Not replying to a NIP when I'm not there
Discussion
I've not been home for over a month.
What happens if I find a NIP on my doormat when I get home? From what I've heard I'm likely to have to go to court where I will have to prove that I haven't refused to name the driver - or am I shafted simply because I haven't named the driver? - and I'm also forced to go to court and get lumped with costs and a larger than normal fine because I haven't sent a wedge to a scameraship.
Any thoughts?
What happens if I find a NIP on my doormat when I get home? From what I've heard I'm likely to have to go to court where I will have to prove that I haven't refused to name the driver - or am I shafted simply because I haven't named the driver? - and I'm also forced to go to court and get lumped with costs and a larger than normal fine because I haven't sent a wedge to a scameraship.
Any thoughts?
matchless said:
you have to PTROVE nothing its up to the Courts to do that, remember Innocent till proven Guilty in English Law? DOH!
Like all generalisations, that maxim is wrong.
You may have to prove that you have a driving licence.
You may have to prove that you have a TV licence.
You may have to prove that your car has a MOT.
You may have to prove that you are insured to drive a specific car.
etc,etc,etc.
When Plod stops you and asks to see your Driving Licence do you not prove that you have one by producing. Guilty until innocence proved?
Regarding the letter on the mat for a month. Whilst whoever may go into prosection mode if 172 name and shame is included in the NOIP, then there is a defence under the Act that can be brought forward.
Whether it is believeable is , of course, another matter.....
dvd
Regarding the letter on the mat for a month. Whilst whoever may go into prosection mode if 172 name and shame is included in the NOIP, then there is a defence under the Act that can be brought forward.
Whether it is believeable is , of course, another matter.....
dvd
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=222479
worked for me. proof of posting is not proof of receipt.
worked for me. proof of posting is not proof of receipt.
Tis Sean the backbone of UK Law from times past.
The onus or burden of proof of any fact rests on the person alleging i.e.up to the Prosecution to satisfy a Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence proves the offender Guilty of the offence charged. But as you know, when the facts are proved the burden of proof is shifted to the accused who has to prove his innocence. So firstly a person is innocent until Prosecution prove his Guilt.
But, there is always some buts - a bit like the motorboat capital of England, Bradford -butbut but but, certain Acts of parliament place the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence i.e. D Licence mentioned, possession of offensive weapons i.e. tools of his trade and not for causing injury etc.
Would you have it any other way?. La belle Francaise I understand is the otherway around i.e. Guilty until proved innocent.
And again there is the Human Rights Bill......
dvd
The onus or burden of proof of any fact rests on the person alleging i.e.up to the Prosecution to satisfy a Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence proves the offender Guilty of the offence charged. But as you know, when the facts are proved the burden of proof is shifted to the accused who has to prove his innocence. So firstly a person is innocent until Prosecution prove his Guilt.
But, there is always some buts - a bit like the motorboat capital of England, Bradford -butbut but but, certain Acts of parliament place the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence i.e. D Licence mentioned, possession of offensive weapons i.e. tools of his trade and not for causing injury etc.
Would you have it any other way?. La belle Francaise I understand is the otherway around i.e. Guilty until proved innocent.
And again there is the Human Rights Bill......
dvd
matchless said:
you have to PTROVE nothing its up to the Courts to do that, remember Innocent till proven Guilty in English Law? DOH!
This is wrong. In the case of the NIP provided it is posted in a certain manner (14days 1st class etc) the law specifically states that the NIP has been served lawfully unless you can prove otherwise.
You are guilty in the eyes of the law unless you can prove a negative eg you never received it.
V8 Archie said:Upon receipt of summons for failure to furnish, then you would have to convince the Mags that it was not practicable to provide the information within the timescales required. I guess that providing proof that you were away from home for an extended period and that your mail was not being forwarded would be a good start,
What happens if I find a NIP on my doormat when I get home? From what I've heard I'm likely to have to go to court where I will have to prove that I haven't refused to name the driver - or am I shafted simply because I haven't named the driver?
Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it
The shift in onus from presumption of innocence started in the 1930's when legislation emerged where the ommission to do something became an offence. A rough guide would be 'commission offence' (where you allegedly DO something which is unlawful) requires Crown to prove guilt beyond etc and 'ommission offence' (where you DO NOT do something which is unlawful) where there is a burden on the defendant. Even in the 'ommission offences' there is a burden on the Crown to prove circumstances beyond etc, before the burden shifts. For example, a defendant has to prove that he has a valid driving licence, but only after the Crown prove that he was in charge of a motor vehicle under circumstances that require him to have a valid driving licence.
Not trying to hijack the thread thread, but this is subject close to my heart. I am often out the country for two or three weeks in a go. When I am here, I do 100 mile round trip daily commute through a heavily gatsoed area. If I get home home, and find I have an NIP, how do I know when it was sent / issued ( the last one was "date as post mark", but it had no post mark ( and they let me off for that!!! )
PS sorry for carp spelling / grammer, have had a few beers / wines tonight as the sencible car has just blown its engine & I am having having sence of humer ( and wallet )failer ( as is Mrs Big Dunc... ).
PS sorry for carp spelling / grammer, have had a few beers / wines tonight as the sencible car has just blown its engine & I am having having sence of humer ( and wallet )failer ( as is Mrs Big Dunc... ).
matchless said:
BOR act 1669, still stands today as it always will like Magna Carta, an never be altered you see as to try and do so is "Ultra Vires" (null and Void!)
Ultra vires is not null and void, but means to act beyond ones power. Since these cases are all based on statute (not common law) the courts derive their power from the statute and are therefore not ultra vires.
kenp said:
BOR act 1669, still stands today as it always will like Magna Carta, an never be altered you see as to try and do so is "Ultra Vires" (null and Void!)
Ultra vires is not null and void, but means to act beyond ones power. Since these cases are all based on statute (not common law) the courts derive their power from the statute and are therefore not ultra vires.
Yeah, but...
The BoR is the only basis for legitimacy Parliament and the Crown in England have, Claim of Right does a similar thing in Scotland - neither allows a variation in powers.
Wheter the sucessors can claim any legitimacy following the Act of Union is moot.
I'd prefer to be shot of the lot.
fluffnik said:
BOR act 1669, still stands today as it always will like Magna Carta, an never be altered you see as to try and do so is "Ultra Vires" (null and Void!)
Ultra vires is not null and void, but means to act beyond ones power. Since these cases are all based on statute (not common law) the courts derive their power from the statute and are therefore not ultra vires.
Yeah, but...
The BoR is the only basis for legitimacy Parliament and the Crown in England have, Claim of Right does a similar thing in Scotland - neither allows a variation in powers.
Wheter the sucessors can claim any legitimacy following the Act of Union is moot.
I'd prefer to be shot of the lot.
Yeah, but...
Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound by an earlier Parliament.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff