police by the Council CCTV operators. The Police then reviewed the footage and stopped him in the same area the following night.
From the Police Officers Witness Statement my sons driving was irresponsible and immature. He was basically larking around with his mates at midnight in a retail park car park. The rights and wrongs of his actions are not the issue - I am as angry about his alleged antisocial and immature behaviour as any other right thinking individual would be.
The question posed here however relates purely to the technicality of whether he can be issued with a verbal NIP 24 hours after the alleged offence.
Any other constructive comments would also be useful but feeding my son to the lions is not an option I wish to take at this stage!
From the Police Officers Witness Statement my sons driving was irresponsible and immature. He was basically larking around with his mates at midnight in a retail park car park. The rights and wrongs of his actions are not the issue - I am as angry about his alleged antisocial and immature behaviour as any other right thinking individual would be.
The question posed here however relates purely to the technicality of whether he can be issued with a verbal NIP 24 hours after the alleged offence.
Any other constructive comments would also be useful but feeding my son to the lions is not an option I wish to take at this stage!
London GT3 said:
My son has been issued with a summons for Careless Driving in a Car Park in May. The summons arrived last Friday (September).
The offence was alleged to have taken place on Wed 14th May and he was not apprehended at the time. CCTV evidence produced by the Council was provided to the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that. I believe that on both occasions he was spoken to it was in the back of a Police Car and under caution.
My question is whether a suitable NIP has been served. My internet research suggests that either he has to have been spoken to by a Police Officer at the time of the offence or served with a written NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Would the caution some 24 hours after the offence count as a NIP?
Can anyone shed any light please.
Thanks.
If 24 hours after they police made him aware that he was being reported for the consideration prosecution of the offence i think they have done all they can. The offence was alleged to have taken place on Wed 14th May and he was not apprehended at the time. CCTV evidence produced by the Council was provided to the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that. I believe that on both occasions he was spoken to it was in the back of a Police Car and under caution.
My question is whether a suitable NIP has been served. My internet research suggests that either he has to have been spoken to by a Police Officer at the time of the offence or served with a written NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Would the caution some 24 hours after the offence count as a NIP?
Can anyone shed any light please.
Thanks.
The problem you have is getting the correct and accurate info from your son as to exactly what was said. Personally I don't hold much hope you have much hope you have cctv and a council compliant it's not the police going after your son it's the council. It's not a one off either do you not want him to learn?
jbsportstech said:
If 24 hours after they police made him aware that he was being reported for the consideration prosecution of the offence i think they have done all they can.
They haven't - they are required to either warn him at (or around) the time of the alleged offence that he may be prosecuted or, failing that, to issue a written NIP within 14 calendar days.SS2. said:
jbsportstech said:
If 24 hours after they police made him aware that he was being reported for the consideration prosecution of the offence i think they have done all they can.
They haven't - they are required to either warn him at (or around) the time of the alleged offence that he may be prosecuted or, failing that, to issue a written NIP within 14 calendar days.Did your son admit to driving the car at the time of the offence to the police in an interview? That's going to be critical I think, especially if it's being dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. It's not impossible for them to go against procedure if they think your son is "bang to rights".
A NIP is not a s.172 request - it is simply a warning that proceedings are being considered against the driver of a particular vehicle for [allegedly] committing a particular offence at a particular time and place.
The crux of the present case is that the offence of careless driving is one that requires a warning / NIP / summons to be served, the manner, specifics and timescales for which are provided by Sections 1 & 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In short, a warning of prosecution must be served at (or around) the time of commission of the alleged offence, or in written form within 14 days.
It is probably nailed on that the OP's son has been warned of prosecution but, if this was verbal and served some 24 or 48 hours after commission of the alleged offence, with no paper follow up within 14 days, then it would appear that the police have failed to comply with the statutory requirements of warning.
And s.1 RTOA 1988 provides that should the authorities fail to comply with these requirements, then no person shall be convicted of the offence to which the warning applies (or would have applied).
If this is the case, then it matters little whether the OP's son actually admitted to driving the vehicle at the time and place in question. Of course, if he was asked but refused to say who was driving at said time and place, then that would open a completely different can of worms.
The crux of the present case is that the offence of careless driving is one that requires a warning / NIP / summons to be served, the manner, specifics and timescales for which are provided by Sections 1 & 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In short, a warning of prosecution must be served at (or around) the time of commission of the alleged offence, or in written form within 14 days.
It is probably nailed on that the OP's son has been warned of prosecution but, if this was verbal and served some 24 or 48 hours after commission of the alleged offence, with no paper follow up within 14 days, then it would appear that the police have failed to comply with the statutory requirements of warning.
And s.1 RTOA 1988 provides that should the authorities fail to comply with these requirements, then no person shall be convicted of the offence to which the warning applies (or would have applied).
If this is the case, then it matters little whether the OP's son actually admitted to driving the vehicle at the time and place in question. Of course, if he was asked but refused to say who was driving at said time and place, then that would open a completely different can of worms.
Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 30th September 23:28
In which case if the OP intends to save their son to terrorise a carpark for another day then I would suggest they instruct a solicitor asap and commence battle with the cps as based on the legal advice here a techincal defence is an option.
