S.172 NIP - Incorrect time

[The Surveyor]

KevinCamaroSS said:

You plainly have very little understanding of criminal law. The defence only has to throw the smallest amount of doubt on the evidence for the prosecution to fail. Evidence that he/she was at a hotel at the alleged time of the offence throws doubt into the case, any prosecution would therefore fail.

No, what I'm saying is that the OP doesn't have to throw only a 'small amount of doubt' for the prosecution to fail, that doubt has to be based on something circumstantial otherwise the courts would be awash with 'the dog ate my NIP', 'it was my Sweedish cousin driving', 'I was having my hair cut at the time' excuses. The magistrate would have heard every excuse under the sun before and remember the OP doesn't have any actual evidence that he was at the Hotel at the time of the offence, only that he was there 50 minutes before the alleged offence. And that is only on the basis that the Hotels CCTV system clock is more accurate than the SCP's.

What I'm saying is that, is that enough 'doubt' compared to the SCP's ticket showing the OP's car on a photo speeding? You think it is, I'm not so sure.

[rscott]

The Surveyor said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

You plainly have very little understanding of criminal law. The defence only has to throw the smallest amount of doubt on the evidence for the prosecution to fail. Evidence that he/she was at a hotel at the alleged time of the offence throws doubt into the case, any prosecution would therefore fail.

No, what I'm saying is that the OP doesn't have to throw only a 'small amount of doubt' for the prosecution to fail, that doubt has to be based on something circumstantial otherwise the courts would be awash with 'the dog ate my NIP', 'it was my Sweedish cousin driving', 'I was having my hair cut at the time' excuses. The magistrate would have heard every excuse under the sun before and remember the OP doesn't have any actual evidence that he was at the Hotel at the time of the offence, only that he was there 50 minutes before the alleged offence. And that is only on the basis that the Hotels CCTV system clock is more accurate than the SCP's.

What I'm saying is that, is that enough 'doubt' compared to the SCP's ticket showing the OP's car on a photo speeding? You think it is, I'm not so sure.

It's irrelevant though - it won't get to that point. As soon as it's apparent to the CPS that the time on the initial NIP was wrong, then they'll realise they've got no basis to proceed in court at all.

[The Surveyor]

rscott said:

It's irrelevant though - it won't get to that point. As soon as it's apparent to the CPS that the time on the initial NIP was wrong, then they'll realise they've got no basis to proceed in court at all.

I 100% understand what you are saying, I totally understand that the NIP has to be correct, has to show the correct time and date etc. The issue for me is at the moment there just isn't anything to show the CPS or the SCP that the clock was wrong. The time on the NIP will match the time on the Photo which will match the time on the Police computers which will be the time they used when testing the machine etc... if all that matches (and why wouldn't it, changes to BST will be automatic) there is no evidence of an 'error' even if it is actually wrong. The CPS aren't going to drop the case if there is no evidence of an error from the SCP, they'll just look at the evidence in front of them. A nice clear official timed photo 'v' a story about hotels, CCTV, and 50 mins.... they won't drop it on that basis.

Alternatively, the SCP sees there is an error and it doesn't go any further, but that hasn't happened yet.

[ashleyman]

The Surveyor said:

The time on the NIP will match the time on the Photo which will match the time on the Police computers which will be the time they used when testing the machine etc... if all that matches (and why wouldn't it, changes to BST will be automatic) there is no evidence of an 'error' even if it is actually wrong.

But you're assuming that they have tested the machine. I'm sorry but I seriously cannot see how this can go any further.

If the police say the car was at X location at 15:00 but the car & driver can be shown to be elsewhere at 15:00. How do you explain that?

That calls into question either the time on the machines are wrong in either location. You then have to start investigating what machines are wrong which will prove that the police equipment has the wrong time IF what the op says is true.

One cannot assume the time is either BST or GMT. It has to be specific. I’m pretty sure POS machines don’t assume BST or GMT. They have the EXACT time for the time zone which in the UK would currently be GMT.

[SS2.]

rscott said:

It's irrelevant though - it won't get to that point. As soon as it's apparent to the CPS that the time on the initial NIP was wrong, then they'll realise they've got no basis to proceed in court at all.

I wouldn't be so confident about that.

If it does get as far as the Magistrates, it would fall to the OP (or his wife) to convince the bench that s/he was prejudiced by the 1 hour discrepancy on the NIP. If the Magistrates do not concur with the OP's assertions then, absent any other [fatal] procedural or evidential flaws, conviction (of the driver) would almost certainly follow.

And if that happens, expect the penalties to be increased over and above what the FPN / SAC may have been.

[rscott]

SS2. said:

rscott said:

It's irrelevant though - it won't get to that point. As soon as it's apparent to the CPS that the time on the initial NIP was wrong, then they'll realise they've got no basis to proceed in court at all.

I wouldn't be so confident about that.

If it does get as far as the Magistrates, it would fall to the OP (or his wife) to convince the bench that s/he was prejudiced by the 1 hour discrepancy on the NIP. If the Magistrates do not concur with the OP's assertions then, absent any other [fatal] procedural or evidential flaws, conviction (of the driver) would almost certainly follow.

And if that happens, expect the penalties to be increased over and above what the FPN / SAC may have been.

I believe the original NIP must accurately state the time of the offence - if it doesn't that it's not valid and they have no grounds to prosecute. It's not something the magistrates have the power to override.
I'm sure agtlaw will correct me if this is wrong.

[SS2.]

rscott said:

I believe the original NIP must accurately state the time of the offence - if it doesn't that it's not valid and they have no grounds to prosecute. It's not something the magistrates have the power to override.

It's not as black and white as you suggest, and it would fall to the Magistrates to decide whether any error or omission in the NIP was sufficient to mislead or prejudice the accused.

[The Surveyor]

ashleyman said:

....If the police say the car was at X location at 15:00 but the car & driver can be shown to be elsewhere at 15:00. How do you explain that?
........

The OP has only indicated that he was in a hotel on CCTV 50 minutes before the NIP time, not at the actual time, and that is assuming that all the clocks are correct, Not at the time of the NIP. Do you think that is enough for the CPS and the SCP to walk away from the prosecution?

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

ashleyman said:

....If the police say the car was at X location at 15:00 but the car & driver can be shown to be elsewhere at 15:00. How do you explain that?
........

The OP has only indicated that he was in a hotel on CCTV 50 minutes before the NIP time, not at the actual time, and that is assuming that all the clocks are correct, Not at the time of the NIP. Do you think that is enough for the CPS and the SCP to walk away from the prosecution?

Bearing in mind the relatively minor nature of the offence (it's only just at a speed where a prosecution would even be considered) would the police really take it to court if it was pointed out to them that the time stated on the NIP was wrong? Clearly they'd want some evidence to support the claim but assuming the OP can cast reasonable doubt on whether the car was being driven at the time of the alleged offence you'd think the police would just drop it - 35mph in a 30mph limit doesn't feel like a battle worth fighting in court and assuming the OP is telling the truth it seems fairly clear that an administrative error has resulted in a mistake on the NIP which in turn is likely to render it invalid. That penny will surely drop with the police and, while they will no doubt be frustrated that someone may be getting off on a technicality, wouldn't they accept that through gritted teeth rather commit resources in court on such a relatively trivial matter?

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

Bearing in mind the relatively minor nature of the offence (it's only just at a speed where a prosecution would even be considered) would the police really take it to court if it was pointed out to them that the time stated on the NIP was wrong? Clearly they'd want some evidence to support the claim but assuming the OP can cast reasonable doubt on whether the car was being driven at the time of the alleged offence you'd think the police would just drop it - 35mph in a 30mph limit doesn't feel like a battle worth fighting in court and assuming the OP is telling the truth it seems fairly clear that an administrative error has resulted in a mistake on the NIP which in turn is likely to render it invalid. That penny will surely drop with the police and, while they will no doubt be frustrated that someone may be getting off on a technicality, wouldn't they accept that through gritted teeth rather commit resources in court on such a relatively trivial matter?

You would hope that common sense would prevail, but what I'm saying is that the court and the CPS will have heard every petty excuse under the sun before, they would have had those challenging the camera, the weather, the road markings, the camera accuracy, the NIP, the postal service, the photo, and the timing, over and over and over again. When it comes to speeding everybody thinks they know better than those who administer the system on a daily basis. Some people like our own agtlaw do, most others don't but they will all try to find that little detail on their minor speeding that will be their 'get-of-of-jail' card. I'm saying that on paper, if the SCP can show that their clock and camera are correctly set up, the OP's excuse of being somewhere else at that time based upon a random (to the CPS) hotel CCTV taken 50 minutes before will look like just another armchair experts attempt to get off a speeding ticket.

If the SCP decide that there is an error in their timing then happy days. They will have to cancel every single ticket issued that day but so far that hasn't happened which suggests that at the moment, they are confident in their evidence audit trail.

[anonymous-user]

The time of the offence isn't a trivial detail or a technicality, hence the requirement for its inclusion on the NIP being hard-wired into the RTOA.

The very fact the OP can demonstrate the car was elsewhere at the time alleged illustrates the importance of the time being correctly logged in the first place. If you allow the time on the NIP to be incorrect by an hour, the natural result would be significant increases in cases such as this, where defendants could provide evidence of being elsewhere. In turn this would result in the chances of injustice increasing (both for and against conviction) and the ticket offices/courts being clogged with unnecessary disputed cases and the courts with trials. Parliament purposely chose to compel the time to be present on the NIP to avoid this situation from arising.

Which is why I'd argue the NIP being out by an hour invalidates it and ought to be fatal to the prosecution (irrespective of evidence of the offence itself).

[The Surveyor]

janesmith1950 said:

The time of the offence isn't a trivial detail or a technicality, hence the requirement for its inclusion on the NIP being hard-wired into the RTOA.

The very fact the OP can demonstrate the car was elsewhere at the time alleged illustrates the importance of the time being correctly logged in the first place. If you allow the time on the NIP to be incorrect by an hour, the natural result would be significant increases in cases such as this, where defendants could provide evidence of being elsewhere. In turn this would result in the chances of injustice increasing (both for and against conviction) and the ticket offices/courts being clogged with unnecessary disputed cases and the courts with trials. Parliament purposely chose to compel the time to be present on the NIP to avoid this situation from arising.

Which is why I'd argue the NIP being out by an hour invalidates it and ought to be fatal to the prosecution (irrespective of evidence of the offence itself).

Nothing I disagree with there. The time on the NIP is indeed important.

What I'm saying is that 'if' the SCP are able to confirm that they think that the time on the NIP and camera are the 'correct time' and that their evidence is sound, then the OP is effectively saying that his watch and the Premier Inn's clock is more accurate than the SCP's. In that situation, who's version of the 'correct time' is the CPS or court most likely to believe?

[_dobbo_]

The Surveyor said:

Nothing I disagree with there. The time on the NIP is indeed important.

What I'm saying is that 'if' the SCP are able to confirm that they think that the time on the NIP and camera are the 'correct time' and that their evidence is sound, then the OP is effectively saying that his watch and the Premier Inn's clock is more accurate than the SCP's. In that situation, who's version of the 'correct time' is the CPS or court most likely to believe?

Well its' the OP's statement, the staff at the premier in, presumably a credit card machine, probably the OPs phone which can place him there at that time, plus the CCTV.

So in that scenario, I'd hope for the magistrate to tell the SCP to "foxtrot oscar".

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

janesmith1950 said:

The time of the offence isn't a trivial detail or a technicality, hence the requirement for its inclusion on the NIP being hard-wired into the RTOA.

The very fact the OP can demonstrate the car was elsewhere at the time alleged illustrates the importance of the time being correctly logged in the first place. If you allow the time on the NIP to be incorrect by an hour, the natural result would be significant increases in cases such as this, where defendants could provide evidence of being elsewhere. In turn this would result in the chances of injustice increasing (both for and against conviction) and the ticket offices/courts being clogged with unnecessary disputed cases and the courts with trials. Parliament purposely chose to compel the time to be present on the NIP to avoid this situation from arising.

Which is why I'd argue the NIP being out by an hour invalidates it and ought to be fatal to the prosecution (irrespective of evidence of the offence itself).

Nothing I disagree with there. The time on the NIP is indeed important.

What I'm saying is that 'if' the SCP are able to confirm that they think that the time on the NIP and camera are the 'correct time' and that their evidence is sound, then the OP is effectively saying that his watch and the Premier Inn's clock is more accurate than the SCP's. In that situation, who's version of the 'correct time' is the CPS or court most likely to believe?

I've no idea what the OP has said to the police but a comment along the lines of "I can prove my car was parked-up at the time of the alleged offence, are you sure the time on your NIP is correct?" should be sufficient to ring a few alarm bells and encourage them to go away and double-check. If that check shows the time on the NIP is indeed an hour adrift surely they'd withdraw it as proceeding with a case when they know their evidence is flawed would seem a bit of a daft thing for the police to do!

[The Surveyor]

_dobbo_ said:

Well its' the OP's statement, the staff at the premier in, presumably a credit card machine, probably the OPs phone which can place him there at that time, plus the CCTV.

So in that scenario, I'd hope for the magistrate to tell the SCP to "foxtrot oscar".

And if he has all that then I would also hope that CPS / magistrate tells them to do one.

But at the moment he doesn't have anything tangible to support his argument, and the longer he leaves it the less likely he will anything more than his own statement, a card / bank statement of a transaction at another time somewhere else and possibly his phone records which may or may not have updated to the correct time on that day. Premier Inn aren't going to keep basic CCTV records forever (usually 2 weeks max unless there is a specific incident) and they will have checked in - out hundreds of people that day and thousands since. Will they remember the OP at all, never mind what actual time he arrived?

Don't get me wrong, I hope this doesn't proceed, but on the face of it unless the SCP back down and admit that all NIP's issued that day are void, the OP is going to have to spend a lot of time and money trying to demonstrate that his claims trump the SCP's 'official' evidence.

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

I've no idea what the OP has said to the police but a comment along the lines of "I can prove my car was parked-up at the time of the alleged offence, are you sure the time on your NIP is correct?" should be sufficient to ring a few alarm bells and encourage them to go away and double-check. If that check shows the time on the NIP is indeed an hour adrift surely they'd withdraw it as proceeding with a case when they know their evidence is flawed would seem a bit of a daft thing for the police to do!

They've done that. The response was to suggest that the OP's car had been cloned rather than withdrawing the NIP based upon a 'timing' error.

[SS2.]

The Surveyor said:

Don't get me wrong, I hope this doesn't proceed, but on the face of it unless the SCP back down and admit that all NIP's issued that day are void, the OP is going to have to spend a lot of time and money trying to demonstrate that his claims trump the SCP's 'official' evidence.

Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.

[drf765]

SS2. said:

Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.

If the OP establishes the time his vehicle was parked he also establishes that it was at the scene of the offence at or about the time it was photographed. Catch-22.

[rscott]

drf765 said:

SS2. said:

Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.

If the OP establishes the time his vehicle was parked he also establishes that it was at the scene of the offence at or about the time it was photographed. Catch-22.

On what planet does proving his vehicle was at location A at X o'clock also prove it was at a different location at the same time? All it proves is that there's doubt about the accuracy of the NIP.

[ashleyman]

The Surveyor said:

ashleyman said:

....If the police say the car was at X location at 15:00 but the car & driver can be shown to be elsewhere at 15:00. How do you explain that?
........

The OP has only indicated that he was in a hotel on CCTV 50 minutes before the NIP time, not at the actual time, and that is assuming that all the clocks are correct, Not at the time of the NIP. Do you think that is enough for the CPS and the SCP to walk away from the prosecution?

The OP says:

"This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a Premier Inn Car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there"

To me, that means that the car had been parked up at the Premier Inn at 14:20 and was still there at 15:00 when the supposed speeding occurred. If the OP can prove it is parked up at 15:00 on the hotel CCTV then how is it possible he also got a speeding ticket? If the OP can get the CCTV footage and send it off to the Police force then he's proven without doubt that the car was elsewhere at the time stated on the NIP.

If the time on the NIP is wrong (which it sounds like it is) then that's really not OP's problem and it comes down to the the NIP issuer to prove that it was the OP. If the Police prove it was the OP by saying that the time on the NIP is wrong then that casts doubt on the equipment.

You could easily argue what should have been and if it was a mistake but a mistake is a mistake and that would be enough to cast doubt.