NIP Technicality

[London GT3]

My son has been issued with a summons for Careless Driving in a Car Park in May. The summons arrived last Friday (September).

The offence was alleged to have taken place on Wed 14th May and he was not apprehended at the time. CCTV evidence produced by the Council was provided to the Police who spoke with my son 24 hours after the offence and again a further 24 hours after that. I believe that on both occasions he was spoken to it was in the back of a Police Car and under caution.

My question is whether a suitable NIP has been served. My internet research suggests that either he has to have been spoken to by a Police Officer at the time of the offence or served with a written NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Would the caution some 24 hours after the offence count as a NIP?

Can anyone shed any light please.

Thanks.

[London GT3]

There was no accident. The complaint was made to the Police by the Council CCTV operators. The Police then reviewed the footage and stopped him in the same area the following night.

From the Police Officers Witness Statement my sons driving was irresponsible and immature. He was basically larking around with his mates at midnight in a retail park car park. The rights and wrongs of his actions are not the issue - I am as angry about his alleged antisocial and immature behaviour as any other right thinking individual would be.

The question posed here however relates purely to the technicality of whether he can be issued with a verbal NIP 24 hours after the alleged offence.

Any other constructive comments would also be useful but feeding my son to the lions is not an option I wish to take at this stage!

[London GT3]

Many thanks to all for their genuinely constructive comments. The issue is the technical question of whether or not procedure has been followed.

To fill in some of the other details that have arisen:

There was no accident or third party complaint.

There were not two incidents. Only one. He was spoken to on two separate occasions (consecutive nights) about the same offence.

My son did admit to driving the car and he apologised for his behaviour. The Police Statement makes it clear that he was remorseful for his actions. I am told by my son that it was the second interview (48 hours after the offence) in which he was told by the Officer that they were considering inconsiderate as opposed to dangerous driving and in part they had reached this decision because of his polite behaviour and apologies the previous night.

From the paperwork I have seen he has signed a piece of paper either 24 hours or 48 hours later saying that he received a verbal NIP. Given that he wasn't spoken to at the time of the offence he can only have received the verbal NIP either 24 or 48 hours afterwards

My son is 26. This is not a 17 year old who is scared of what his Dad might say. This makes his behaviour even less acceptable and more anti social. I do not condone it or wish to defend it. However, I am also going to help him avoid prosecution if I can.

I understand the undertone of JBSPORTECH's comments. I am still not going to "hang him out to dry".

Thanks again to all contributors.

[London GT3]

The case referred to above came to Court today. As a result of the excellent and careful handling of the case by AGTLaw (Andrew Thompson) the result was a not guilty verdict based upon the Police Officers failure to observe correct procedure for serving the Notice of Intended Prosecution. It was a complex presentation with a number of facets. AGTLaw's understanding of the law and his knowledge about how the Court procedure would operate was what won the case for us. Thank you Andrew.