In my mind the police followed up the allegation from the cctv operator in 24 hours (what did you want them to do knock on the door at 4:00am after the offence or some other silly hour.
My issue is from experience the son may of been served notice but OP may not have seen it. I got NIP for speeding when I was 17 and didn't show my parents till a few days before my court date.
In my mind the police followed up the allegation from the cctv operator in 24 hours (what did you want them to do knock on the door at 4:00am after the offence or some other silly hour.
My issue is from experience the son may of been served notice but OP may not have seen it. I got NIP for speeding when I was 17 and didn't show my parents till a few days before my court date.
jbsportstech said:
In my mind the police followed up the allegation from the cctv operator in 24 hours (what did you want them to do knock on the door at 4:00am after the offence or some other silly hour.
How about simply serving a written warning, as they are supposed to if they were unable to warn at (or around) the time of commission of the offence ?London GT3 said:
the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that.
.
That's two opportunities to personally serve him with a written notice. Otherwise, post a NIP to the registered keeper,.
The key question is did they serve a written notice of intended prosecution? If not then that's very likely to be fatal to the prosecution - a reasonable CPS reviewing lawyer would drop the case without the need for a trial.
agtlaw said:
That's two opportunities to personally serve him with a written notice. Otherwise, post a NIP to the registered keeper,
The key question is did they serve a written notice of intended prosecution? If not then that's very likely to be fatal to the prosecution - a reasonable CPS reviewing lawyer would drop the case without the need for a trial.
Whats happens if they sent it and royalmail lost it?The key question is did they serve a written notice of intended prosecution? If not then that's very likely to be fatal to the prosecution - a reasonable CPS reviewing lawyer would drop the case without the need for a trial.
Can you ask the police for proof they did?
jbsportstech said:
Whats happens if they sent it and royalmail lost it?
There is a [rebuttable] presumption that a NIP issued by 1st class mail would be served 2 business days after posting.Service of notices issued by recorded delivery is not rebuttable ie they would be deemed served whether they were delivered or not.
SS2. said:
There is a [rebuttable] presumption that a NIP issued by 1st class mail would be served 2 business days after posting.
Service of notices issued by recorded delivery is not rebuttable ie they would be deemed served whether they were delivered or not.
In which case you need to apply to the police to find out if the have a record of a NIP being issued surely?Service of notices issued by recorded delivery is not rebuttable ie they would be deemed served whether they were delivered or not.
Many thanks to all for their genuinely constructive comments. The issue is the technical question of whether or not procedure has been followed.
To fill in some of the other details that have arisen:
There was no accident or third party complaint.
There were not two incidents. Only one. He was spoken to on two separate occasions (consecutive nights) about the same offence.
My son did admit to driving the car and he apologised for his behaviour. The Police Statement makes it clear that he was remorseful for his actions. I am told by my son that it was the second interview (48 hours after the offence) in which he was told by the Officer that they were considering inconsiderate as opposed to dangerous driving and in part they had reached this decision because of his polite behaviour and apologies the previous night.
From the paperwork I have seen he has signed a piece of paper either 24 hours or 48 hours later saying that he received a verbal NIP. Given that he wasn't spoken to at the time of the offence he can only have received the verbal NIP either 24 or 48 hours afterwards
My son is 26. This is not a 17 year old who is scared of what his Dad might say. This makes his behaviour even less acceptable and more anti social. I do not condone it or wish to defend it. However, I am also going to help him avoid prosecution if I can.
I understand the undertone of JBSPORTECH's comments. I am still not going to "hang him out to dry".
Thanks again to all contributors.
To fill in some of the other details that have arisen:
There was no accident or third party complaint.
There were not two incidents. Only one. He was spoken to on two separate occasions (consecutive nights) about the same offence.
My son did admit to driving the car and he apologised for his behaviour. The Police Statement makes it clear that he was remorseful for his actions. I am told by my son that it was the second interview (48 hours after the offence) in which he was told by the Officer that they were considering inconsiderate as opposed to dangerous driving and in part they had reached this decision because of his polite behaviour and apologies the previous night.
From the paperwork I have seen he has signed a piece of paper either 24 hours or 48 hours later saying that he received a verbal NIP. Given that he wasn't spoken to at the time of the offence he can only have received the verbal NIP either 24 or 48 hours afterwards
My son is 26. This is not a 17 year old who is scared of what his Dad might say. This makes his behaviour even less acceptable and more anti social. I do not condone it or wish to defend it. However, I am also going to help him avoid prosecution if I can.
I understand the undertone of JBSPORTECH's comments. I am still not going to "hang him out to dry".
Thanks again to all contributors.
The case referred to above came to Court today. As a result of the excellent and careful handling of the case by AGTLaw (Andrew Thompson) the result was a not guilty verdict based upon the Police Officers failure to observe correct procedure for serving the Notice of Intended Prosecution. It was a complex presentation with a number of facets. AGTLaw's understanding of the law and his knowledge about how the Court procedure would operate was what won the case for us. Thank you Andrew.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff