NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Richard C said:

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.

Correct.

[AJS-]

I stand corrected.

Just hypothetically speaking though, would you after the 14 days be able to say that you don't know who was driving? It would save my scoff law friend from the Ukraine getting the a lot speeding tickets whenever he borrows my car in the UK.

[Red Kite]

PeterGUK,

it wasn't this, that was said, was it?

“irrebuttable presumption of service”

Edited by Red Kite on Wednesday 24th December 18:56

[chr15b]

it'll be very very interesting to see if you get the fine, (personally) i think you should - but will be interesting to see how it's dealt with in a legal court.

i dont mean anything unpleasant by that statement, i'm sure you're a decent bloke who is exercising their rights - and good on you, it doesnt matter what i think, just that you do what you believe is right - i'm just not one for 'loopholes'

personally i think alex furgeson should have got his ticket too..

Edited by chr15b on Wednesday 24th December 19:33

[fluffnik]

chr15b said:

i'm just not one for 'loopholes'

I'm just not one for state sponsored extortion with menaces.

[chr15b]

fluffnik said:

chr15b said:

i'm just not one for 'loopholes'

I'm just not one for state sponsored extortion with menaces.

you're just an attention we

Edited by chr15b on Wednesday 24th December 19:46

[fluffnik]

chr15b said:

fluffnik said:

I'm just not one for state sponsored extortion with menaces.

you're just an attention we

Nope.

I'm also a libertarian, and fat.

[Andyuk911]

Good luck Peter ... I would not post on here as the sods will hear of it and read it..

We will all just have to wait until July

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

PeterGUK,

it wasn't this, that was said, was it?

“irrebuttable presumption of service”

Actually, it was the opposite. My defence regarding the service of the NIP was accepted by the CPS as being irrebuttable, which only left me show the date the NIP arrived, to a level a lot less than the defence's "beyond all reasonable doubt". My postman gave evidence, which the Judge accepted. Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

chr15b said:

i'm just not one for 'loopholes'

I suspect if you were up on a charge where due process had not followed you'd probably think differently.

Andyuk911 said:

Good luck Peter ...

Cheers Andy

Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Wednesday 24th December 21:24

[fish]

May I just say Good Luck also and if I could be of any help I would...

[Richard C]

AJS- said:

I stand corrected.

Just hypothetically speaking though, would you after the 14 days be able to say that you don't know who was driving? It would save my scoff law friend from the Ukraine getting the a lot speeding tickets whenever he borrows my car in the UK.

You have 28 days to respond. The 14 days is not relevant to that. If you don't know who was driving you have to say so but you have to convince a court that you as regd keeper have done all you can to identify who was the driver.

The courts may or may not believe you and it seems there is systematic pressure or a cultural belief by magistrates to not accept the concept that a regd keeper did not know and could not determine whho was the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

[Richard C]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

PeterGUK,

it wasn't this, that was said, was it?

“irrebuttable presumption of service”

Actually, it was the opposite. My defence regarding the service of the NIP was accepted by the CPS as being irrebuttable, which only left me show the date the NIP arrived, to a level a lot less than the defence's "beyond all reasonable doubt". My postman gave evidence, which the Judge accepted. Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

chr15b said:

i'm just not one for 'loopholes'

I suspect if you were up on a charge where due process had not followed you'd probably think differently.

Andyuk911 said:

Good luck Peter ...

Cheers Andy

Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Wednesday 24th December 21:24

I dare say I'd have been sent down for contempt of court. I don't suffer fools or knaves gladly. I do not hold professional judges or magistrates in any great awe. Concerning magistrates, most of those my acquaintance are arrogant ignorant amateurs who had they any real integrity would not have sought the status that goes with an unpaid state appointment anyway.

Judges - many of those who come from the legal profession show a great competence when it comes to incisive thinking but it seems obvious that an increasing and significant minority are far from independent as they once were. Good Luck.

[deeps]

Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?

The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.

If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.

Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.

[fluffnik]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Yet he still found me guilty, citing the S172 as well as my "unusually high" knowledge of motoring law.

I trust that once you've won your appeal you'll destroy him without mercy.

There is no place for such monsters in civil society, they should be crushed without hesitation every time they're encountered.

[Parrot of Doom]

Reading this thread, I'm reminded of the judgement against Daniel Cadden:

http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue15/issue15page2....

...and its subsequent successful appeal.

[Red Kite]

deeps said:

Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?

The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.

If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.

Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.

This is what I have concerns about, from PeterGUK's point of view. I don't feel confident (no offence meant Peter) that the court has in any way accepted that service was late. CPS, to my mind, have not agreed that it was. And in fact, have successfully averred that it was not late.
Where they find that service was, in fact out of time, they withdraw the charges, as far as I'm told.

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Red Kite said:

deeps said:

Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?

The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.

If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.

Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.

This is what I have concerns about, from PeterGUK's point of view. I don't feel confident (no offence meant Peter) that the court has in any way accepted that service was late. CPS, to my mind, have not agreed that it was. And in fact, have successfully averred that it was not late.
Where they find that service was, in fact out of time, they withdraw the charges, as far as I'm told.

OK, so there are two issues surrounding late service. 1st is the legal argument, 2nd is showing the Court when it actually arrived.

The 1st issue is satisfied. CPS have told me in writing, that my defence is irrebuttable. They told the Judge that my legal defence was irrebuttable. Even though he asked them three times

My postman stood up in Court and stated he saw me open my (in his words) my "speeding fine". He signed a statement for me to that effect a few days later to preserve historical facts. That should be adequate testimony in any Court.

[Red Kite]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

deeps said:

Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?

The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.

If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.

Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.

This is what I have concerns about, from PeterGUK's point of view. I don't feel confident (no offence meant Peter) that the court has in any way accepted that service was late. CPS, to my mind, have not agreed that it was. And in fact, have successfully averred that it was not late.
Where they find that service was, in fact out of time, they withdraw the charges, as far as I'm told.

OK, so there are two issues surrounding late service. 1st is the legal argument, 2nd is showing the Court when it actually arrived.

The 1st issue is satisfied. CPS have told me in writing, that my defence is irrebuttable. They told the Judge that my legal defence was irrebuttable. Even though he asked them three times

My postman stood up in Court and stated he saw me open my (in his words) my "speeding fine". He signed a statement for me to that effect a few days later to preserve historical facts. That should be adequate testimony in any Court.

Have you anything that says, in writing, that 'defence is irrebuttable'? If that was the case, I don't think they could have proceeded to court.

[Richard C]

peterguk V6 KWK said:

Red Kite said:

deeps said:

Sounds to me that the District Judge has attempted to exercise logic (he knows you are guilty of speeding the same as everyone else knows) but he's conveniently and incompetently placed himself above the law. What's the point in issuing you with a NIP at all if the legalities surrounding it are completely ignored?

The issue here is whether you were served the NIP within the legal time frame, and you were not. That's not a loop hole, as someone above suggested, but rather it's a bare fact.

If the District Judge chooses to over ride the law as seen here, then he is not fit for purpose IMO.

Good luck next time anyway, although you don't really need luck in such a clear cut case.

This is what I have concerns about, from PeterGUK's point of view. I don't feel confident (no offence meant Peter) that the court has in any way accepted that service was late. CPS, to my mind, have not agreed that it was. And in fact, have successfully averred that it was not late.
Where they find that service was, in fact out of time, they withdraw the charges, as far as I'm told.

OK, so there are two issues surrounding late service. 1st is the legal argument, 2nd is showing the Court when it actually arrived.

The 1st issue is satisfied. CPS have told me in writing, that my defence is irrebuttable. They told the Judge that my legal defence was irrebuttable. Even though he asked them three times

My postman stood up in Court and stated he saw me open my (in his words) my "speeding fine". He signed a statement for me to that effect a few days later to preserve historical facts. That should be adequate testimony in any Court.

The thing is that if the CPS believed that your legal defence was irrebuttable then how was " the public interest" served by taking it to court. Or are the CPS aware that the legal justice system is such a lottery with perverse-minded, biased or ignorant judges that they always take it to court and wing it in the chance that they get a conviction ?

[peterguk V6 KWK]

Actual words in the letter to me from CPS were "in this case, there appears to be very little scope open to the mags. It therefore only remains for you to show the court the actual date of receipt of the NIP."

In court, the CPS said "the accused's defence is irrebuttable, we offer no argument against it." He explained to the Judge that my defence was well researched, covered decades of case law but was entirely valid and irrebuttable.

Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 25th December 10:34