NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update

[carrotchomper]

I don't think 2 days out of date will render it invalid, since it would have been delivered "In the normal course of the post". Will be interested to see result though.

[Mattt]

I can see your angle - but I think you're onto a loser.

During the 'normal' course of events, it would have arrived on time - however if they knew about the postal strike they should have followed an alternative procedure. All down to the way the court feels on the day I guess.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Interpretation Act 1978

Section 7.

References to service by post

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

?

dvd

[DonnyMac]

Dwight VanDriver said:

unless the contrary is proved

^^^^^^^

[Boosted LS1]

supermono said:

EU_Foreigner said:

But how easy would it be to give the unopened NIP (you recognise it from the outside) to your neighbour, ask them to sit on it, and sent back on day 12?

Or for that matter, when it arrives write on "Misdelivered -- return to sender" and pop it back in the post...

SM

Shhh, that's a secret, inaccessible may also do. Then it probably goes back to Belfast, where 3 months later it probably goes back to scammers and may go onto the prosecution file should they ever pursue it which they wont because they're stuffed! You just ask to see the prosecution file if they take it to court and there's your evidence.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Wednesday 14th May 21:14

Ets for spelling mistakes.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Wednesday 14th May 21:22

[Boosted LS1]

^ Exactly and they know it. Last thing they want is people turning up at Court with good reasons why the NIP wasn't received on time so I reckon they let a few get away to stop the floodgates opening and the Courts being full to capacity.

[vonhosen]

It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.

For me the important bit is that it says:

'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.

It doesn't say is delivered in the post.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 14th May 21:22

[s2art]

Just as a matter of interest, if there is no postmark then what evidence is there that the NIP was sent within 14 days? (Or to have been 'served' within 14 days) The only fact seems to be that it arrived outside the 14 day period.

[vonhosen]

s2art said:

Just as a matter of interest, if there is no postmark then what evidence is there that the NIP was sent within 14 days? (Or to have been 'served' within 14 days) The only fact seems to be that it arrived outside the 14 day period.

The sender will log which went out when & provide a statement stating that.

[The Black Duke]

Good luck with your case. You should have a reasonable chance if you have a good Barrister and your up against the CPS.

[s2art]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

Just as a matter of interest, if there is no postmark then what evidence is there that the NIP was sent within 14 days? (Or to have been 'served' within 14 days) The only fact seems to be that it arrived outside the 14 day period.

The sender will log which went out when & provide a statement stating that.

The sender can log what they like. Of what relevence is that to when the Post Office actually recieves and processes the letter? If the letter is not sent registered or special delivery there is no evidence to coroborate the so called 'log'.

[streaky]

s2art said:

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

Just as a matter of interest, if there is no postmark then what evidence is there that the NIP was sent within 14 days? (Or to have been 'served' within 14 days) The only fact seems to be that it arrived outside the 14 day period.

The sender will log which went out when & provide a statement stating that.

The sender can log what they like. Of what relevence is that to when the Post Office actually recieves and processes the letter? If the letter is not sent registered or special delivery there is no evidence to coroborate the so called 'log'.

Where there is a "process" the courts are likely to consider that the process works reliably - Streaky

[Boosted LS1]

vonhosen said:

s2art said:

Just as a matter of interest, if there is no postmark then what evidence is there that the NIP was sent within 14 days? (Or to have been 'served' within 14 days) The only fact seems to be that it arrived outside the 14 day period.

The sender will log which went out when & provide a statement stating that.

The driver also make a statement saying when it arrived as a counter statement. A postmark would be a better indicator of actual posting and no doubt preferable.

[Chrisgr31]

vonhosen said:

It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.

For me the important bit is that it says:

'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.

It doesn't say is delivered in the post.

But it does go on to say "unless the contrary is proved".

Therefore the presumption is that it will have arrived in the ordinary course of the post and I believe thats now 2 days for 1st class post. However if you as recipient can prove it didn't arrive then you are in the clear. Mind you quite how you prove something didn't arrive is another thing, unless of course its late as in the OPs case.

[Andy Zarse]

Chrisgr31 said:

vonhosen said:

It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.

For me the important bit is that it says:

'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.

It doesn't say is delivered in the post.

But it does go on to say "unless the contrary is proved".

Therefore the presumption is that it will have arrived in the ordinary course of the post and I believe thats now 2 days for 1st class post. However if you as recipient can prove it didn't arrive then you are in the clear. Mind you quite how you prove something didn't arrive is another thing, unless of course its late as in the OPs case.

Quite. Von is clearly right in so far as he goes, but he hasn't commented upon the "unless the contrary is proved" bit in the wording.

And how indeed do you prove a negative if the wretched thing never turned up in the first place? It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster conundrum again.

PS Well done Peter! I'm watching Peter's situation closely as I have my own case of a delayed NIP ongoing at the moment. It turned up nineteen days after the alledged offence, due to the Xmas post delays. The idiots posted it on the friday, then there was the sat, sun, mon, tues all no-post public holidays. I too have witnesses, a school teacher and a nurse who were staying in my house whilst I was in China over Xmas. There was no post at all on my return on the 28th, which was the last day it should have been recieved. Plus there's some sort of mail mark on the envelope which shows it was still in Gatwick mail centre on the 28th.

Edited by Andy Zarse on Thursday 15th May 12:08

[SS2.]

Andy Zarse said:

Von is clearly right in so far as he goes, but he hasn't commented upon the "unless the contrary is proved" bit in the wording.

And how indeed do you prove a negative if the wretched thing never turned up in the first place?

By giving evidence to that effect. In most cases, the defendant will have nothing more than their sworn statement of the late arrival of the notice. If the magistrates find the defendant credible and believe the evidence presented, then conviction should not follow.

But in the present case, and in addition to his own testimony, the defendant can also adduce evidence from an independant witness (the postie) of the date that the notice was actually served.

[vonhosen]

Chrisgr31 said:

vonhosen said:

It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.

For me the important bit is that it says:

'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.

It doesn't say is delivered in the post.

But it does go on to say "unless the contrary is proved".

Therefore the presumption is that it will have arrived in the ordinary course of the post and I believe thats now 2 days for 1st class post. However if you as recipient can prove it didn't arrive then you are in the clear. Mind you quite how you prove something didn't arrive is another thing, unless of course its late as in the OPs case.

It's a matter for the court to interpret at what point the NIP is served.

Not even the higher courts in these islands all take the view that many are claiming here.

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC...

[Andy Zarse]

vonhosen said:

Chrisgr31 said:

vonhosen said:

It comes down to how you interpret what 'served' means.

For me the important bit is that it says:

'...to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'.

It doesn't say is delivered in the post.

But it does go on to say "unless the contrary is proved".

Therefore the presumption is that it will have arrived in the ordinary course of the post and I believe thats now 2 days for 1st class post. However if you as recipient can prove it didn't arrive then you are in the clear. Mind you quite how you prove something didn't arrive is another thing, unless of course its late as in the OPs case.

It's a matter for the court to interpret at what point the NIP is served.

Not even the higher courts in these islands all take the view that many are claiming here.

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC...

There's no problem, the Courts have to interpret a pretty clear and unambigous bit of wording.

The scottish man was a fool in contesting this matter. The law seems quite clear, the NIP was properly served as it was sent registered/recorded and the requirement was met. I cannot really see how the defendant thought he wasn't liable to prosecution.

However, the use of non registered/recorded mail is a different matter as the criteria clearly required in the law has not been fulfilled and the words "unless the contrary is proved" come into play.

And what, Von, is the problem with that?

[Andy Zarse]

Question: If an alledged SP30 offence occured, hypothetically, on 14th December 2007, and the NIP issued on 20th December 2007 (although not rec'd until seventeen days after the alledged offence) what date is the latest point the CPS would have to lay papers with the Court before the offence timed out?

All theoretically of course...

[SS2.]

Andy Zarse said:

If an alledged SP30 offence occured, hypothetically, on 14th December 2007, and the NIP issued on 20th December 2007 (although not rec'd until seventeen days after the alledged offence) what date is the latest point the CPS would have to lay papers with the Court before the offence timed out?

Proceedings would require to be commenced by 13.06.2008 for the alleged speeding offence and 27.07.2008* for failing to furnish.

[* - assuming service (delivery) of the NIP / s.172 occurred on 31.12.2007]

That said, I suspect that the scammers would probably consider that a failing to furnish offence would have occurred on 18.01.2008 (ie 28 days after the presumed date of service - 21.12.2007) and, as such, they would endeavour to commence proceedings prior to 18.07.2008.