NIP signature again...................

[ribol]

With a bit of luck I will never need to put this theory to the test but I have become obsessed with this subject. I have only one question I need an answer to:

Forgetting all the theory for a minute, has anybody on here (not a friend of a friend etc) actually got off a conviction by doing this?

Ivan

[apache]

watch this space.....there are a few guys who have 'ongoing' situations, which seems to validate the theory

[mybrainhurts]

From two other threads nearby :


Take a looky here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3047293.stm

Looks like Dwight Yorke has it sorted.

[ribol]

Hope it turns out to be true, no great fan of the "system" but as yet it's only theory as far as I can make out.

Ivan

[swilly]

Having read the news link above, i can't see how the law can be overhauled to remove this no-signature loophole.

You can't force somebody to put their signature to something.

[smeagol]

swilly said: Having read the news link above, i can't see how the law can be overhauled to remove this no-signature loophole.

You can't force somebody to put their signature to something.

Whilst you cannot force someone ot sign you can prosecute if they haven't. I believe the tax office have this clause. (ie it states in the guidelines the form must be signed and accompanied by payment, if not you are prosecuted) How the electronic version works I don't know as my accountant sorts this all out.

Equally in my profession (teaching) there is an excemption to the rehabilitation of offendors act (in other words the police check that I'm suitable to teach). This form has to be signed otherwise the police search cannot take place and I don't get the job.

Whilst both aren't "forcing" you there are serious consequences if you don't.

AFIK the nip example has the loophole that the form does not state that it is a criminal offense not to sign the declaration but it IS a criminal offense not provide details of the driver.

[swilly]

smeagol said:
Whilst you cannot force someone ot sign you can prosecute if they haven't. I believe the tax office have this clause. (ie it states in the guidelines the form must be signed and accompanied by payment, if not you are prosecuted) How the electronic version works I don't know as my accountant sorts this all out.

But in this case your are required by law to make a declaration/statement of your means. The information you provide only becomes 'your' declaration when you sign your name to it.

This is different to a confession, where there is no law forcing you to provide a confession/statement and you do have the choice not to give evidence at court.

Surely not providing a confession and not being forced to provide, is one of the basic human rights in the European charter bolloks.

[smeagol]

Quite agree, however they have overturned the european stuff with the not naming driver bit I believe. ie you don't have a right to silence over not filling in the form. ie if you don't provide drivers details you can be prosecuted. They have made a cock-up in that the form doesn't say it must be signed.

The question is, if they do close the loophole are they actually forcing a confession as you say which is against human rights.

I was only pointing out that there are forms which it is an offense not to sign.

[swilly]

point taken

[lucozade]

Bull! The Right To Silence case has not been overturned. It's still with the ECHR, have a look here:

www.righttosilence.org.uk/

Please lets not refer to Pub chat without first having the facts.

>> Edited by lucozade on Thursday 22 May 15:21

[smeagol]

Lucozade:

a) I said, I believe.
b) I resent the fact you said this was pub talk, nothing of it. AFIK the s172 IS law and is currently being appealed but until that action succeeds (I hope)it is still law. ie you can be prosecuted under s172 for not providing information on the driver.
c) your link refers to the appeal only and not any actual evidence that the EHCR have overturned the S172 law therefore the law still stands. Equally the ABD site states this as advice only and no legal standings.

Perhaps before you start refering an opinion as bull you should have read the whole thread. In which I was stating that there is a precedence in forms that do have to be signed and that at the moment the s172 is legally binding. Hence why if you sign it it counts as a confession and you get prosecuted and If you fail to complete the form naming the driver (even yourself) your get done for not providing evidence.

The legal loophole is the fact the signiture is not a legal requirement and so if you don't sign the form you have provided the drivers details (ie yourself) but it cannot be used as a confesssion in a court of law.

>> Edited by smeagol on Thursday 22 May 20:47

[ribol]

I take it that the answer is that despite all the various points of views and opinions nobody on here has actually done this and got away with it then?

Ivan

[Deadly Dog]

ribol said: I take it that the answer is that despite all the various points of views and opinions nobody on here has actually done this and got away with it then?

Ivan

Defendants have succeeded, but it is not a simple case of a letter being sent confirming the charges have been dropped. A cycle of events takes place that will eventually peter out.

For more definitive information may I suggest you subscribe here



>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Friday 23 May 10:14

[gshughes]

ribol said: I take it that the answer is that despite all the various points of views and opinions nobody on here has actually done this and got away with it then?

Ivan

A friend of mine got off, because he genuinely wasn't sure whether he or his wife was driving on the part of the journey where the scamera got them. He reckoned that just picking one of them at random would be tantamount to perjury, and stuck to his guns. After a lot of toing and froing with threats to go to court etc, Merseyside Police eventually dropped the case.