NIP/Dwight Yorke/Court Case etc
Discussion
Well In theory something is definately happening this morning... Not sure how you get the judgement though..
Court 22
Before MR JUSTICE OWEN
Thursday, 31st July, 2003
At 10 o’clock
Application
for judgment
CO/823/2003 Mawdesley
Application
for judgment
CO/1041/2003 Yorke
www.courtservice.gov.uk/legal_pro/daily_lists/cause/divisional.htm
Court 22
Before MR JUSTICE OWEN
Thursday, 31st July, 2003
At 10 o’clock
Application
for judgment
CO/823/2003 Mawdesley
Application
for judgment
CO/1041/2003 Yorke
www.courtservice.gov.uk/legal_pro/daily_lists/cause/divisional.htm
Cannot see the judgement and have no idea why people are having a party. Unless I am mistaken this case is only an appeal against a speeding which was based on an unsigned NIP. This issue was also covered in R V Pickford so I would be very surpised if he did not get the decision over turned.
The question of whether a procecution under s172(1) for an unsigned nip will succeed is still open.
The question of whether a procecution under s172(1) for an unsigned nip will succeed is still open.
STOP!!!
Before we all get carried away..
According to the judgement:
"It follows that in my judgement a section 172 form completed with some or all of the information required to be given, but not bearing any signature or mark in the space designated for the signature does not satisfy the requirements of section 12"
This is info on the unsigned_nip yahoo group from someone who was at the court this morning and spoke to Mawdsley's brief .. more will probably follow on Safespeed but it seems that Yorke's NIP was overturned *because his agent filled in the form* and Mawdsleys will be retried because *he filled it in himself* but didn't sign it
So we'll have to wait for further analysis from people who know the law - I'm just passing on what someone at the court was told..
>> Edited by john_p on Thursday 31st July 13:02
Before we all get carried away..
According to the judgement:
"It follows that in my judgement a section 172 form completed with some or all of the information required to be given, but not bearing any signature or mark in the space designated for the signature does not satisfy the requirements of section 12"
This is info on the unsigned_nip yahoo group from someone who was at the court this morning and spoke to Mawdsley's brief .. more will probably follow on Safespeed but it seems that Yorke's NIP was overturned *because his agent filled in the form* and Mawdsleys will be retried because *he filled it in himself* but didn't sign it
So we'll have to wait for further analysis from people who know the law - I'm just passing on what someone at the court was told..
>> Edited by john_p on Thursday 31st July 13:02
john_p said:
STOP!!!
It's not good news!
According to the judgement:
"It follows that in my judgement a section 172 form completed with some or all of the information required to be given, but not bearing any signature or mark in the space designated for the signature does not satisfy the requirements of section 12"
This is info on the unsigned_nip yahoo group from someone who was at the court this morning and spoke to Mawdsley's brief .. more will probably follow on Safespeed but it seems that Yorke's NIP was overturned *because his agent filled in the form* and Mawdsleys will be retried because *he filled it in himself* but didn't sign it
Well not necessarilly bad news, just that there will be further delays. After all requiring signature of the form means that the owner of a car has to incriminate themsleves in order to complete it which may be against the human rights act. So we just move on the next stage. The interesting thing is that so far cases appear to be determined in favour of the motorist!
john_p said:
According to the judgement:
"It follows that in my judgement a section 172 form completed with some or all of the information required to be given, but not bearing any signature or mark in the space designated for the signature does not satisfy the requirements of section 12"
But it's the prosecution's job to satisfy Section 12, not the vehicle's registered owner.
The way I read it is that an unsigned NIP does not satisfy s12, and therefore is inadmissable as evidence. That's exactly what we wanted the judgement to say.
FastShow said:
According to the judgement:
"It follows that in my judgement a section 172 form completed with some or all of the information required to be given, but not bearing any signature or mark in the space designated for the signature does not satisfy the requirements of section 12"
But it's the prosecution's job to satisfy Section 12, not the vehicle's registered owner.
The way I read it is that an unsigned NIP does not satisfy s12, and therefore is inadmissable as evidence. That's exactly what we wanted the judgement to say.
Phew. That stopped me mid-heart attack!
*not that I've had an NIP yet
, but it's nice to know there's a defense if something bad happens!* Please please please can we all read all the threads on this matter.
This case did not set a new president it just followed R V Pickford. It was never really in doubt that the case would go this way. All the rules of evidence require that a written statement of guilt must be signed, if it is not then the evidence is not admissable. So it proves what we already know you cannot be convicted on a speeding chrange on the basis of an unsigned nip.
What is still not been considered is whether if you do not sign the form can you be convicted of failing to identify the driver under s172(1).
Somebody has raised the ECHR Art 6 but Brown v Procurator Fiscal in the Privy Council in Scotland, the Scotish Appeal Court, has already decided in similar circumstances that the defendant had no right to silence. So all the CPS need to now is procecute D Yorke under s172(1) and win and all these threads are redundant.
This case did not set a new president it just followed R V Pickford. It was never really in doubt that the case would go this way. All the rules of evidence require that a written statement of guilt must be signed, if it is not then the evidence is not admissable. So it proves what we already know you cannot be convicted on a speeding chrange on the basis of an unsigned nip.
What is still not been considered is whether if you do not sign the form can you be convicted of failing to identify the driver under s172(1).
Somebody has raised the ECHR Art 6 but Brown v Procurator Fiscal in the Privy Council in Scotland, the Scotish Appeal Court, has already decided in similar circumstances that the defendant had no right to silence. So all the CPS need to now is procecute D Yorke under s172(1) and win and all these threads are redundant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff