S.172 NIP - Incorrect time
Discussion
Joeguard1990 said:
Maybe I'm being dumb here, but now that the 14 days is up, why not just reply back saying that you seeked advise from a lawyer knowing the time stamp was wrong on the 1st NIP and inform them that you know for a fact that the given time stamp was wrong..?
Because there is nothing factual to back up the claim that time stamp was incorrect.The 'check-in' time actually PROVES nothing. It merely states that someone checked in using a name similar to yours= it need not have been you.
Someone else could have been driving the car as it does not prove the car was there - you may have used a taxi or any other means.
If you committed the offence pay up; photographs of your car will prove it in Court if your unwise enough to let it get that far.
There is an onus to be honest as ex-MP Howard and his wife recently discovered.
Someone else could have been driving the car as it does not prove the car was there - you may have used a taxi or any other means.
If you committed the offence pay up; photographs of your car will prove it in Court if your unwise enough to let it get that far.
There is an onus to be honest as ex-MP Howard and his wife recently discovered.
They do drop things on technicalities - especially if prosecution was, as is often in these trivial cases, ill-prepared and disorganised in court. I see no reason for being the helpful good guy here and handing them a stick to beat you with - you just were NOT where they allege you were at the time (doing a leisurely walking pace over the limit) - North Rd/Newport Rd I guess? Do get a few screen grabs though to prove as that 42 minute thing is weak - you could get to anywhere and back in Cardiff in 40 mins!
Surely there is a duty of diligence and accuracy when accusing and invoicing people on things? I'd fight it based on that.
Surely there is a duty of diligence and accuracy when accusing and invoicing people on things? I'd fight it based on that.
SVTRick said:
send in some grainy photos taken with a very old phone.
Don't forget nodding dog and cushions on back shelf.
Loads of silly stickers on windows and a GB sticker.
remove the plastic wheel trims.
and pink fluffy dice and steering wheel cover.
Make it look a like a proper snotter
I can't help but feel that such an approach could well bite you squarely on the arse.Don't forget nodding dog and cushions on back shelf.
Loads of silly stickers on windows and a GB sticker.
remove the plastic wheel trims.
and pink fluffy dice and steering wheel cover.
Make it look a like a proper snotter
You might wish to consider asking them how they know the time stamp is accurate. When was the camera clock last checked or adjusted? That would force them to either assure you that it was correct (thereby strengthening your case) or admit that it was incorrect, in which case their whole case falls apart. The time limit for sending out a revised S172 has long since passed...
Whether or not a NIP is deemed invalid because of an error or omission largely depends on the significance of the error and whether it would mislead or prejudice the accused in any defence of the allegation.
An error in the specified time is less likely to invalidate a notice if the alleged offence was one of, say, dangerous driving where a pedestrian was nearly run over. In such a case, a court may well decide that the accused could have been in no doubt of the incident in question, irrespective of the fact that the NIP referred to a different time and, as such, the NIP would be considered valid.
In a simple allegation of excess speed (where the accused or another person could have driven along the road in question several times on the day in question), it's far less clear cut whether a NIP specifying an incorrect time would be deemed valid.
An error in the specified time is less likely to invalidate a notice if the alleged offence was one of, say, dangerous driving where a pedestrian was nearly run over. In such a case, a court may well decide that the accused could have been in no doubt of the incident in question, irrespective of the fact that the NIP referred to a different time and, as such, the NIP would be considered valid.
In a simple allegation of excess speed (where the accused or another person could have driven along the road in question several times on the day in question), it's far less clear cut whether a NIP specifying an incorrect time would be deemed valid.
simoid said:
That's a good point with the mobile phone - if it's an iPhone it probably knows where it was at the alleged time. Fiddle about in locations in the settings somewhere.
Still no kind of proof.You rock up to the hotel and check in. You leave your missus and/or phone in the room, and pop out for something. While out, you get photographed.
SS2. said:
Whether or not a NIP is deemed invalid because of an error or omission largely depends on the significance of the error and whether it would mislead or prejudice the accused in any defence of the allegation.
An error in the specified time is less likely to invalidate a notice if the alleged offence was one of, say, dangerous driving where a pedestrian was nearly run over. In such a case, a court may well decide that the accused could have been in no doubt of the incident in question, irrespective of the fact that the NIP referred to a different time and, as such, the NIP would be considered valid.
In a simple allegation of excess speed (where the accused or another person could have driven along the road in question several times on the day in question), it's far less clear cut whether a NIP specifying an incorrect time would be deemed valid.
The OP already knows all of the answers.An error in the specified time is less likely to invalidate a notice if the alleged offence was one of, say, dangerous driving where a pedestrian was nearly run over. In such a case, a court may well decide that the accused could have been in no doubt of the incident in question, irrespective of the fact that the NIP referred to a different time and, as such, the NIP would be considered valid.
In a simple allegation of excess speed (where the accused or another person could have driven along the road in question several times on the day in question), it's far less clear cut whether a NIP specifying an incorrect time would be deemed valid.
rowey200 said:
Long story short, my wife has received a Notice of Intended Prosecution. The NIP alleges that her car was travelling at 35mph in a 30mph zone at 15:00 on 5/11/16 (in Cardiff). 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 (this can be confirmed by Premier Inn's CCTV).
It can be assumed that the Safety Camera Unit have not adjusted their equipment to reflect the clocks going back the week before. How should my wife respond to the NIP? She is requested to tick one of three options (see below), all of which do not apply as the car was not on a public road at the time of the alleged offence (it should also be noted that I was the only person to drive her car on the day). I'm thinking she returns the NIP with a polite explanatory letter, advising of the above. It's then for the camera unit to make the next move - thoughts? Any advice gratefully received.
There is no disadvantage caused by the slight error. I'm sure agtlaw can see the small and insignificant error has caused no fatal disadvantage in this notice. Good luck with that line if you take it.It can be assumed that the Safety Camera Unit have not adjusted their equipment to reflect the clocks going back the week before. How should my wife respond to the NIP? She is requested to tick one of three options (see below), all of which do not apply as the car was not on a public road at the time of the alleged offence (it should also be noted that I was the only person to drive her car on the day). I'm thinking she returns the NIP with a polite explanatory letter, advising of the above. It's then for the camera unit to make the next move - thoughts? Any advice gratefully received.
drf765 said:
There is no disadvantage caused by the slight error. I'm sure agtlaw can see the small and insignificant error has caused no fatal disadvantage in this notice. Good luck with that line if you take it.
It's not a small error though. A small error would be one minute.A hour makes it entirely possible that a different driver was in the car. In the OP's case the wife might have replied back saying she was driving the car if the time had been correct. How can the police prosecute the correct person in that situation?
It needs a new NIP.
davepoth said:
drf765 said:
There is no disadvantage caused by the slight error. I'm sure agtlaw can see the small and insignificant error has caused no fatal disadvantage in this notice. Good luck with that line if you take it.
It's not a small error though. A small error would be one minute.A hour makes it entirely possible that a different driver was in the car. In the OP's case the wife might have replied back saying she was driving the car if the time had been correct. How can the police prosecute the correct person in that situation?
It needs a new NIP.
In any case it is his wife who has received the NIP and S172. I'm figuring she knows the same as him.
TooMany2cvs said:
Still no kind of proof.
You rock up to the hotel and check in. You leave your missus and/or phone in the room, and pop out for something. While out, you get photographed.
Indeed.You rock up to the hotel and check in. You leave your missus and/or phone in the room, and pop out for something. While out, you get photographed.
I was thinking of supporting evidence to the OP's presence in the hotel at the time of the offence. You appear to be thinking he's attempting to pervert the course of justice.
outnumbered said:
What's the betting that drf675/tapereel/pitmansboots has already contacted the Cardiff camera partnership to let them know about this anyway ?
No idea, and they do process so many of us a day after all. But it does remind us all to be very careful and indeed be very restrictive in what we post here when trying to seek the best outcome for ourselves in any situation where tables are turned on issues of technicalities or accuracy. The town itself and hotel name should never have been mentioned I guess mate 
Get cynical!IANAL, however I can take a pragmatic aporoach over trivial errors on a form, be it your name being ever so slightly incorrectly spelled or your reg one digit out. Doesn't really prejudice your defence. A few minutes either way, no problem.
An hour? That's a bit far, in my humble opinion. It's enough that it could have been someone else driving. It could be that I can prove I was elsewhere down to differing times on some cctv versus the speed camera, or some other such alibi.
To my mind, if the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, having evidence I wasn't in the location alleged at the time alleged introduces reasonable doubt.
I imagine there's no hard and fast rule, however how far out could the time on the equipment be before you say 'we can't prosecute'?
An hour? That's a bit far, in my humble opinion. It's enough that it could have been someone else driving. It could be that I can prove I was elsewhere down to differing times on some cctv versus the speed camera, or some other such alibi.
To my mind, if the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, having evidence I wasn't in the location alleged at the time alleged introduces reasonable doubt.
I imagine there's no hard and fast rule, however how far out could the time on the equipment be before you say 'we can't prosecute'?
janesmith1950 said:
IANAL, however I can take a pragmatic aporoach over trivial errors on a form, be it your name being ever so slightly incorrectly spelled or your reg one digit out. Doesn't really prejudice your defence. A few minutes either way, no problem.
An hour? That's a bit far, in my humble opinion. It's enough that it could have been someone else driving. It could be that I can prove I was elsewhere down to differing times on some cctv versus the speed camera, or some other such alibi.
To my mind, if the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, having evidence I wasn't in the location alleged at the time alleged introduces reasonable doubt.
I imagine there's no hard and fast rule, however how far out could the time on the equipment be before you say 'we can't prosecute'?
The police seem to have issued a NIP that has the speed camera time at BST instead of GMT. The OP knows that is what they have done. The OP isn't the keeper his wife is so it can be reasonably assumed that she knows that too. An hour? That's a bit far, in my humble opinion. It's enough that it could have been someone else driving. It could be that I can prove I was elsewhere down to differing times on some cctv versus the speed camera, or some other such alibi.
To my mind, if the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, having evidence I wasn't in the location alleged at the time alleged introduces reasonable doubt.
I imagine there's no hard and fast rule, however how far out could the time on the equipment be before you say 'we can't prosecute'?
There seems to be no reasonable doubt, if indeed the time is in BST, over the time of this offence, the time was 1500BST or 1400GMT, both are the same time. The OP confirms the car was in that location and shortly after it was it was parked nearby in a hotel. The time is confirmed for the parked car at 1420GMT.
If you think it is reasonable that the driver/OP should not be prosecuted or indeed nominated by the keeper because of a small and known error in not changing the camera to GMT then you are entitled to that. The alternative opinion that a prosecution is reasonable is equally justified.
If you think it is more likely that a car plate has been cloned and that the cloned car has passed a speed camera within a few minutes of the real car and has done so in a city that is quite a distance from the residence in which the real car is normally located then good luck making that more reasonable than not putting the clock back in the camera.
It is quite easy to tell if a car is cloned or not. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work that out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff