Yorke/Mawdsley case & non-signing NIPs
Discussion
As you know both Yorke and Mawdsley's cases were overturned on appeal by Justice Owen.
Both had failed to sign the NIP's, although there was information provided on them identifying them as the drivers.
Yorke also provided evidence that his agent had filled his NIP in and not himself.
Justice Owen stated that an unsigned NIP still constituted a confession and was valid in court and apparently closed the supposed loop-hole BUT only by assuming the form was filled in by the addressee.
Justice Owen overturned Mawdsleys original conviction but sent the case back to the Mags because they had not tried him on the basis his unsigned NIP was a valid confession and had not ascertained who had filled in the form.
Justice Owen oveturned Yorke's original conviction and did not send the case back to the Mags because during the original trial Yorke had provided evidence his NIP had been filled in by some one else and was not therefore a valid confession.
IMO it was then up to the cops to re-NIP Yorke should they wish to and start the process again.
IMO i reckon Justice Owen has created a new loop-hole.
By filling in all relevant info BUT not signing the NIP and then returning it, the cops will just send it back to be signed.
By ignoring all future requests for a signed NIP, you will get summoned for S172 failing to provide.
Using Justice Owens judgement on Yorke and Mawdsley, that an unsigned NIP DOES satisfy S172 you should be able to demonstrate that S172 was complied with.
This looks to me a signed NIP satisfies S172 and is your confession which the CPS rely on solely for the conviction.
An unsigned NIP satisfies S172 according to Justice Owen, can be assumed to be a confession BUT requires the CPS to provide a bit more evidence that the NIP was filled out by you.
Thoughts please.
>>> Edited by swilly on Tuesday 23 November 18:00
Both had failed to sign the NIP's, although there was information provided on them identifying them as the drivers.
Yorke also provided evidence that his agent had filled his NIP in and not himself.
Justice Owen stated that an unsigned NIP still constituted a confession and was valid in court and apparently closed the supposed loop-hole BUT only by assuming the form was filled in by the addressee.
Justice Owen overturned Mawdsleys original conviction but sent the case back to the Mags because they had not tried him on the basis his unsigned NIP was a valid confession and had not ascertained who had filled in the form.
Justice Owen oveturned Yorke's original conviction and did not send the case back to the Mags because during the original trial Yorke had provided evidence his NIP had been filled in by some one else and was not therefore a valid confession.
IMO it was then up to the cops to re-NIP Yorke should they wish to and start the process again.
IMO i reckon Justice Owen has created a new loop-hole.
By filling in all relevant info BUT not signing the NIP and then returning it, the cops will just send it back to be signed.
By ignoring all future requests for a signed NIP, you will get summoned for S172 failing to provide.
Using Justice Owens judgement on Yorke and Mawdsley, that an unsigned NIP DOES satisfy S172 you should be able to demonstrate that S172 was complied with.
This looks to me a signed NIP satisfies S172 and is your confession which the CPS rely on solely for the conviction.
An unsigned NIP satisfies S172 according to Justice Owen, can be assumed to be a confession BUT requires the CPS to provide a bit more evidence that the NIP was filled out by you.
Thoughts please.
>>> Edited by swilly on Tuesday 23 November 18:00
Was it not the Idris case that stated that S172 form HAD to be signed otherwise information not given?.
See:
www.tinyurl.com/2w6kl
Also have a look at this tombe
www.tinyurl.com/2bz4q
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 24th November 09:14
See:
www.tinyurl.com/2w6kl
Also have a look at this tombe
www.tinyurl.com/2bz4q
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 24th November 09:14
Dwight VanDriver said:
Was it not the Idris case that stated that S172 form HAD to be signed otherwise information not given?.
See:
www.tinyurl.com/2w6kl
Also have a look at this tombe
<a href="http://www.tinyurl.com/2bz4q">www.tinyurl.com/2bz4q</a>
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 24th November 09:14
DVD is correct.
The Francis v DPP ruling welded the unsigned door shut. Check out paragraphs 17 and 18.
Curiouser and curiouser!
"Oh! What a tangled web we weave! whene'er we practice to decieve."
In the end: Right AND the Truth: will out! Keep smilin' folks.
P.S. Edited to say to
Justice Owen:....Please note!
All enforced confessions, by ANY means, No matter WHAT subsequent law has been passed to (so called) legalise it for convenience, IS, in my view, STILL ILLEGAL!
Have the bloody Guts to say so! In the end the Public WILL NOT stand for it! 
It's time to come clean! 
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 25th November 02:20
"Oh! What a tangled web we weave! whene'er we practice to decieve."
In the end: Right AND the Truth: will out! Keep smilin' folks.
P.S. Edited to say to
Justice Owen:....Please note! All enforced confessions, by ANY means, No matter WHAT subsequent law has been passed to (so called) legalise it for convenience, IS, in my view, STILL ILLEGAL!
Have the bloody Guts to say so! In the end the Public WILL NOT stand for it! It's time to come clean! >> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 25th November 02:20
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff