Quick law check
Discussion
)Dwight VanDriver said:
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
Nicholson-v-Tapp refers to a motorist (Tapp) who was subject to a roadside stop but was not given a verbal NIP at the time.
A NIP was posted to Tapp 14 days after the stop. Tapp maintained that the NIP was defective on the grounds that it was posted at such time that service could not achieved within the time limit defined by The Road Traffic Act. The prosecution argued that a couple of extra days should be permitted to allow for service 'in the ordinary course of post'.
The court found in favour of Tapp and stated that the wording of the The Road Traffic Act was uneqivocal and did not allow for extensions. If extensions to the 14 day rule had been intended, then these would have been clearly defined within the Act.
esselte said:Nope, has to be sent so that it "could be reasonably expected" to arrive in 14 days.
So does that mean ANY NIP that is not recieved within 14 days is now on dodgy ground???
I think it has to be sent within the 14 days, so could be recieved up to 16 days after the event?
BliarOut said:
So does that mean ANY NIP that is not recieved within 14 days is now on dodgy ground???
I think it has to be sent within the 14 days, so could be recieved up to 16 days after the event?
That means 15 days as the day of the offence is not included!
7db said:
DVD - is there a link for mortals, or am I borrowing Wilkinson again...
I only have a brief note of that case which to my understanding was that NOIP had to be sent out so that it was received in the normal course of the post by the end of the 15th day. Outside that it was invalid.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
DVD - is there a link for mortals, or am I borrowing Wilkinson again...
I only have a brief note of that case which to my understanding was that NOIP had to be sent out so that it was received in the normal course of the post by the end of the 15th day. Outside that it was invalid.
dvd
It needs to be "served on" by the 14th day, and the service is effected at the time in which it would have been delivered within the normal course of post. There is the full judgements on this thread on PePiPoo:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s
So for 1st class post it would need to be sent on the 13th day.
Gareth
SS2. said:
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
What bit are you asking me to comment on ?Apologies both - missed the 'VH' bit in DVD's post..
Thought it was for general comment..
I'm sure dvd doesn't mind general comment as well
vonhosen said:
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
What bit are you asking me to comment on ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 13th April 15:38
Trying to be polite by asking where you get the authority for saying in your post a NOIP received out of time to be OK whereas my understanding of that case says it is a no no.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
What bit are you asking me to comment on ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 13th April 15:38
Trying to be polite by asking where you get the authority for saying in your post a NOIP received out of time to be OK whereas my understanding of that case says it is a no no.
dvd
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was saying.
It has to be served (sent to arrive) within 14 days to the registered keeper.
In such circumstances if the registered keeper doesn't get it, provided it was lawfully served then the law has been complied with.
I was saying if the OP wasn't the registered keeper, provided it has been served on the registered keeper, it could be weeks of to & fro before it would get to him & that would still be lawful (where the first NIP was correctly served).
It is not so much when it is received (or not) as more when it was sent.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 10:02
where do you find these cases on the internet?
I have tried but its a maze out there.
i'm after the Jan Churchil one about using intermediate tyres on roads.
Need a reference. Any help appreciated.
Sorry to hijack the thread but I tried emailing DVD but [sensibly] he doesn't allow them.
CET
I have tried but its a maze out there.
i'm after the Jan Churchil one about using intermediate tyres on roads.
Need a reference. Any help appreciated.
Sorry to hijack the thread but I tried emailing DVD but [sensibly] he doesn't allow them.
CET
Dwight VanDriver said:
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
It sometimes works if you put the case in as a keyword i.e.
R (The Crown) v Churchil or DPP v Churchil. The year helps.
Tried and nothing. Looked through my references and nothing.
If you are rich man you could subscribe to Times Law on Line,
about 300 notes a year I understand and their search may pull it up.
Pass.
dvd
R (The Crown) v Churchil or DPP v Churchil. The year helps.
Tried and nothing. Looked through my references and nothing.
If you are rich man you could subscribe to Times Law on Line,
about 300 notes a year I understand and their search may pull it up.
Pass.
dvd
vonhosen said:Well, that's the postal rule under Adams vs Lindsell, but never having done criminal procedure, I don't know whether it applies to a NIP. It would seem iniquitous for it to apply, although if it does, I suppose it would apply equally to return of the NIP by the accused.
Have a look at Nicholson v Tapp 1972 VH.
Your observations would be appreciated.
dvd
What bit are you asking me to comment on ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 13th April 15:38
Trying to be polite by asking where you get the authority for saying in your post a NOIP received out of time to be OK whereas my understanding of that case says it is a no no.
dvd
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was saying.
It has to be served (sent to arrive) within 14 days to the registered keeper.
In such circumstances if the registered keeper doesn't get it, provided it was lawfully served then the law has been complied with.
It is not so much when it is received (or not) as more when it was sent.
>> Edited by Zod on Friday 14th April 20:21
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff