Late NIP - Finally, VICTORY IN THE HIGH COURT
Discussion
Well done , it does show that if you have the bottle to stand up and take the risk of a huge cost and more points that the system is under some sort of control.
I just do not understand why the system does not understand how the system works . And did not back out at a earlier stage to prevent more public funds being wasted just become some jobsworth did not want to lose face.
I just do not understand why the system does not understand how the system works . And did not back out at a earlier stage to prevent more public funds being wasted just become some jobsworth did not want to lose face.
"The High Court quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling £680. They also wiped three penalty points from his licence.
His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds."
Ouch. Why did they bother pursuing a case with that sort of financial cost, for a single speeding ticket? £8.6k?!
His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds."
Ouch. Why did they bother pursuing a case with that sort of financial cost, for a single speeding ticket? £8.6k?!
vonhosen said:
odyssey2200 said:
Von has just exploded 
Actually Von couldn't care less, the law is what it is.I notice the court intimated that a change in the law is an option.
Derek Smith said:
There is no excuse for posting the NIP late. It is a simple enough procedure. The person in charge of the ticket office in my force was a quality chap and established systems to ensure they went out well within the time limit. If a PC dragged his feet in sending details, the NIP was served back on him.
why are PCs used to issued NIPs?havoc said:
vonhosen said:
odyssey2200 said:
Von has just exploded
Actually Von couldn't care less, the law is what it is.I notice the court intimated that a change in the law is an option.
Opulent said:
"The High Court quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling £680. They also wiped three penalty points from his licence.
His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds."
Ouch. Why did they bother pursuing a case with that sort of financial cost, for a single speeding ticket? £8.6k?!
High court decisions are a bit of a lottery. However, there are a number of specific points on this one that make the decision to challenge it unsustainable.His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds."
Ouch. Why did they bother pursuing a case with that sort of financial cost, for a single speeding ticket? £8.6k?!
Firstly, as you point out, it is just for a ticket. OK, so there is a lot of money for those to whom this is a business, but that is not the business of those who decide to go for the challenge.
Further, and more importantly, if the CPS had won then the system would have been unfair to the innocent suspect. His chances of being able to remember details of the incident would have been severely curtailed.
Then there is the fact that it doesn't take a genius to work out some system whereby the NIP can be created and posted within a week. My force managed it for something like 70% (maybe more, memory fades) of their tickets. Any ticket that hit the limit was subject to a systems check.
The 14 day rule was always suspect. There was previous case law, on a slightly different point, that wasn't taken all the way.
And don't run away with the idea that the £8000 is the limit of the costs. Oh, no. On top of that there are the court costs, and of course the costs of the CPS as well. Double that and add a lot more.
A more insideous penalty, and one that is the most important to my way of thinking, is that the CPS works to a budget. When I took over the Identification Unit a job that had gone to appeal was lost on a point of procedure. If it was allowed to stand it could lead to others challenging on a similar point and, most irritating, a nasty offender would have got off an offence where the evidence was ovewhelming. It wasn't so much him sticking two fingers up at the law, but sticking two fingers up to the people he assaulted.
At the SIO's request I produced a report on the point of law - it took me days as I was new to the post - and the CPS's reply was that they had no money to run it. Not that it would have failed, not that it was a difficult point of law, just that there was no money in the kitty.
The CPS decision was quite simply one of practicality.
To be fair, we had no post-dated challenges and I changed my systems. I sent a report of the appeal to all other ID units in England and Wales (to those forces that had them) and I got a reply from the Mets that they would ignore it - they being above the law in so many ways. They had a challenge on this point, they had the money to appeal, and it was overturned.
So ask yourself what important criminal appeal was binned to allow this one to go ahead. 'Cause there was one. I wonder if the victim was told that it was much more important to try and continue with a system that was largely thought to be unfair rather than their pathetic little case.
As you can tell, this decision to run it has irritated me. It is not the CPS's fault that they have such a small budget, but I would bet considerable pressure was brought on them to go for this. But it was a procedureal matter on tickets. The CPS now take all the blame despite the assumed fact that it was a political decision, and out of their hands.
Links to original threads, for info
original http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
update http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Well done that man.
original http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
update http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Well done that man.
hora said:
No offence OP, the post title etc made me believe there was a sense that you triumphed over injustice? Again, no offence but you were caught speeding and got off on a technicality?
many people are convicted on a "technicality" every day.There is a process, which was not adhered to.
SCP FAIL!!
Derek Smith said:
peterguk M500 said:
sleep envy said:
well done
may I ask how you proved you received it in the 16th day?
My postman was witness to me opening it. The CPS at my CC Appeal accepted it was received late, and took me on on the point of law. The CC Judge mis-directed himself on a point of law, so we took it to the High Court.may I ask how you proved you received it in the 16th day?
To those who see me as "getting away with it". -
I fought this as a matter of principal - with my own funds. The law enforcers have to abide by the law, and if no one questions them, the people are treated unjustly, unfairly and in some cases, illegally.
My case was perfect to take to the High Court, and was the first time this matter had been taken to the High Court since the 1994 amendment to the RTOA allowing 1st class post.
The facts had been agreed between both sides, so it was simply a case of having the law clarified.
There is no excuse for posting the NIP late. It is a simple enough procedure. The person in charge of the ticket office in my force was a quality chap and established systems to ensure they went out well within the time limit. If a PC dragged his feet in sending details, the NIP was served back on him.
A sensible decision. As said before: well done that man.
What is irritating is that it has cost the CPS a lot of money to pursue this matter to the high court. I wonder how many much more worthy appeals they will refuse to run because of cost implications. They've wasted time and effort challenging a chap who was, at least according to the police officers I worked with, dealt with badly.
jondude said:
It will be interesting though, for the last thing the authorities want is an innocent until proven guilty system.
For example, canny drivers, fearing an NIP, may just refuse to sign the recorded delivery, pretend not to be home......in effect, reversing the system as it is now and putting the onus on the police to prove the guilty man or woman has been served their NIP.
They have been used to sending letters by snail mail and from that moment having the whole system to back them up - the defendent was presumed served the NIP. And the courts, naturally, would side with the police.
Now that has (maybe) been turned on its head.
Of course, this could just mean many more speed traps with real police so they can serve the NIP at the roadside.
Doubt it, somehow. The sleeping policeman policy, fines by post and no arguing, has been part of road 'safety' mentality for years now.
If it's sent recorded delivery it doesn't matter if you don't sign for it, it's been served.For example, canny drivers, fearing an NIP, may just refuse to sign the recorded delivery, pretend not to be home......in effect, reversing the system as it is now and putting the onus on the police to prove the guilty man or woman has been served their NIP.
They have been used to sending letters by snail mail and from that moment having the whole system to back them up - the defendent was presumed served the NIP. And the courts, naturally, would side with the police.
Now that has (maybe) been turned on its head.
Of course, this could just mean many more speed traps with real police so they can serve the NIP at the roadside.
Doubt it, somehow. The sleeping policeman policy, fines by post and no arguing, has been part of road 'safety' mentality for years now.
It's only first class post that gives you a rebuttable presumption.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 30th October 08:49
hora said:
No offence OP, the post title etc made me believe there was a sense that you triumphed over injustice? (the CAPS etc) Again, no offence but you were caught speeding and got off on a technicality? I was looking for a fellow PH'er who had righted a 'wrong'. Oh hum.
"Lord Justice Elias ...... rejected arguments supported by lower courts that so long as prosecution warning notices were posted within 14 days - so that in ordinary circumstances they would arrive in time - they were deemed to have been properly served."Edited by hora on Friday 30th October 08:41
I triumphed over two injustices actually.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Jasandjules said:
Well done.
That is even more interesting in light of the current postal problems.
Reading this thread, I thought exactly that - similarly over say the festive period - The post is obviously delayed.That is even more interesting in light of the current postal problems.
Would this also mean that the NIP's then that are received after 14 days irrespective of when they were processed would be quashed?
If the NIP is sent within time, to the last known RK, at the last known address, by 1st class post, and arrives out of time, then it is for the recepient to show the Court, to their satisfaction, that it arrived out of time.
Do that, and job done.
hora said:
How though? Are NIPs sent by recorded?
NIPs are not sent by recorded post. They are sent with a cheaper option. Unfortunately this means that many NIPs are processed in time but will not arrive in time. The law talks about when the NIP must be served ('delivered'), not when it must be posted.The difficulty is having the evidence to say when the NIP was actually delivered, which luckily the OP had in this case.
The ruling, for the time being, clarifies that situation as far as the law is concerned.
sleep envy said:
Derek Smith said:
There is no excuse for posting the NIP late. It is a simple enough procedure. The person in charge of the ticket office in my force was a quality chap and established systems to ensure they went out well within the time limit. If a PC dragged his feet in sending details, the NIP was served back on him.
why are PCs used to issued NIPs?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff