Late NIP - Finally, VICTORY IN THE HIGH COURT
Discussion
haha, nice one Peter, you took them on and won, i know what this means to you so i bet your are over the moon with that verdict. I know what you must have gone through i am currently in a 2 year battle with an insurance company.
They try to wear you down, but giving in is a sure way of losing, well done m8.
Cant believe it, is this the 1st case of its kind taken to high court? If so, you have have made legal history and set a precedent, but you know when your right your right, and the law is the law, if not "received" within in 14 days then it is invalid
They try to wear you down, but giving in is a sure way of losing, well done m8.
Cant believe it, is this the 1st case of its kind taken to high court? If so, you have have made legal history and set a precedent, but you know when your right your right, and the law is the law, if not "received" within in 14 days then it is invalid
AMG Merc said:
Peter, well done. Would you be interested in running for PM at the next election?!
Regarding the law - please clarify - does the NIP need to be POSTED within 14 days or to actually ARRIVE at your registered address within 14 days?
The High Court has now clarified that it must arrive within 14 days.Regarding the law - please clarify - does the NIP need to be POSTED within 14 days or to actually ARRIVE at your registered address within 14 days?
selwonk said:
No doubt we should expect a change in the law at some point to extend the time limit. 
I would expect a Statutory Instrument to be along the way soon along the lines of "replace 'must be served within 14 days of the offence' with 'must be processed and posted within 14 days of the offence'"Urbalizer said:
haha, nice one Peter, you took them on and won, i know what this means to you so i bet your are over the moon with that verdict. I know what you must have gone through i am currently in a 2 year battle with an insurance company.
They try to wear you down, but giving in is a sure way of losing, well done m8.
Cant believe it, is this the 1st case of its kind taken to high court? If so, you have have made legal history and set a precedent, but you know when your right your right, and the law is the law, if not "received" within in 14 days then it is invalid
Thanks ChrisThey try to wear you down, but giving in is a sure way of losing, well done m8.
Cant believe it, is this the 1st case of its kind taken to high court? If so, you have have made legal history and set a precedent, but you know when your right your right, and the law is the law, if not "received" within in 14 days then it is invalid
Yes, this is the first clallenge in the High Court of this point - i.e. if sent 1st class, and sent in good time, and arrives late, is it good service.
We have made legal history
10 Pence Short said:
selwonk said:
No doubt we should expect a change in the law at some point to extend the time limit.
I would expect a Statutory Instrument to be along the way soon along the lines of "replace 'must be served within 14 days of the offence' with 'must be processed and posted within 14 days of the offence'"
selwonk said:
10 Pence Short said:
selwonk said:
No doubt we should expect a change in the law at some point to extend the time limit.
I would expect a Statutory Instrument to be along the way soon along the lines of "replace 'must be served within 14 days of the offence' with 'must be processed and posted within 14 days of the offence'"
Laziest, cheapest option to continue the charade.
Full Press Association report:
A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document. Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late. The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.
Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by S
horpe magistrates last October.
He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act. The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680. They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit, clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case in the High Court at a cost of some £8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. "It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act. "It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted." The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up after the strike in 2007.
Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He 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. Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.
John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs." Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent. Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be necessary.
A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document. Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late. The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.
Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by S
horpe magistrates last October.He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act. The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680. They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit, clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case in the High Court at a cost of some £8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. "It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act. "It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted." The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up after the strike in 2007.
Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He 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. Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.
John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs." Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent. Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be necessary.
tenohfive said:
I just hope that the £8,000 it cost the tax payer so you wouldn't have to pay a £60 fine leads to changes that mean there won't be a repeat of this.
The CPS had the option to take no further action back in 2007.Was there a wider public interest in seeing the OP pay up or just lazy, bloody-mindedness and the belief that " I am the law" and therefore beyond challenge?
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.
The High Court has decided that the CPS must comply with the law. It was not doing so. That is, to my way of thinking, a victory. As the two breaches of the law go, the prosecuting of people when the processes had not been complied with, in this case notifying them in good time of the fact that they may be prosecuted so as to enable them a reasonable chance to prepare a case, would seem to me to be the more serious.The English/Welsh courts have been quite flexible when it comes to failure to follow procedures, certainly much more so than the USA. But this really was a step too far. The law says quite clearly that the NIP must be served in specific circumstances. It was not in this case. To prosecute the person was, to my mind, a breach of his rights. The function of the police and the CPS is to protect the rights of the public.
This is, in its wider implications, a triumph over injustice.
What is irritating is that this job was no big deal. If it was not served in time, and there was ample evidence to show it wasn't, it should have been binned. Everyone's happy and the CPS would have been £n000s in pocket. It is not as if this was a serious offence.
An impeccable detective sergeant once said to me, after I made a mistake in court: The bloke will come again. If he doesn't because you scared him, them your job's done without the cost of the prison.
odyssey2200 said:
tenohfive said:
I just hope that the £8,000 it cost the tax payer so you wouldn't have to pay a £60 fine leads to changes that mean there won't be a repeat of this.
The CPS had the option to take no further action back in 2007.Was there a wider public interest in seeing the OP pay up or just lazy, bloody-mindedness and the belief that " I am the law" and therefore beyond challenge?
No-one who has anything to do with the legal system thinks they're above being challenged. Everyone in said system has been challenged. Its these challenges that lead to more legislation to close the loopholes and technicalities. But I suspect when that happens there'll be even more complaining about excessive legislation.
tenohfive said:
odyssey2200 said:
tenohfive said:
I just hope that the £8,000 it cost the tax payer so you wouldn't have to pay a £60 fine leads to changes that mean there won't be a repeat of this.
The CPS had the option to take no further action back in 2007.Was there a wider public interest in seeing the OP pay up or just lazy, bloody-mindedness and the belief that " I am the law" and therefore beyond challenge?
No-one who has anything to do with the legal system thinks they're above being challenged. Everyone in said system has been challenged. Its these challenges that lead to more legislation to close the loopholes and technicalities. But I suspect when that happens there'll be even more complaining about excessive legislation.
Why not just up the FPN penalty & send them all by recorded delivery ?
peterguk M500 said:
...This case in the High Court was me.
The NIP was posted day 5, and received by me on day 16. Those facts were not disputed in the Crown Court. I lost my CC Appeal because the Judge mis-directed himself on a point of law.
This is the first time this issue has been taken to the High Court since the 1994 amendment to the RTOA allowing NIPs to be sent 1st class post.
It has now been adjudged that he did.The NIP was posted day 5, and received by me on day 16. Those facts were not disputed in the Crown Court. I lost my CC Appeal because the Judge mis-directed himself on a point of law.
This is the first time this issue has been taken to the High Court since the 1994 amendment to the RTOA allowing NIPs to be sent 1st class post.
At the time the CC judge was making his decision he would also be considering the "proof" you brought that the letter was not received until day 16. In making that decision he has to consider that the "proof" you brought led him to judge that the letter was delivered as you said, on day 16, and that the "proof" you brought did that beyond reasonable doubt. I know my postman, he is my daughter's boyfriend; maybe I could persuade him to bring a NIP a few days late and get him to sign it on the day next to a photograph of a newspaper with the date on, then not reveal how I know him! I am not saying you did this at all but it isn't beyond the bounds of credibility is it?
The Crown Court judge may have simply not believed you rather than misdirecting himself; some would say that his belief at the time was also "reasonable". In a lot of cases I am sure the decision of the Crown Court judge as made in your case is absolutely correct; it is for you to know if he was or not.
The High Court have said in your case that if a notice is shown to arrive on day 16 that it is too late...didn't we already know that?
Puff the magic.. said:
At the time the CC judge was making his decision he would also be considering the "proof" you brought that the letter was not received until day 16.
No, he woundn't have been considering that at all. The CPS had already conceded the NIP had arrived on day 16. The CC judge decided it did not matter if the NIP was posted recorded, registered or 1st class. He was wrong. Recorded and registered enjoy an irrebuttable presumption of delivery. 1st class post does not.Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw ...... 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.
Yes yes, well done Peter, well done Peter, however, there are a few last minute points that need to be awarded,
Firstly to the the High Court judges for the cool use of intellect when all previously had possessed none...I award 50 points
Second to the CPS for using taxpayers money to challenge a well used loophole, and so remove any grey areas that remained and so instigate a possible change in the law, 50 points
Third to Mr Peter Gidden, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to one's enemies but it takes more to have the money to waste should you fail...Fifty points
and finally, to the Spirit of personal responsibility, honesty and integrity, for being totally absent throughout... 50 points...please close the door on your way out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff