Discussion
The missus recently received a NIP (doing speed in excess of the 50 mph limit). 6am in morning, great weather, no traffic, etc, etc.
Unfortunately for me, it was me was driving!! Two questions (as luckily never received a NIP before):
1 Isn't it normal for them to tell you the speed you were going?
2 To take advantage of the possible non-signing loophole, does it mean that my missus shouldn't sign after identifying me as the driver?
Cheers for any replies!
Unfortunately for me, it was me was driving!! Two questions (as luckily never received a NIP before):
1 Isn't it normal for them to tell you the speed you were going?
2 To take advantage of the possible non-signing loophole, does it mean that my missus shouldn't sign after identifying me as the driver?
Cheers for any replies!
There are two ways to approach it, I suppose:
1. You ignore the fact that it was you driving and follow the non-signing of the NIP with your wife naming herself as the driver. Since they'll be unable to prosecute, it's pretty irrelevant who was or wasn't driving.
2. Your wife signs and returns the NIP, naming you as the driver. You should then receive a new NIP which you fill in and obviously don't sign. The issue with this is that they do have a signed NIP, though in theory they can't use it as an admission of guilt, since you didn't make it.
Dunno which route I'd follow, TBH.
1. You ignore the fact that it was you driving and follow the non-signing of the NIP with your wife naming herself as the driver. Since they'll be unable to prosecute, it's pretty irrelevant who was or wasn't driving.
2. Your wife signs and returns the NIP, naming you as the driver. You should then receive a new NIP which you fill in and obviously don't sign. The issue with this is that they do have a signed NIP, though in theory they can't use it as an admission of guilt, since you didn't make it.
Dunno which route I'd follow, TBH.
swilly said: Get you wife to fill it in, giving you as the driver, but without signing it.
OK then, there are three ways to approach it.
Legally, there's no reason your wife has to sign it, the law applies the same to her as it does to you. However, if she returns it unsigned naming you, she can be called upon in court to give evidence, whereas you can't (you can't be forced to give evidence that incriminates yourself which is part of the loophole).
It's all a bit dodgy.
FastShow said:
....whereas you can't (you can't be forced to give evidence that incriminates yourself which is part of the loophole).
It's all a bit dodgy.
That is not the reason this act works. the reason is that the NIP signed is used as a confession. Unsigned confessions are not admissable evidence. It is no more complex than that. It has nothing to do with not being able to self incriminate yourself as you clearly can do so.
madcop said:
That is not the reason this act works. the reason is that the NIP signed is used as a confession. Unsigned confessions are not admissable evidence. It is no more complex than that. It has nothing to do with not being able to self incriminate yourself as you clearly can do so.
But as the CPS become increasingly frustrated with the issue as it stands, they're going to become more desperate in the actions they take. I don't see why you should give them any more ammunition than you absolutely have to.
I can't see that there's anything to stop the registered keeper being called to give evidence against the driver, so it seems silly to give the CPS the opportunity to be able to do that.
checked the photo, it wasn't my car or registration. 
FastShow said:
I can't see that there's anything to stop the registered keeper being called to give evidence against the driver, so it seems silly to give the CPS the opportunity to be able to do that.
They could call the registered keeper to give evidence that the person driving the car had use of it on that day. They could not get the registered keeper to give evidence about the offence itself because they would have to have been in the car and aware that an offence was being committed at that point for the information to be of any use. They would have to get a witness summons issued if the witness refused to give a statement which is most unlikely in this sort of case.
Only witnesses to the actual offence would be credible. It would be helpful for the prosecution to have a witness tell the court who had the car on the day when control of it was handed over. Beyond that how would the registered owner know who was responsible for an offence unless the offender admitted it to them or they were in the car when it happened?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff