NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
So the judge took the view that, because you completed the S172, you knew who was driving so the 14 days is no longer relevant. The 14 days after all is supposed to be so that you haven’t had time to forget. I assume if the S172 hadn’t been completed on the basis that you couldn’t remember then the 14 days would be relevant.
herewego said:
So the judge took the view that, because you completed the S172, you knew who was driving so the 14 days is no longer relevant.
Basically, yes. Which is obviously outside his scope.As i said before, the CPS had agreed beforehand, and repeated in Court that my legal defence was irrebutable, and that all i had to do was prove to the Court (burden of proof lower than the prosecution's), and i produced my postman!
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Tuesday 4th November 11:25
Hang on, if he hadn't filled out S 172, but sent a letter saying that it was outside the 14 day rule, he would have been done for failing to comply with S 172.
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? f
ked if you do fked if you don't!
Name of judge?
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? f
ked if you do fked if you don't!Name of judge?
Taita said:
Hang on, if he hadn't filled out S 172, but sent a letter saying that it was outside the 14 day rule, he would have been done for failing to comply with S 172.
Correct. And 6 points.He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? f
ked if you do fked if you don't!Taita said:
Hang on, if he hadn't filled out S 172, but sent a letter saying that it was outside the 14 day rule, he would have been done for failing to comply with S 172.
Correct. And 6 points.Taita said:
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes? Am I right? fked if you do fked if you don't!
Correct.ked if you do fked if you don't!Justice system is great, isn't it!
fluffnik said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
fluffnik said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Justice system is great, isn't it!
Broken and in need of complete replacement.
The main problem is the vast raft of fundamentally unjust law.
Keeping you updated and thanks to those who have PM'ed their support in pushing this as far as i can go..
Appeal in Crown Court set for January 8th. Will be representing myself as i did in the Magistrate's Court.
PS Are there any PHers who would like to spend a few minutes off the forum advising me how i could improve my presentation in Court? If so, please PM me.
Appeal in Crown Court set for January 8th. Will be representing myself as i did in the Magistrate's Court.
PS Are there any PHers who would like to spend a few minutes off the forum advising me how i could improve my presentation in Court? If so, please PM me.
fluffnik said:
Taita said:
He does fill in S 172 to fulfill legal obligations, but says in a letter the NIP is invalid due to 14 days and apparently filling S 172 is akin to admitting guilt in the judges eyes?
Could this be evidence of S172 being self incrimination to take to ECHR?What is needed is some way of forcing the mags/judges to direct trials according to the charge, and to weigh the evidence as it is presented. Maybe more appeals is the answer...
The 172 procedure itself would not appear to breach the protection against self-incrimination contained within Art 6 of the ECHR.. Hayes v DPP [2004] EWHC 277 (Admin) and a few other cases as well. "The right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were not absolute rights and the right to require an actual or potential suspect to provide information which contributed or might contribute to his conviction by direct compulsion would not cumulatively result in a violation of article 6 of the Convention"
Taken from Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates Court Guide 2008
Taken from Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates Court Guide 2008
Flute]The 172 procedure itself would not appear to breach the protection against self-incrimination contained within Art 6 of the ECHR.. Hayes v DPP [2004 said:
EWHC 277 (Admin) and a few other cases as well. "The right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were not absolute rights and the right to require an actual or potential suspect to provide information which contributed or might contribute to his conviction by direct compulsion would not cumulatively result in a violation of article 6 of the Convention"
Taken from Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates Court Guide 2008
Idris Francis took this to the ECHR and lost on, I think, a majority of one judge. It's a little perplexing that some judges found in his favour.Taken from Anthony and Berryman's Magistrates Court Guide 2008
I think you've shot yourself in the foot by admitting to driving. My understanding of the 14 day rule is that this is considered a reasonable time frame for you to remember who was driving the car at the time. In other words, 14 days does not absolve you of the speeding offence, but of the duty to tell them who was driving at the time, and this makes the speeding offence unenforceable.
Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
It seems to me, the judge simply decided you had not submitted a defence against the speeding offence. There was never any doubt that it was you who may or may not have been speeding. There was never any doubt that you had notice of it being penalised.
The CPS, from what I recall of seeing the letter from them, represented basically a shrug of their shoulders, saying, 'ok, run with that Defence then, if you like'.
The CPS, from what I recall of seeing the letter from them, represented basically a shrug of their shoulders, saying, 'ok, run with that Defence then, if you like'.
AJS- said:
I think you've shot yourself in the foot by admitting to driving. My understanding of the 14 day rule is that this is considered a reasonable time frame for you to remember who was driving the car at the time. In other words, 14 days does not absolve you of the speeding offence, but of the duty to tell them who was driving at the time, and this makes the speeding offence unenforceable.
Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
No thats incorrect. S172 is not time limited but service of NIP without caution at the time IS. Complying with the S172 requirement is independent of the accusation of speeding. Speeding is an absolute offence and so is the requirement on the authorities to serve an NIP in accordance with the law which was not done in this case. The judgement is therefore perverse and open to appeal.Best of luck though, and remember, even if it does turn out that you end up paying a fine, at least you've done your bit to slow the system down and make it that bit harder for them! If everyone did that they'd be gone in weeks.
Red Kite said:
It seems to me, the judge simply decided you had not submitted a defence against the speeding offence.
I don't have to.Red Kite said:
There was never any doubt that it was you who may or may not have been speeding.
Who was driving has not been discussed and is irrelevant in my case.Red Kite said:
There was never any doubt that you had notice
Correct. And having received it is an important part of my defence. As is the 16 days it took to get to me.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff