NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
Zeeky said:
This last part is contentious as VH is saying we should ignore it on the basis that para 1a of the RTOA is clear that receipt is unnecessary.
He also says that we must rely on the rest of the definition to understand the meaning of service as this isn't clear in para 1a.
Para 1a is the key. It is the interpretation of this that will decide whether or not non-receipt is available as a defence to the accused when notice is sent by first class post.
Which i suppose goes to proove simply that Von's talents lie in imposing the law rather than interpreting it; take that black cloth off your head Von and step away from the gavel!He also says that we must rely on the rest of the definition to understand the meaning of service as this isn't clear in para 1a.
Para 1a is the key. It is the interpretation of this that will decide whether or not non-receipt is available as a defence to the accused when notice is sent by first class post.
944Nick said:
Don't they spell-check these letters before they go out?
Nick
You should see some of the paper-work produced by serving police officers. The standard of English (spelling, punctuation, grammar, construction, etc.) has dropped ... roughly in line with the ever-increasing GCSE grades Nick
- Streakystreaky said:
944Nick said:
Don't they spell-check these letters before they go out?
Nick
You should see some of the paper-work produced by serving police officers. The standard of English (spelling, punctuation, grammar, construction, etc.) has dropped ... roughly in line with the ever-increasing GCSE grades Nick
- Streaky
thole of a place or at some unearthly time of the morning doesn't help. 
Milky Joe said:
streaky said:
944Nick said:
Don't they spell-check these letters before they go out?
Nick
You should see some of the paper-work produced by serving police officers. The standard of English (spelling, punctuation, grammar, construction, etc.) has dropped ... roughly in line with the ever-increasing GCSE grades Nick
- Streakythole of a place or at some unearthly time of the morning doesn't help. 
. I know a good many long-retired senior officers who would have had a dicky-fit if some of the stuff I've seen in the past few years had gone out over their signatures - Streakypeterguk V6 KWK said:
TPAC said:
I'd be interested to read the letter from them TBH.
PM me.(Edited to remove URL)
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Tuesday 26th August 01:03
It certainly look like you don't have anything to lose by running with it and seeing what happens. But I didn't take from the wording exactly the same meaning that you did. I interpreted it as: 'Yes, we understand you are going to run this particular defence. The court will decide if its a valid one.Same as, any other defence. Remember, they will seek to contend that it was properly and correctly served in time; and that, your receiving it a couple of days late has not altered that.
Again, though. Its up to the court to decide, and they do act unpredictably sometimes. So you might be lucky.
OK, here goes..
Shortly after the adjournment, and with massive help from a PHer, (for which i am eternally grateful), i filed my defence.
The CPS's reaction was to go from letters telling me to "stop wasting time and pay up", to agreeing that my legal argument was irrebutable and that it was simply for me to provide sufficient evidence to the Court as to the date the NIP was received.
So, i and my postman trot off to Court. No mags. that day, but a District Judge.
I put my evidence, examined the postman etc. CPS cross examined.
Judge asked me a few questions relating to my occupation and motoring law knowledge etc and....
Said that whilst he accepted the evidence given by the postman, that since i had admitted my guilt via the S172, and that i appeared to have manipulated the law to my advantage, he was finding me GUILTY.
Fined £200 plus £255 costs.
I have taken advice and decided to appeal to the Crown Court. As i represented myself in this trial, i can represent myself in the Crown Court, saving lots of money.
It would seem the Judge chose to ignore the evidence given by my independent witness, and decided i was some sort of smart arse in a fast car and was guilty anyway.
So, not over yet.
Shortly after the adjournment, and with massive help from a PHer, (for which i am eternally grateful), i filed my defence.
The CPS's reaction was to go from letters telling me to "stop wasting time and pay up", to agreeing that my legal argument was irrebutable and that it was simply for me to provide sufficient evidence to the Court as to the date the NIP was received.
So, i and my postman trot off to Court. No mags. that day, but a District Judge.
I put my evidence, examined the postman etc. CPS cross examined.
Judge asked me a few questions relating to my occupation and motoring law knowledge etc and....
Said that whilst he accepted the evidence given by the postman, that since i had admitted my guilt via the S172, and that i appeared to have manipulated the law to my advantage, he was finding me GUILTY.
Fined £200 plus £255 costs.
I have taken advice and decided to appeal to the Crown Court. As i represented myself in this trial, i can represent myself in the Crown Court, saving lots of money.
It would seem the Judge chose to ignore the evidence given by my independent witness, and decided i was some sort of smart arse in a fast car and was guilty anyway.
So, not over yet.
I would certainly appeal against the costs as the CPS itself said that if you can prove the late arrival then that would be it. So the costs incurred should be levelled at the CPS and not the untrained MOP. Bit of a cheek in my opinion that the judge hanged those on you when your whole case was on lack of procedure.
I'd be interested in when the letter was posted. As alluded to by an earlier poster, if the postal strike was known about then, given that this case would appear to be straightforward from a procedural point of view, the prosecutions department, or fixed penalty office or whatever should have pulled their fingers out. My process unit set a target of getting the letters in the post within seven days. Fair enough, on some more difficult case we might have ran the dealine tight but even then if the letter was not due to be delivered until after the deadline the decision to continue had to be run past a sergeant when we had enough or later a civvy supervisor.
There is no excuse for late posting on normal run-of-the-mill jobs. Very slack.
However, I'm surprised of the advice you received from the CPS. But that said, if that's what you were told then the costs are out of order.
Cost are another form of fine.
I'd be interested in when the letter was posted. As alluded to by an earlier poster, if the postal strike was known about then, given that this case would appear to be straightforward from a procedural point of view, the prosecutions department, or fixed penalty office or whatever should have pulled their fingers out. My process unit set a target of getting the letters in the post within seven days. Fair enough, on some more difficult case we might have ran the dealine tight but even then if the letter was not due to be delivered until after the deadline the decision to continue had to be run past a sergeant when we had enough or later a civvy supervisor.
There is no excuse for late posting on normal run-of-the-mill jobs. Very slack.
However, I'm surprised of the advice you received from the CPS. But that said, if that's what you were told then the costs are out of order.
Cost are another form of fine.
peterguk V6 KWK said:
HRG said:
Nope, it must be sent such that it can reasonably be expected to be received within 14 days.
And the SCP shoved it in a post sack alledly 1st class post in the middle of a well publicised national postal strike.Obvious reasons might be, that your car is registed at another address, or registered to someone else at the time. But what does case law say about postal strikes ? Will the persecution not argue that a postal strike is a legitimate reason ? Your solicitor should check that out perhaps.
Perhaps if there had been NO postal strike you'd have a better chance.
If I was the magistrate, I'd obviously let you off, but if you get a tree hugging lentilist, then you might need some way of making 84 in a 70 seem harmless.
I'm not saying that they are anything but fair, but we all have biases, and oppinions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff