Had my day in court .....and won!
Discussion
Up before the magistrates yesterday on a charge of failing to respond to a NIP. My defence was that I had not received it, and Scamera partnership could only prove that it had been sent. (not received).
Found not guilty, but I may be sent a new NIP to identify the driver. However as I have seen the photographic evidence, this will not be possible as the driver cannot be identified.
Found not guilty, but I may be sent a new NIP to identify the driver. However as I have seen the photographic evidence, this will not be possible as the driver cannot be identified.
towman said:
My defence was that I had not received it, and Scamera partnership could only prove that it had been sent. (not received).
This is very good news! well done for sticking up for yourself. I was under the impression they did not need proof of receipt, only of sending!
Am I alone in thinking this?
cheers
Paul
towman said:
Found not guilty, but I may be sent a new NIP to identify the driver. However as I have seen the photographic evidence, this will not be possible as the driver cannot be identified.
But presumably that is your problem not theirs. If you can't identify the driver of your car, then the points accrue to you do they not?
gopher said:
My defence was that I had not received it, and Scamera partnership could only prove that it had been sent. (not received).
This is very good news! well done for sticking up for yourself. I was under the impression they did not need proof of receipt, only of sending!
Am I alone in thinking this?
cheers
Paul
Nope, I thought that too. A civil court deems a letter (from them) to be served if it has been sent by royal mail address to your place of residence. I assumed that this would apply to scamerashit documents too, obviously not.
towman said:
Up before the magistrates yesterday on a charge of failing to respond to a NIP. My defence was that I had not received it, and Scamera partnership could only prove that it had been sent. (not received).
Found not guilty, but I may be sent a new NIP to identify the driver. However as I have seen the photographic evidence, this will not be possible as the driver cannot be identified.
Sounds like a right result. I was under the impression that under the law proof of posting was deemed as delivery. I know DVD can quote the appropriate legislation off the top of his head.
What was your secret?
MrsMiggins said:
Am I correct in thinking that you gave testimony to the fact that you did not receive the NIP and they believed you?
Correct. What helped my case was that the last NIP I received was answered immediately.
Plus they cannot give me the points if I can`t identify the driver. The vehicle in question is one of my Taxis and I am not insured to drive it! Prosecutor got really snotty and lectured me on how to keep records of who was driving the car.
Towman.
Not exactly sure the offence of failing to respond to NOIP. There is no requirement to respond to a NOIP. If you were charged with speeding and contested the sending of the NOIP then you were lucky that it appears that you came across a urine deficient Prosecutor.
Sect 1 (2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..."A notice (NOIP) shall be deemed to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service (or first class post) to him at his last known address......
Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 in similar vein, proof of postage document served.
All UDP had to do was produce Certificate of Posting which would have proved document sent and in sufficient time for it to be received within 14 days and you should have been doomed.
But if you were charged with failing to name the driver under S172 RTA 88 then all that is stated that the requirement on behalf of COP may be made by written notice served by post (no stipulation what type of post). No mention at law to have to prove actual receipt. Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 applies.... deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document....
You state that UDP threatened you with another 172 name and shame. If it was from the same circumstances of a 172 charge then they cannot charge you again for you have been tried for this and acquitted. Known in legal terms as autrefois acquit.
Maybe the Bench did not like the Prosecutor?
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 17th November 08:12
Not exactly sure the offence of failing to respond to NOIP. There is no requirement to respond to a NOIP. If you were charged with speeding and contested the sending of the NOIP then you were lucky that it appears that you came across a urine deficient Prosecutor.
Sect 1 (2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..."A notice (NOIP) shall be deemed to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service (or first class post) to him at his last known address......
Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 in similar vein, proof of postage document served.
All UDP had to do was produce Certificate of Posting which would have proved document sent and in sufficient time for it to be received within 14 days and you should have been doomed.
But if you were charged with failing to name the driver under S172 RTA 88 then all that is stated that the requirement on behalf of COP may be made by written notice served by post (no stipulation what type of post). No mention at law to have to prove actual receipt. Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 applies.... deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document....
You state that UDP threatened you with another 172 name and shame. If it was from the same circumstances of a 172 charge then they cannot charge you again for you have been tried for this and acquitted. Known in legal terms as autrefois acquit.
Maybe the Bench did not like the Prosecutor?
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 17th November 08:12
Dwight VanDriver said:
Sect 1 (2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..."A notice (NOIP) shall be deemed to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service (or first class post) to him at his last known address......
Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 in similar vein, proof of postage document served.
All UDP had to do was produce Certificate of Posting which would have proved document sent and in sufficient time for it to be received within 14 days and you should have been doomed.
But if sent by first class post would they have had a Certificate of Posting to produce ?
my understanding is that it the document 'deemed' to have been received, it still legally has to be received to be valid, in this case Towman gave evidence that it hadn't been, pushing the burden of proof back onto the prosecution. since he was presumable credible they had no way to dispute his evidense, a certificate of postage is the wrong end of the pipeline, this is why most advice says reply with special delivery - when they say we didn't receive your reply you have the evidense to disprove.
bumpkin said:Indeed. Certificate of Posting is, as its name suggests, merely proof it was posted. Special Delivery (or even the cheaper Recorded / Signed-For) is Proof of Delivery.
a certificate of postage is the wrong end of the pipeline, this is why most advice says reply with special delivery
Good for you Towman 
I don't think I'm going to be so lucky.
I've just received a summons for failing to identify the driver. My car was clocked at an outrageous 67 in a 60mph section of dual carriageway in North Wales.
I originally requested a photo which shows 2 blobs in the car. I then responded with names and addresses of those driving the vehicle on the day. They have left it for 3 months and then last week I received a summons to appear before the magistrates at the end of the month
I'm not entirely sure what to do now. Any suggestions
Is the verdict a foregone conclusion before I get to the court??
I don't think I'm going to be so lucky. I've just received a summons for failing to identify the driver. My car was clocked at an outrageous 67 in a 60mph section of dual carriageway in North Wales.
I originally requested a photo which shows 2 blobs in the car. I then responded with names and addresses of those driving the vehicle on the day. They have left it for 3 months and then last week I received a summons to appear before the magistrates at the end of the month
I'm not entirely sure what to do now. Any suggestions Is the verdict a foregone conclusion before I get to the court?? Dwight VanDriver said:
Sect 1 (2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988..."A notice (NOIP) shall be deemed to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service (or first class post) to him at his last known address......
Section 7 The Interpretation Act 1978 in similar vein, proof of postage document served.
Would it be fair to say that the bit in parentheses above, i.e. (or first class post) does not come from the RTOA 1988 directly hence the parentheses?
Or is it due to the later bit sec 85 - (3)
I thought it said
"A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
I agree with the bit regarding the Interpretation act though.
Just wondered??
So....
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 17th November 13:57
bumpkin said:
my understanding is that it the document 'deemed' to have been received, it still legally has to be received to be valid, in this case Towman gave evidence that it hadn't been, pushing the burden of proof back onto the prosecution. since he was presumable credible they had no way to dispute his evidense, a certificate of postage is the wrong end of the pipeline, this is why most advice says reply with special delivery - when they say we didn't receive your reply you have the evidense to disprove.
I think that is what happened! There was a lot of talk between the Mags, the Clerk and the prosecutor which frankly went over my head (too much legalese). But RTA section 1 (2) was referred to and read out verbatim twice in order to get the correct meaning.
DVD - the offence was indeed failing to supply info (Sect 172).
I have since found out that the prosecutor normally works in Crown Court on serious trials and has very little knowledge of motoring offences.
Whatever the reason, I won, and one of my drivers had a lucky escape!
Fif
>>>>>>>Would it be fair to say that the bit in parentheses above, i.e. (or first class post) does not come from the RTOA 1988 directly hence the parentheses? <<<<<
Section 1 RTOA 88 when originally given Royal Assent only mentioned service by Reg or Rec Delivery Post.
In 1994 in the passing of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act,in Schedule 9 added First class post to S 1 RTOA 88:
In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
(c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 17th November 15:22
>>>>>>>Would it be fair to say that the bit in parentheses above, i.e. (or first class post) does not come from the RTOA 1988 directly hence the parentheses? <<<<<
Section 1 RTOA 88 when originally given Royal Assent only mentioned service by Reg or Rec Delivery Post.
In 1994 in the passing of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act,in Schedule 9 added First class post to S 1 RTOA 88:
In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
(c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 17th November 15:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff