Late NIP - Finally, VICTORY IN THE HIGH COURT
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
vonhosen said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.Von, you are such a good advocate of the law and its enforcement, if people like you could take the blinkers off regarding speed and cameras and apply your intelligence to the real problem, you could make a REAL difference
As I said (above) do you want to ignore drink drive, road rage defective tyres etc etc, because they are a contributory factor in fewer collisions. There aren't many things that are higher in the list.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.Von, you are such a good advocate of the law and its enforcement, if people like you could take the blinkers off regarding speed and cameras and apply your intelligence to the real problem, you could make a REAL difference
As I said (above) do you want to ignore drink drive, road rage defective tyres etc etc, because they are a contributory factor in fewer collisions. There aren't many things that are higher in the list.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.Von, you are such a good advocate of the law and its enforcement, if people like you could take the blinkers off regarding speed and cameras and apply your intelligence to the real problem, you could make a REAL difference
As I said (above) do you want to ignore drink drive, road rage defective tyres etc etc, because they are a contributory factor in fewer collisions. There aren't many things that are higher in the list.
But y point still remains the same, road safety policy and policing needs to get away from the "Speed Kills" mantra, it needs to target the real risks, and to regain the respect of many it needs to refocus, and stop looking like a tax on motorists.
Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 8th November 22:28
Police officers don't focus on speed enforcement.
Most officers don't report anyone for speeding from one year to the next, they are far more likely to deal with other offences (offences lower in the list of contributory factors).
Speed enforcement has been farmed out to other agencies & they do far more of it than Police officers ever did. The same happened with parking enforcement when that got farmed out & the same will happen with other offences as they get farmed out to partners too. The Police have been gradually off loading more & more enforcement of traffic matters to others, because they haven't got the resources to deal with it & if they were to deal with it they would be deflecting resources away from their primary aims & objectives.
Most officers don't report anyone for speeding from one year to the next, they are far more likely to deal with other offences (offences lower in the list of contributory factors).
Speed enforcement has been farmed out to other agencies & they do far more of it than Police officers ever did. The same happened with parking enforcement when that got farmed out & the same will happen with other offences as they get farmed out to partners too. The Police have been gradually off loading more & more enforcement of traffic matters to others, because they haven't got the resources to deal with it & if they were to deal with it they would be deflecting resources away from their primary aims & objectives.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.If we are going to ignore speed as a factor, should we not ignore every other contributory factor that figures in less injury collisions ?
(Factors such as defective tyres, defective brakes, disobeying traffic lights or give way signs, illegal turns, tailgating, drink drive, driving under influence of drugs, road rage etc )
If we are serious about safety we need better education plus a more visible police presence on the roads. Robotic enforcement just alienates people. Or else go the whole hog and admit that the days of the individually controlled horseless carriage are over. Invest in technology to fit cars with the automotive equivalent of an aircraft's automatic pilot and black box crash recorders for the few occasions where it all goes pear shaped.
Red Devil said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.If we are going to ignore speed as a factor, should we not ignore every other contributory factor that figures in less injury collisions ?
(Factors such as defective tyres, defective brakes, disobeying traffic lights or give way signs, illegal turns, tailgating, drink drive, driving under influence of drugs, road rage etc )
If we are serious about safety we need better education plus a more visible police presence on the roads. Robotic enforcement just alienates people. Or else go the whole hog and admit that the days of the individually controlled horseless carriage are over. Invest in technology to fit cars with the automotive equivalent of an aircraft's automatic pilot and black box crash recorders for the few occasions where it all goes pear shaped.
If the concern was just with safety, the car would never have got to the numbers it has. All that is happening is that a lid is being kept on it, there is no attempt to eradicate the risk. Quite possibly with future transport the driver will be taken out of the loop in order to maximise safety/throughput.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th November 22:41
vonhosen said:
If the concern was just with safety, the car would never have got to the numbers it has. All that is happening is that a lid is being kept on it, there is no attempt to eradicate the risk. Quite possibly with future transport the driver will be taken out of the loop in order to maximise safety/throughput.
But will automation deal with defective tyres? and other factors. And what happens when the computers go wrong as they do, (automotive ones fail often) We will end up with people who have no idea how to drive, who take no responsibility for their own actions......the nanny state gone to far. (If you are going to do that, the state may as well choose your meal and decide what you say to your neighbour.)If the self driving systems depend as they will on road side infrastructure, what happens when our non driver decide to go on holiday to a country without such systems, we will be exporting accidents. Likewise the infrastructure in the country will take years to roll out, with rural areas being the last. So city motorists who have no idea how to drive will come and deliver carnage to rural areas because they have had to think and drive for themselves.
I hate the way that the authorities and the exonents of car automation think that it is the only solution. The best solution must be education and good policing.
vonhosen said:
Red Devil said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Mondeohdear said:
vonhosen said:
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 ?
.If we are going to ignore speed as a factor, should we not ignore every other contributory factor that figures in less injury collisions ?
(Factors such as defective tyres, defective brakes, disobeying traffic lights or give way signs, illegal turns, tailgating, drink drive, driving under influence of drugs, road rage etc )
If we are serious about safety we need better education plus a more visible police presence on the roads. Robotic enforcement just alienates people. Or else go the whole hog and admit that the days of the individually controlled horseless carriage are over. Invest in technology to fit cars with the automotive equivalent of an aircraft's automatic pilot and black box crash recorders for the few occasions where it all goes pear shaped.
If the concern was just with safety, the car would never have got to the numbers it has. All that is happening is that a lid is being kept on it, there is no attempt to eradicate the risk. Quite possibly with future transport the driver will be taken out of the loop in order to maximise safety/throughput.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th November 22:41
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
If the concern was just with safety, the car would never have got to the numbers it has. All that is happening is that a lid is being kept on it, there is no attempt to eradicate the risk. Quite possibly with future transport the driver will be taken out of the loop in order to maximise safety/throughput.
But will automation deal with defective tyres? and other factors. And what happens when the computers go wrong as they do, (automotive ones fail often) We will end up with people who have no idea how to drive, who take no responsibility for their own actions......the nanny state gone to far. (If you are going to do that, the state may as well choose your meal and decide what you say to your neighbour.)If the self driving systems depend as they will on road side infrastructure, what happens when our non driver decide to go on holiday to a country without such systems, we will be exporting accidents. Likewise the infrastructure in the country will take years to roll out, with rural areas being the last. So city motorists who have no idea how to drive will come and deliver carnage to rural areas because they have had to think and drive for themselves.
I hate the way that the authorities and the exonents of car automation think that it is the only solution. The best solution must be education and good policing.
It's just a possibility (not a certainty) that future systems will seek to remove the weak links in our current system.
No matter how much education &/or Policing, it is unlikely to address sufficiently the selfish nature of humans.
There isn't enough money in the budget to climb that mountain.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
If the concern was just with safety, the car would never have got to the numbers it has. All that is happening is that a lid is being kept on it, there is no attempt to eradicate the risk. Quite possibly with future transport the driver will be taken out of the loop in order to maximise safety/throughput.
But will automation deal with defective tyres? and other factors. And what happens when the computers go wrong as they do, (automotive ones fail often) We will end up with people who have no idea how to drive, who take no responsibility for their own actions......the nanny state gone to far. (If you are going to do that, the state may as well choose your meal and decide what you say to your neighbour.)If the self driving systems depend as they will on road side infrastructure, what happens when our non driver decide to go on holiday to a country without such systems, we will be exporting accidents. Likewise the infrastructure in the country will take years to roll out, with rural areas being the last. So city motorists who have no idea how to drive will come and deliver carnage to rural areas because they have had to think and drive for themselves.
I hate the way that the authorities and the exponents of car automation think that it is the only solution. The best solution must be education and good policing.
blueg33 said:
Red Devil said:
odyssey2200 said:
vonhosen Is Raymond Baxter AICMFP
Sorry you only get £2.50 - he has to be a clone since RB died 3 years ago.Andy Zarse said:
blueg33 said:
Red Devil said:
odyssey2200 said:
vonhosen Is Raymond Baxter AICMFP
Sorry you only get £2.50 - he has to be a clone since RB died 3 years ago.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law...
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
Published November 10, 2009
Gidden v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Openshaw
Judgment October 29, 2009
In times of postal disruption, prosecuting authorities should not rely on ordinary first-class post for serving notices of intended prosecution.
The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so stated when allowing an appeal by way of case stated by Peter Gidden against the dismissal by Grimsby Crown Court (Judge Tremberg and justices) on February 27, 2009, of his appeal against conviction by S
horpe Justices for an offence of speeding.
On October 6, 2007, a car, of which Mr Gidden was a registered keeper, exceeded the speed limit. On October 11, 2007, a notice of intended prosecution was sent by ordinary first-class post to Mr Gidden’s home address.
Under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a person could not be convicted of an offence unless the requirement in section 1(1)(c) that the notice of intended prosecution had been served within 14 days of the date of the commission of the offence had been met.
Mr Gidden did not receive the notice until October 22, 2007, because of industrial action by postal workers. A summons was issued against him by the Chief Constable of Humberside, to which Mr Gidden pleaded not guilty. He was convicted of the offence and appealed to the crown court.
At the appeal, Mr Gidden contended that the provision in section 1(3) of the 1988 Act that “the requirement of subsection (1) ... shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved” created a rebuttable presumption of compliance.
Where the prosecution had conceded that the prosecution notice was delivered late, that was sufficient to rebut the presumption in section 1(3).
The judge considered, among other things, a passage at paragraph 32-153A in Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2009, which stated: “The notice must be posted on such a date that it would reach the defendant in the ordinary course of post within 14 days of the commission of the offence...” and went on to find that although the notice arrived late, the prosecution had complied with its obligation under the Act. Mr Gidden appealed.
Mr Archie Maddan for the appellant; the prosecution did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS said that the judge had been influenced by the passage in Archbold which was misleading.
It was not clear why the irrebuttable presumption found in section 1(2) of the Act, which provided: “A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) ... to have been served on a person if it was by registered post or recorded delivery ... notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received...” did not apply to first-class post, but it did not. That provision only applied to registered post or recorded delivery.
Section 1(3) created a rebuttable presumption of compliance. Accordingly, late service of the notice by first-class post was not effective. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
His Lordship went on to say that he appreciated that construction might cause problems for the police and prosecuting authorities but in times of postal strikes they would have to adopt alternative means to avoid the risk of late delivery. Alternatively, it was a matter for Parliament to amend the Act.
Solicitors: Turner Coulston, Northampton.
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
Published November 10, 2009
Gidden v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Openshaw
Judgment October 29, 2009
In times of postal disruption, prosecuting authorities should not rely on ordinary first-class post for serving notices of intended prosecution.
The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so stated when allowing an appeal by way of case stated by Peter Gidden against the dismissal by Grimsby Crown Court (Judge Tremberg and justices) on February 27, 2009, of his appeal against conviction by S
horpe Justices for an offence of speeding. On October 6, 2007, a car, of which Mr Gidden was a registered keeper, exceeded the speed limit. On October 11, 2007, a notice of intended prosecution was sent by ordinary first-class post to Mr Gidden’s home address.
Under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a person could not be convicted of an offence unless the requirement in section 1(1)(c) that the notice of intended prosecution had been served within 14 days of the date of the commission of the offence had been met.
Mr Gidden did not receive the notice until October 22, 2007, because of industrial action by postal workers. A summons was issued against him by the Chief Constable of Humberside, to which Mr Gidden pleaded not guilty. He was convicted of the offence and appealed to the crown court.
At the appeal, Mr Gidden contended that the provision in section 1(3) of the 1988 Act that “the requirement of subsection (1) ... shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved” created a rebuttable presumption of compliance.
Where the prosecution had conceded that the prosecution notice was delivered late, that was sufficient to rebut the presumption in section 1(3).
The judge considered, among other things, a passage at paragraph 32-153A in Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2009, which stated: “The notice must be posted on such a date that it would reach the defendant in the ordinary course of post within 14 days of the commission of the offence...” and went on to find that although the notice arrived late, the prosecution had complied with its obligation under the Act. Mr Gidden appealed.
Mr Archie Maddan for the appellant; the prosecution did not appear and was not represented.
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS said that the judge had been influenced by the passage in Archbold which was misleading.
It was not clear why the irrebuttable presumption found in section 1(2) of the Act, which provided: “A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) ... to have been served on a person if it was by registered post or recorded delivery ... notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received...” did not apply to first-class post, but it did not. That provision only applied to registered post or recorded delivery.
Section 1(3) created a rebuttable presumption of compliance. Accordingly, late service of the notice by first-class post was not effective. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
His Lordship went on to say that he appreciated that construction might cause problems for the police and prosecuting authorities but in times of postal strikes they would have to adopt alternative means to avoid the risk of late delivery. Alternatively, it was a matter for Parliament to amend the Act.
Solicitors: Turner Coulston, Northampton.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff