NIP 2-week rule apply to DD?

[sonnenschein3000]

Does the 2 week NIP rule apply to an intended prosecution of dangerous driving?

Is there a time limit for bringing a dangerous driving charge to the courts?

[blue_haddock]

I would have thought if they stopped you for dangerous driving they would have given a verbal NIP in which case i think they have up to 6 months to bring a prosecution.

[sonnenschein3000]

As in, something caught on CCTV or Dashcam but is deemed to be dangerous driving

And the reason for my time limit for prosecution question is that Dangerous Driving is an 'either way' offence, unlike speeding or careless driving. Either way offences are normally not subjected to the 6 month time limit. I just wondered if there was another time limit imposed on dangerous driving

Edited by sonnenschein3000 on Thursday 10th January 10:21

[SS2.]

sonnenschein3000 said:

Does the 2 week NIP rule apply to an intended prosecution of dangerous driving?

Subject to the usual statutory exemptions, yes.

sonnenschein3000 said:

Is there a time limit for bringing a dangerous driving charge to the courts?

AIUI, the normal 6 month time limit for commencement of [summary] proceedings (s.127 MCA 1980) does not apply to Dangerous Driving s.2 RTA 1988) because it's an 'either way' offence.

Edited by SS2. on Thursday 10th January 11:06

[Graveworm]

sonnenschein3000 said:

As in, something caught on CCTV or Dashcam but is deemed to be dangerous driving

And the reason for my time limit for prosecution question is that Dangerous Driving is an 'either way' offence, unlike speeding or careless driving. Either way offences are normally not subjected to the 6 month time limit. I just wondered if there was another time limit imposed on dangerous driving

Edited by sonnenschein3000 on Thursday 10th January 10:21

They do not need to commence proceedings within 6 months for Dangerous driving because it is either way. They do need to comply with the NIP rules in the same way as any schedule 2 offence.
Dashcam CCTV may give the Police some wriggle room. There are exceptions to the need to comply that include:

S2 3a RTOA 88 said:

that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for ... a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement

So if the offence only came to the notice of the police out of time - through no fault of their own and otherwise they acted with due diligence; then a court can accept that an NIP unserved or served out of time is not a bar to prosecution. This is the case with a lot of the Youtube prosecutions because it takes a while to get from the offence, to the video being obtained, to the vehicle being identified along with the RK. The same may apply if there was third party delay in submitting footage, but a court would need to determine on the facts, also, as always even if the court accepts the submission of the NIP they could still agree to an exclusion under fairness (Which is why NIPs exist in the first place).
What wouldn't probably wash is the Police saying we get so many that there is huge backlog etc.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 10th January 11:21

[sonnenschein3000]

Thanks for the replies guys, I appreciate it

[BertBert]

So that makes me ask why do NIPs exist? I was thinking that they existed to allow the identification of the driver to take place under S172. Is that the case? Are there other reasons?
Bert

[Graveworm]

BertBert said:

So that makes me ask why do NIPs exist? I was thinking that they existed to allow the identification of the driver to take place under S172. Is that the case? Are there other reasons?
Bert

S172 RTA is to identify the driver. NIPs are S1 RTOA. Usually the 2 are issued at the same time but it is 2 separate notices. NIPs in various forms go back a way but they were introduced AIUI so that when accused of a driving offence there is a sporting chance of recalling the incident when it's still fresh so they can decide on a defence. That's why they are not required for an accident, or if warned at the time as it's assumed that they would remember it.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 10th January 18:06

[Red 4]

BertBert said:

So that makes me ask why do NIPs exist? I was thinking that they existed to allow the identification of the driver to take place under S172. Is that the case? Are there other reasons?
Bert

It's as per Graveworm's explanation - a NIP is sent to allow the driver to remember the incident.

They are not required for every offence and not required if given verbally or following an accident.

NIPs are required for;

Dangerous Driving
Careless Driving
Failing to conform to certain traffic signs and directions
Failing to conform with the directions of a Police Officer engaged on traffic duty
Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position
Exceeding the speed limit.
Aiding and abetting any of the above.

[Tomo1971]

I assume and as commented the above, the two week NIP time scale is so that the accused can remember the offence and be able, if required, to offer a defence - seems fair?

If the 14 days can be ignored if dashcam, then, really - what is the point? It is no longer 'fair' - for instance, a dashcam clip submitted only shows one angle, the accused may also have a dashcam and show a clearer version of events, yet after 14 days, the chance of that clip, even on a large SD card is likely to have been overwritten.

[V8 Fettler]

Tomo1971 said:

I assume and as commented the above, the two week NIP time scale is so that the accused can remember the offence and be able, if required, to offer a defence - seems fair?

If the 14 days can be ignored if dashcam, then, really - what is the point? It is no longer 'fair' - for instance, a dashcam clip submitted only shows one angle, the accused may also have a dashcam and show a clearer version of events, yet after 14 days, the chance of that clip, even on a large SD card is likely to have been overwritten.

For the motorist, "fairness" disappeared from the justice system a long time ago.

[vonhosen]

Nothing has changed in the legislation, the Police aren't allowed to sit on allegations. When they become aware of the offence they are required to serve the NIP within the time frame, so they can't ignore that requirement & if they do the prosecution should fail. They can't possibly be expected to serve one (or the clock start) until they are aware of the offence.