NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
OK, for those that don't know, i received an NIP last October for an alleged 84 in 70.
The NIP arrived on day 16, and my postman is willing to stand up in Court and state that he not only handed me the envelope, but saw me open it on day 16, delayed to national postal strike. No postmark on envelope.
So i completed the S172 and sent a letter that the NIP was time expired and that they could have it back.
I received a reply from SCP stating that the law says they have to post the NIP within 14 days, and that they had done so.
I replied, respectfully corrrecting them that the law actually says it must be served on RK within 14 days, and that it was not. And that i had a credible witness.
Anyway, pre-trial hearing today.
CPS solictor says they sent within 14 days, and that i am obviously attempting to put off the inevitable i.e. successful conviction.
I state NIP received outside 14 days, therfore invalid.
Mags ask CPS solictor for relevant law. Solictor says "only had case 5 mins and not familiar with that actual piece of legislation"
I inform mags of the RTOA, actual wording, and after quick chat between themselves, they agree that on the face of it i have a credible defence.
CPS objects - objections ignored, trial set for July 16th.
In conclusion, mags said it will be the job of the trial mags to decide on the "application of the law in real life terms", and that i should ensure my witness turns up. Duty solicitor sitting in back of Court caught me in the corridor and wished me luck!
So, roll on trial.
The NIP arrived on day 16, and my postman is willing to stand up in Court and state that he not only handed me the envelope, but saw me open it on day 16, delayed to national postal strike. No postmark on envelope.
So i completed the S172 and sent a letter that the NIP was time expired and that they could have it back.
I received a reply from SCP stating that the law says they have to post the NIP within 14 days, and that they had done so.
I replied, respectfully corrrecting them that the law actually says it must be served on RK within 14 days, and that it was not. And that i had a credible witness.
Anyway, pre-trial hearing today.
CPS solictor says they sent within 14 days, and that i am obviously attempting to put off the inevitable i.e. successful conviction.
I state NIP received outside 14 days, therfore invalid.
Mags ask CPS solictor for relevant law. Solictor says "only had case 5 mins and not familiar with that actual piece of legislation"
I inform mags of the RTOA, actual wording, and after quick chat between themselves, they agree that on the face of it i have a credible defence.
CPS objects - objections ignored, trial set for July 16th.
In conclusion, mags said it will be the job of the trial mags to decide on the "application of the law in real life terms", and that i should ensure my witness turns up. Duty solicitor sitting in back of Court caught me in the corridor and wished me luck!
So, roll on trial.
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Tuesday 13th May 21:49
GFO875 said:
There is the presumption under section 1 (3) that in every case it will be deemed to have been served unless the contrary is proved.
RTOA 1988(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or
(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) 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.
(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.
Subsection 1 clearly states that the Notice of Intended Prosecution shall be served on the Registered Keeper within 14 days of thev date of offence
And i intend proving the contrary by producing my witness.
You may be right, my solicitors may be right. We'll find out in July.
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Tuesday 13th May 22:20
OK, so i have my trial date of 16th July
Today, i received a letter from CPS.
Basically agreeing with my quoting Sections 1 and 2 RTOA 1988. However, they are quoting Section 1a(c):
"by sending it by Registered post, Recorded Delivery or 1st Class post addressed to him at his last known address"
And that in effect, providing they can show it was posted within 14 days, it is deemed served within those 14 days, even if it was not received within those 14 days.
Case law is Groome v Driscoll 1969 (3 ER 245).
"And that in your case, it will be deemed to be given at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post which in your case it would have been, the notice having been sent by 1st Class post 5 days after the date of offence"
Last paragraph invites me to plead guilty.
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?.....
Today, i received a letter from CPS.
Basically agreeing with my quoting Sections 1 and 2 RTOA 1988. However, they are quoting Section 1a(c):
"by sending it by Registered post, Recorded Delivery or 1st Class post addressed to him at his last known address"
And that in effect, providing they can show it was posted within 14 days, it is deemed served within those 14 days, even if it was not received within those 14 days.
Case law is Groome v Driscoll 1969 (3 ER 245).
"And that in your case, it will be deemed to be given at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post which in your case it would have been, the notice having been sent by 1st Class post 5 days after the date of offence"
Last paragraph invites me to plead guilty.
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?.....
SS2. said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
A google of the case law quoted comes up blank - anyone any knowledge of Groome v Driscoll 1969?
AIUI, Groome v Driscoll refers to (non) service by registered post. It does not apply where normal first class post has been used.And that is where i have to admit i have doubts...
I would like to think the mags. will listen to my argument and decide based on an unbiased opinion, without any indirect pressure of upholding the CPS's claim, concern of the consequences, or any other factor that is not to do with the base facts, arguments etc.
I would like to think the mags. will listen to my argument and decide based on an unbiased opinion, without any indirect pressure of upholding the CPS's claim, concern of the consequences, or any other factor that is not to do with the base facts, arguments etc.
vonhosen said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
And that is where i have to admit i have doubts...
I would like to think the mags. will listen to my argument and decide based on an unbiased opinion, without any indirect pressure of upholding the CPS's claim, concern of the consequences, or any other factor that is not to do with the base facts, arguments etc.
If they've done their homework a great deal of argument will be based on the previous rulings of higher courts.I would like to think the mags. will listen to my argument and decide based on an unbiased opinion, without any indirect pressure of upholding the CPS's claim, concern of the consequences, or any other factor that is not to do with the base facts, arguments etc.
BTW, how important are Scottish rulings in English Courts??
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Thursday 24th July 21:13
vonhosen said:
It is 'service' (sent to arrive in the ordinary course of the post) that must be in the time frame, not receipt within that time frame.
This is the part that seems to cause the most confusion. I have consulted 4 specialist traffic lawyers, and of those, 3 were quite adamant that in their opinions, "service" referred to the delivery as opposed to despatch. The other, bless him, could see both sides of the story and really wasn't sure.. Wasn't Flintoff successful by showing the RK had not received NIP within 14 days?
vonhosen said:
........... or it was sent so late as it couldn't expect to be received within the time limits through the ordinary course of the post
Is a national, well-publicised postal strike included here? BBC showing mountains of unsorted, undelivered post, and scamera partnership still throwing NIPs into sacks each night.. Doesn't sound very "ordinary" to me..Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
As I say the Interpretation Act gives us the position that service is deemed to have been carried out at the point of sending. The RTOA doesn't clearly undermine that & that's why this will be argued until the issue is heard in the highest courts & a definitive ruling is made.
However the IA gives the accused an opportunity to prove this to the contrary. In what way does the RTOA undermine this part of the legislation?VH's quote above says service is deemed to be carried out at point of sending, so, in other words, there is no defence, regardless of what happens to the document, whether delivered within 14 days, outside of 14 days or never due to loss by the Post Office.
Yet in one legal dictionary i have found, service is defined as:
SERVICE, practice: To execute a writ or process........ to serve a summons, is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him; notices and other papers are served by delivering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person.
Nothing about sending mentioned....
Furthermore, if NIP allows accused to take a FP, and he never receives the NIP, then he would lose the right to FP and have to be dealt with by Court. Yet he has done nothing wrong..
Edited by peterguk V6 KWK on Friday 25th July 19:12
big hair said:
If there was a postal strike on then surely the authorites would know that if even the letter was "posted" on day 13 there would be no chance at all of the letter arriving on day 14? Thus it would have been impossible to "serve" the offender?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
So what argument in law would one use if this was the case? Is there any "care or responsibility" or common sense due on the part of the authorities or can they just throw it in a sack regardless...They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
Progress!!!!
Trial adjourned again to 29th October due to my witness on holiday.
Meanwhile, with massive, massive thanks to a fellow PH member, i sent my defence statement to CPS.
Well, CPS have replied, in writing, agreeing with my legal argument, and that all that remains is for me to convince the magistrates of the late arrival of the NIP, which of course should be straightforward since my witness is a Royal Mail employee.
Trial adjourned again to 29th October due to my witness on holiday.
Meanwhile, with massive, massive thanks to a fellow PH member, i sent my defence statement to CPS.
Well, CPS have replied, in writing, agreeing with my legal argument, and that all that remains is for me to convince the magistrates of the late arrival of the NIP, which of course should be straightforward since my witness is a Royal Mail employee.
TPAC said:
Andy Zarse said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Mr Trophy said:
I've been following this from day 1, but never posted. I wish you the best of luck! 
Thanks. Hard work done. CPS will not be contesting the legal issues. Just got to get my witness to court now!So where are all the naysayers now, with their legal arguments shot to pieces??
, but since there are only the testimonies of my witness and myself, maybe the CPS will attempt to rubbish/discredit us in court???Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff