Discussion
recieved a slip through the door the other day from a police officer asking me to contact him asap which i did and he said its regarding a speding fine over a year ago the person i put down on the nip has been 2 court said it wasnt them driving so i sat tight and received another nip 2day after a year and 2 months after the offence!! is this particular nip acceptable as it is this old or am i just dreaming is the PACE defence working at all anywhere? some feedback on that would b nice and just the best defence really...no abuse please ...cheers all
Was this your Ozzy or American friend that borrowed your car??????????????
NOIP seems to have been served properly at the start of this incident as you say you named the driver on the forms.
Your nominee, I presume and not clear, has failed to respond and has been taken to Court where he has denied being the driver.
As a result the matter is unresolved in their eyes so they have, in accordance with the power they have under the Law, sent you as Reg Keeper, another demand to name the driver which they can do.(NOIP proper would be in the first set of papers).
How they play this when you respond is anybodies guess. If you name him again, they may summons you for failing to name and use the nominee as evidence against you on the premis that the reg keeper should have been aware who the driver was.
Presume when you responded to Plod's request for a tete a tete you would get some information on the lie of the land and what was in store?
DVD
NOIP seems to have been served properly at the start of this incident as you say you named the driver on the forms.
Your nominee, I presume and not clear, has failed to respond and has been taken to Court where he has denied being the driver.
As a result the matter is unresolved in their eyes so they have, in accordance with the power they have under the Law, sent you as Reg Keeper, another demand to name the driver which they can do.(NOIP proper would be in the first set of papers).
How they play this when you respond is anybodies guess. If you name him again, they may summons you for failing to name and use the nominee as evidence against you on the premis that the reg keeper should have been aware who the driver was.
Presume when you responded to Plod's request for a tete a tete you would get some information on the lie of the land and what was in store?
DVD
Ahh Kevin this is just the stuff that Lawyers get rich upon as there is so may ifs and ands and we mere mortals can only contemplate and try to make sense of. As I said originally I don’t know which way they are going to play it.
I would suspect it might be more prudent for them to go for failing to name than the speeding offence on the grounds that you state. Would be very interesting if he named himself (see later). Can read your mind -precisely.
Road Traffic Offenders Act (Sched 1) does not, for the offence of speeding, grant the extended time limit on proceedings up to 3 years from offence coming to the Notice of the Prosecutor. Neither does 172 RTA 88, but suffice under that Section for COP to ask for details having knowledge that AN offence has been committed. There is no time scale mentioned re the offence other than the 28 days return..
So if Sched 1 RTOA does not apply then is it not back to Magistrates Courts Act that IIRC says information to be laid within 6 months of a summary offence which will only be brought about when poster fails to name this second occasion.
Also bare in mind they may be considering conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which is an indictable offence without time limit?
DVD
I would suspect it might be more prudent for them to go for failing to name than the speeding offence on the grounds that you state. Would be very interesting if he named himself (see later). Can read your mind -precisely.
Road Traffic Offenders Act (Sched 1) does not, for the offence of speeding, grant the extended time limit on proceedings up to 3 years from offence coming to the Notice of the Prosecutor. Neither does 172 RTA 88, but suffice under that Section for COP to ask for details having knowledge that AN offence has been committed. There is no time scale mentioned re the offence other than the 28 days return..
So if Sched 1 RTOA does not apply then is it not back to Magistrates Courts Act that IIRC says information to be laid within 6 months of a summary offence which will only be brought about when poster fails to name this second occasion.
Also bare in mind they may be considering conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which is an indictable offence without time limit?
DVD
Surely if you name the person you believe to have been driving, and that person then denies being the driver, it is for the law to decide who is telling the truth by reference to supporting evidence. If no other evidence exists you have the classic case of one person's word against the other.
So, I say he/she was driving and he/she says he/she wasn't - well, he/she might well say that wouldn't they.
That's where the entire requirement to confess falls down, IMHO, and it is basically wrong to require you to fess-up, name someone who will 'fess-up', or be prosecuted for failing to do one of those two things.
I've long wondered what happens if the person named writes back saying, basically, I don't understand this. I'm not the registered keeper, I was not driving the vehicle at the time and cannot, therefore confess or give you the name of someone who will confess. Why have I received this, it's nothing to do with me, all you have is a piece of paper with my name and address on it, i.e. no real evidence to connect me with an alleged offence of any sort.
The keeper can still say that he/she believes the person named was the driver and will, if necessary, swear to it in court.
Bit of a dilemma, what?
So, I say he/she was driving and he/she says he/she wasn't - well, he/she might well say that wouldn't they.
That's where the entire requirement to confess falls down, IMHO, and it is basically wrong to require you to fess-up, name someone who will 'fess-up', or be prosecuted for failing to do one of those two things.
I've long wondered what happens if the person named writes back saying, basically, I don't understand this. I'm not the registered keeper, I was not driving the vehicle at the time and cannot, therefore confess or give you the name of someone who will confess. Why have I received this, it's nothing to do with me, all you have is a piece of paper with my name and address on it, i.e. no real evidence to connect me with an alleged offence of any sort.
The keeper can still say that he/she believes the person named was the driver and will, if necessary, swear to it in court.
Bit of a dilemma, what?
.....and presicely why the vehicle should ALWAYS be stopped at the time of the "offence" and reliance on automated "box brownies" or someone in a locked van "getting off on it" with a digital jobbie and a long focus lens are a perversion of the justice system dating from the Magna Carta of 1215!
This:...... "prove it wasn't you" approach IS and has ALWAYS been a perversion of justice! Damned American styled "Mobsters" the lot of 'em!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 21st July 02:52
This:...... "prove it wasn't you" approach IS and has ALWAYS been a perversion of justice! Damned American styled "Mobsters" the lot of 'em!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 21st July 02:52
ill keep u all updated, my friend is back from greece today and i think he may have an idea who was driving so im off to give him my NIP i did tell the officer on the phone that i 'have worked my backside off' trying to locate the driver and he said 'ill go back to the courts and see what they want to do' there desperate for that 60 quid!! so just another NIP through the door the fact is that the person i named the 1st time actually went to court and said it wasnt them cant gaurantee that the next person will reply though may i point out i havnt even seen a picture yet or certificates of the device used and its been over a year now do u think they may have spilt coffee over them by now just hoping ill cave in? maybe if i asked for the pics to help me identify the driver and they say they dont have them anymore is this good enough to tell em to f**k off? no doubt another year will pass im just pleased they dont charge interest on that 60 quid ..thanks DVD for being gentle with me 
daveyctvr said:
DVD?.... can u please clarify the 3year to issue summons thing u go on about in nursery language 4me just want to fully understand what u mean, if this is dragged out for 3years does it just get binned ? u seem really clever lol..***waits***....
IN a nutshell, straight forward summary offences i.e. those triable at Mags Court in general have a limitation on proceedings of 6 months. If an information is not laid within that time scale then no action can be taken. Once the information is laid then summons can lie of file pending service as long as you want but the longer the more open to criticism.
But under the Road Traffic Offender Act 1988 schedule 1
outlines limitation on proceedings in relation to certain Traffic Offences i.e. dangerous, due care, fail to conform, no Insurance, drive disq are a few examples. In these cases and speeding/fail to name and shame is not included, then limitation on proceedings kick it at up to 6 months of coming to the notice of the prosecutor but not more than 3 years. What this means is that if the prosecutor receives information of one of these offences then he has to lay information within 6 months providing not more than 3 years have elapsed since getting the information. Outside this time limit - no action.
DVD
ok ive got my naughty head on 2day... if anyone can string a speeding case out for 3years or more having the police running around looking for manjinder singh or bobby davro after the 3 years they get back to u and say 'look will u just pay the bloody cash so we can bin your file' u can say sorry but its been over 3years? is it as easy as that? dont suppose u cud be done for perverting the course of justice as every NIP theyve sent uve complied with and say u swore in court that u were not the driver also makes u look good suppose, i mean its not your fault the guy who was driving has moved house now and you have no idea where to, is that your fault? u have still done your half of the bargain. god theer are so many ifs and buts so many scenarios,pleased theer wasnt a rucksack in the backseat wen the camera went off probably try and do me for some terrorism act ,while my trousers are alraedy pulled down go for the double whammy!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff