Not signing NIP Loophole closed?
Discussion
A couple of months ago I was travelling down the M4 towards Port Talbot in Wales. It was a fine sunny day, light traffic, the traffic was cruising around 80-90mph in the 1st 2 lanes. I was in the middle lane cruising around 85-90mph when I spotted the dreaded Talivan on the bridge about 800-1000m in front. Anyway the result was NIP for 89mph. I tried the 'dont sign the NIP' angle, as I believed this occasion to be a pure money making exercise...every car was travelling safely on a perfectly straight bit of road on fine day, that is not a known accident blackspot. Anyway heres the letter I got back:
"I ackknowledge receipt of the driver information which you have partially completed. I would ask that if you were the driver you complete part 1 of the form in order that a conditional offer of a fixed penalty be sent to you.This form MUST be signed by you in order to preclude the matter being referred to the Magistrates court for both the primary offence and failing to provide the name and address of the driver under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Despite recent media speculation, you may be assured that the process outlined above complies with the ruling at High Court in the case of the Dir. of pUblic Prosection -v- Broomfield 2002, which concluded that the information provided has to be in writing and the document signed by the recipient of the notice. This case means that the hitherto 'loophole' in the law has now been closed.
If you were not responsible for the alleged offence becuase someone else was driving or becasue you sold the vehicle prior to hte date of the offence, you should furnish this office with the details of the driver or the new keeper within ten days of the date of this letter"
Oh well - looks like another 3 points :-(
Anyone else had a similar letter recently ?
cheers
bogie
"I ackknowledge receipt of the driver information which you have partially completed. I would ask that if you were the driver you complete part 1 of the form in order that a conditional offer of a fixed penalty be sent to you.This form MUST be signed by you in order to preclude the matter being referred to the Magistrates court for both the primary offence and failing to provide the name and address of the driver under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Despite recent media speculation, you may be assured that the process outlined above complies with the ruling at High Court in the case of the Dir. of pUblic Prosection -v- Broomfield 2002, which concluded that the information provided has to be in writing and the document signed by the recipient of the notice. This case means that the hitherto 'loophole' in the law has now been closed.
If you were not responsible for the alleged offence becuase someone else was driving or becasue you sold the vehicle prior to hte date of the offence, you should furnish this office with the details of the driver or the new keeper within ten days of the date of this letter"
Oh well - looks like another 3 points :-(
Anyone else had a similar letter recently ?
cheers
bogie
Hows that going to work, when you HAVE filled in all the REQUIRED details?
Id tell em to fluck orf...but then again thats just me.
If theres a way of getting out of it, theres no way on this planet am i gonna "accept" their intention to bestow points and a dip in the wallet.
Fruck em.....maybe madcop can advise better(i know he can)..i just get all indignant when they try to subvert the rules to suit themselves.
Id tell em to fluck orf...but then again thats just me.
If theres a way of getting out of it, theres no way on this planet am i gonna "accept" their intention to bestow points and a dip in the wallet.
Fruck em.....maybe madcop can advise better(i know he can)..i just get all indignant when they try to subvert the rules to suit themselves.
At the end of the day I was technically braking the law...along with the other 50 cars in front of me and teh other 50 or so behind me, and I will end up paying up.
Its the way that its been done that gets my back up .If Id been driving outside the prevailing conditions or erratically, and had been pulled over by a REAL traffic cop and had it explained to me what I was doing wrong I would have no issue with it. In fact Ive lost count of the amount of times that Ive seen patrol cars cruising with the traffic at 80-90mph not bothering anyone as its at their discretion and they obviously are happy that no-one is causing a problem by being 10-15mph over the limit...its the fact they have civvies in a van making money from every passing motorist...there wasnt even any traffic in the far overtaking lane it was so light
Its the way that its been done that gets my back up .If Id been driving outside the prevailing conditions or erratically, and had been pulled over by a REAL traffic cop and had it explained to me what I was doing wrong I would have no issue with it. In fact Ive lost count of the amount of times that Ive seen patrol cars cruising with the traffic at 80-90mph not bothering anyone as its at their discretion and they obviously are happy that no-one is causing a problem by being 10-15mph over the limit...its the fact they have civvies in a van making money from every passing motorist...there wasnt even any traffic in the far overtaking lane it was so light
I am waiting for a NIPS to. I was in the wifes car and sent her form back with a scribble on it from me naming me as the driver? When my form arrives I won't sign it! I just read this link and I intend to make them work as hard as possible before I get 3 points on my licence.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm
It's good info, I think.
.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm
It's good info, I think.
.I was reading that earlier too. I like the bit:
"It is also arguably a breach of my human rights in that I am being subjected to unreasonable and possibly unlawful pressure by being placed into a 'pay us now and save yourself harassment later' position."
If you don't get away with it atleast you would have a bit of fun trying! Has anyone on here given them the runaround like this and it worked?
"It is also arguably a breach of my human rights in that I am being subjected to unreasonable and possibly unlawful pressure by being placed into a 'pay us now and save yourself harassment later' position."
If you don't get away with it atleast you would have a bit of fun trying! Has anyone on here given them the runaround like this and it worked?
here is a summary of the ruling. As I understand it you have fully complied with identifying the driver - you have just not signed the document.
In effect this case is about the 28 days rule not about signing the a document per se. As you will read the driver was acquitted of the offence because his telephone response was inadmissable in court, ie like an unsigned document
Bear in mind I know nothing about the law !!!!
"DPP v Broomfield
QBD (Admin): HH Judge Wilkie: 8 August 2002
It was lawful for the police authority to include reasonable instructions as to the manner in which information was to be provided to them in response to a notice of intended prosecution. A late, telephoned response was inadequate.
Judge Wilkie, sitting as a High Court judge, so held in answer to questions put by the DPP in an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of Mr Recorder Parroy QC sitting in Bristol Crown Court on 18 April 2002. The recorder had upheld an appeal by the defendant, Mr Broomfield, against his conviction by the Bath Wansdyke and Mendip Justices for failing to give information as to the driver of vehicle F848 CYC according to s 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in response to a notice of intended prosecution dated 4 September 2001 sent to him in respect of an alleged speeding offence.
The defendant failed to respond in writing within the 28-day period but had telephoned the Avon and Somerset Constabulary instead. The justices held that the telephone call was sufficient for Mr Broomfield to have complied with the statutory requirements. The DPP did not seek to have the defendant's acquittal overturned but posed the following questions for the opinion of High Court: (1) Whether the recorder was correct in finding that the provision by the defendant of the following information: (i) that he was the registered keeper of vehicle index number F848 CYC and (ii) that he was the driver of the vehicle of F848 CYC at the time that the driver of the vehicle was alleged to have been guilty of an offence on the 28 day of August 2001, to an employee of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary in the course of a telephone conversation outside the 28-day period, was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 172 Road Traffic Act 1988. (2) Whether the recorder was correct to allow the appeal in those circumstances.
HHJ WIKLIE said that it was lawful for an authority to include reasonable instructions as to the manner in which information was to be provided, by whom, when and where, as long as the request was within a reasonable time and by reasonable means. This was especially so since the requirement by the police authority that a written reply be given in the notice of intended prosecution was directed at enabling that document to be used as evidence that the driver was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion. The recorder was therefore wrong to hold that oral information was sufficient to comply with s 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and therefore, since there was no request that the matter be remitted to the court, the questions were simply determined in that manner."
Here is the act that covers this
"172.—(1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence."
In effect this case is about the 28 days rule not about signing the a document per se. As you will read the driver was acquitted of the offence because his telephone response was inadmissable in court, ie like an unsigned document
Bear in mind I know nothing about the law !!!!
"DPP v Broomfield
QBD (Admin): HH Judge Wilkie: 8 August 2002
It was lawful for the police authority to include reasonable instructions as to the manner in which information was to be provided to them in response to a notice of intended prosecution. A late, telephoned response was inadequate.
Judge Wilkie, sitting as a High Court judge, so held in answer to questions put by the DPP in an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of Mr Recorder Parroy QC sitting in Bristol Crown Court on 18 April 2002. The recorder had upheld an appeal by the defendant, Mr Broomfield, against his conviction by the Bath Wansdyke and Mendip Justices for failing to give information as to the driver of vehicle F848 CYC according to s 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in response to a notice of intended prosecution dated 4 September 2001 sent to him in respect of an alleged speeding offence.
The defendant failed to respond in writing within the 28-day period but had telephoned the Avon and Somerset Constabulary instead. The justices held that the telephone call was sufficient for Mr Broomfield to have complied with the statutory requirements. The DPP did not seek to have the defendant's acquittal overturned but posed the following questions for the opinion of High Court: (1) Whether the recorder was correct in finding that the provision by the defendant of the following information: (i) that he was the registered keeper of vehicle index number F848 CYC and (ii) that he was the driver of the vehicle of F848 CYC at the time that the driver of the vehicle was alleged to have been guilty of an offence on the 28 day of August 2001, to an employee of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary in the course of a telephone conversation outside the 28-day period, was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 172 Road Traffic Act 1988. (2) Whether the recorder was correct to allow the appeal in those circumstances.
HHJ WIKLIE said that it was lawful for an authority to include reasonable instructions as to the manner in which information was to be provided, by whom, when and where, as long as the request was within a reasonable time and by reasonable means. This was especially so since the requirement by the police authority that a written reply be given in the notice of intended prosecution was directed at enabling that document to be used as evidence that the driver was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion. The recorder was therefore wrong to hold that oral information was sufficient to comply with s 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and therefore, since there was no request that the matter be remitted to the court, the questions were simply determined in that manner."
Here is the act that covers this
"172.—(1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence."
At the moment I think you can safely tell them to stick their response where the sun doesn't shine. Safespeed have an update.
And yet more... In a more recent case: Bristol Crown Court affirmed that the loophole (the Judge called it a "lacuna" in the law) does exist and works. Decision 13th December 2002. HH Judge Ticehurst.
We're investigating this too.
6th March 2003: We're informed by several sources that the loophole is still open."
Looks like the Axis of Evil will have to try harder. Good luck.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Saturday 29th March 22:31
And yet more... In a more recent case: Bristol Crown Court affirmed that the loophole (the Judge called it a "lacuna" in the law) does exist and works. Decision 13th December 2002. HH Judge Ticehurst.
We're investigating this too.
6th March 2003: We're informed by several sources that the loophole is still open."
Looks like the Axis of Evil will have to try harder. Good luck.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Saturday 29th March 22:31
Ok - so I send it back unsigned and they put it to the magistrates court...whats the worst I can do - 3 pts/£60 for not disclosing driver of the vehicle?
A court appearance whereby I will have to give evidence verbally i.e. they ask me If I was driving the vehicle at the time - i have to say yes (seen the photograph and its 80% probably me in there and no passenger)so I end up with the same...but more expensive (costs, travel etc)
mmmm...will have to think about this one !
A court appearance whereby I will have to give evidence verbally i.e. they ask me If I was driving the vehicle at the time - i have to say yes (seen the photograph and its 80% probably me in there and no passenger)so I end up with the same...but more expensive (costs, travel etc)
mmmm...will have to think about this one !
bogie said: Ok - so I send it back unsigned and they put it to the magistrates court...whats the worst I can do - 3 pts/£60 for not disclosing driver of the vehicle?
A court appearance whereby I will have to give evidence verbally i.e. they ask me If I was driving the vehicle at the time - i have to say yes (seen the photograph and its 80% probably me in there and no passenger)so I end up with the same...but more expensive (costs, travel etc)
mmmm...will have to think about this one !
no at court udont have to go in wicness box
stay out of it and dont give evidence
basic i dear it you go there plead no guilty dont go in the wickness box they can make you
but will try to get you in there some times
wait for cps twat to say his crap
then say theres know law say i have to sing it
of have completed my obligation under law and there is no law say anyone has to sign it.
and dont say you were driving in the court dont lie just dont say it.
they cant use the nip in the court as evidence because it has to be singed.
and if the pic aint got your face in it then there screwed.
>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 29th March 23:05
Bogie, the whole gist of this is that they have to prove it was you. All you say is that you don't want to incriminate yourself or sign anything as that is your right etc. Have you been reading the links? I doubt that it will go to court. Have a look at the link above as well as
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/fight.htm.
There are some sugestons of letters that you can write.
I'm going to give it a go. I like my licence the way it's been for 20 years and if they want to endorse it they shall have to fight to do it.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/fight.htm.
There are some sugestons of letters that you can write.
I'm going to give it a go. I like my licence the way it's been for 20 years and if they want to endorse it they shall have to fight to do it.
Thanks to WVman on uk speedtraps for this info:
THE police are telling you a pack of lies. It does NOT state in the Road Traffic Act that you have to sign the form to complie with this Act. See for yourself below and at www.hmso.gov.uk
READ NOTE 3 and 4 DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE FORM
Good Luck!!!
Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.
1.—(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.
(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.
Requirement of warning etc: supplementary.
2.—(1) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.
(2) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence in respect of which—
(a) a fixed penalty notice (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) has been given or fixed under any provision of that Part, or
(b) a notice has been given under section 54(4) of this Act.
(3) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—
(a) 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 summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or
(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
(4) Where a person is prosecuted on indictment in England and Wales—
(a) for an offence to which section 1 of this Act does not apply, or
(b) for an offence to which that section does apply, but as respects which the requirement of subsection (1) of that section has been satisfied,
that subsection does not prejudice any power of the jury on the charge for that offence, if they find him not guilty of it, to find him guilty of an offence under section 2 or 3 of the [1988 c. 52 .] Road Traffic Act 1988 (reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving).
(5) In Scotland a person may be convicted of an offence under section 2 of that Act by virtue of section 23(1) or (2) of this Act notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence.
(6) A person may be convicted of an offence under section 3 or 29 of that Act (careless and inconsiderate driving or careless and inconsiderate cycling) notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence where—
(a) the charge for the offence has been preferred against him by virtue of section 24(3) of this Act, and
(b) that requirement has been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under section 2 or, as the case may be, 28 of that Act (reckless driving or reckless cycling
oops! And also this:
Road Traffic Offenders ACT 1988 Section 12
This is the ACT that states the proof sent to the court by the police must be sign by the driver. E.g. the police must send a SIGNED NIP for you be done by the court. NO SIGN NIP, NO PROOF, CASE DISMISSED. UNDER RTA 1988 S172 you dont have to sign the NIP
READ SUB-SECTION A AND B
Proof, in summary proceedings, of identity of driver of vehicle.
12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
(2) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which subsection (1) above applies.
(3) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which section 112 of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 112(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion
>> Edited by deltaf on Saturday 29th March 23:14
THE police are telling you a pack of lies. It does NOT state in the Road Traffic Act that you have to sign the form to complie with this Act. See for yourself below and at www.hmso.gov.uk
READ NOTE 3 and 4 DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE FORM
Good Luck!!!
Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.
1.—(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.
(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.
Requirement of warning etc: supplementary.
2.—(1) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.
(2) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence in respect of which—
(a) a fixed penalty notice (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) has been given or fixed under any provision of that Part, or
(b) a notice has been given under section 54(4) of this Act.
(3) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—
(a) 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 summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or
(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
(4) Where a person is prosecuted on indictment in England and Wales—
(a) for an offence to which section 1 of this Act does not apply, or
(b) for an offence to which that section does apply, but as respects which the requirement of subsection (1) of that section has been satisfied,
that subsection does not prejudice any power of the jury on the charge for that offence, if they find him not guilty of it, to find him guilty of an offence under section 2 or 3 of the [1988 c. 52 .] Road Traffic Act 1988 (reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving).
(5) In Scotland a person may be convicted of an offence under section 2 of that Act by virtue of section 23(1) or (2) of this Act notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence.
(6) A person may be convicted of an offence under section 3 or 29 of that Act (careless and inconsiderate driving or careless and inconsiderate cycling) notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence where—
(a) the charge for the offence has been preferred against him by virtue of section 24(3) of this Act, and
(b) that requirement has been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under section 2 or, as the case may be, 28 of that Act (reckless driving or reckless cycling
oops! And also this:
Road Traffic Offenders ACT 1988 Section 12
This is the ACT that states the proof sent to the court by the police must be sign by the driver. E.g. the police must send a SIGNED NIP for you be done by the court. NO SIGN NIP, NO PROOF, CASE DISMISSED. UNDER RTA 1988 S172 you dont have to sign the NIP
READ SUB-SECTION A AND B
Proof, in summary proceedings, of identity of driver of vehicle.
12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
(2) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which subsection (1) above applies.
(3) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which section 112 of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 112(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(b) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion
>> Edited by deltaf on Saturday 29th March 23:14
deltaf said: Thanks to WVman on uk speedtraps for this info:
(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.
Not wishing to digress to far, but I thought the above had been changed to allow the police to use normal postage rather than recorded? AFAIK the police only have to show that the NIP was posted, not that it actually arrived (which is obviously naive given the state of the RM these days).
Re deadly dog's bit above, Paul Smith (safespeed site) has emailed a little more, thus :
"I have been in contact with a solicitor on the following case:
"Bristol Crown Court affirmed that the loophole (the Judge called it a
"lacuna" in the law) does exist and works. Decision 13th December 2002.
HH Judge Ticehurst."
It was explained to me that the dpp-bloomfield case ruling was
considered and dismissed as non applicable.
We are waiting for the case to be published (or something)"
"I have been in contact with a solicitor on the following case:
"Bristol Crown Court affirmed that the loophole (the Judge called it a
"lacuna" in the law) does exist and works. Decision 13th December 2002.
HH Judge Ticehurst."
It was explained to me that the dpp-bloomfield case ruling was
considered and dismissed as non applicable.
We are waiting for the case to be published (or something)"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff