Court date for not signing
Discussion
Well it's finally happened. Got a 172 through the post a while back and sent it back unsigned. They came back with the "Broomfield case" I quoted a reply from www.Pepipoo.co.uk. They came back with the following:
Dear*******,
Reference No: ********
I refer to your letter of 2lst July 2003 and having examined a transcript of the judgment in DPP v Broomfield, I would point out that under paragraph 24 it clearly and unambiguously declares that “the requirement in the Notice of Intended Prosecution that the information should be given in written form and signed by the accused is not merely a whim of those who produced the form, but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion”.
This case deals directly with failure to supply the name and address of the driver in an acceptable format, namely in writing with the applicable signature provided. In the case of Pickford, this was proceeded with and appealed on different grounds, namely admissible confessions following conviction for an excess speed offence at the lower court.
The 28 days in which to complete the S172 Driver Information form has now expired, therefore, all papers have now been forwarded to the Magistrates’ Court for proceedings. You will be informed of the date, time and venue in due course.
I trust this explains the position for you.
Comments please.
Dear*******,
Reference No: ********
I refer to your letter of 2lst July 2003 and having examined a transcript of the judgment in DPP v Broomfield, I would point out that under paragraph 24 it clearly and unambiguously declares that “the requirement in the Notice of Intended Prosecution that the information should be given in written form and signed by the accused is not merely a whim of those who produced the form, but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion”.
This case deals directly with failure to supply the name and address of the driver in an acceptable format, namely in writing with the applicable signature provided. In the case of Pickford, this was proceeded with and appealed on different grounds, namely admissible confessions following conviction for an excess speed offence at the lower court.
The 28 days in which to complete the S172 Driver Information form has now expired, therefore, all papers have now been forwarded to the Magistrates’ Court for proceedings. You will be informed of the date, time and venue in due course.
I trust this explains the position for you.
Comments please.
blueyes said:
Well it's finally happened. Got a 172 through the post a while back and sent it back unsigned. They came back with the "Broomfield case" I quoted a reply from www.Pepipoo.co.uk. They came back with the following:
Dear*******,
Reference No: ********
I refer to your letter of 2lst July 2003 and having examined a transcrpt of the judgment in DPP v Broomfield, I would point out that under paragraph 24 it clearly and unambiguously declares that “the requirement in the Notice of Intended Prosecution that the information should be given in written form and signed by the accused is not merely a whim of those who produced the form, but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion”.
This case deals directly with failure to supply the name and address of the driver in an acceptable format, namely in writing with the applicable signature provided. In the case of Pickford, this was proceeded with and appealed on different grounds, namely admissible confessions following conviction for an excess speed offence at the lower court.
The 28 days in which to complete the S172 Driver Information form has now expired, therefore, all papers have now been forwarded to the Magistrates’ Court for proceedings. You will be informed of the date, time and venue in due course.
I trust this explains the position for you.
Comments please.
Well as far as I can see you can't now accept the NIP, so I'd just wait and see. There are going to be scores of these cases, so by the time yours gets listed someone may be trying a different tack. After all I assume that Mawdsley (sp?) if convicted by the Magistrates court won't take the punishment lying down.
Isn't the offence for not completing the NIP 3 points and £60? Thats the same or potentially less than speeding. Not only that but I seem to recall that someone (Madcop?) implied that a failure to complete a NIP was not an offence that would load your insurance premium.
However as I am not in your position I can spout forth!
chrisgr31 said:
Isn't the offence for not completing the NIP 3 points and £60? Thats the same or potentially less than speeding. Not only that but I seem to recall that someone (Madcop?) implied that a failure to complete a NIP was not an offence that would load your insurance premium.
However as I am not in your position I can spout forth!
Don't really care what they do. They can't give me the death sentence. Glad I stood up and fought.. and I haven't given up yet!
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees"
I'm not qualified in any respect to comment on legal issues but....
The NIP provides a space for you to sign, therefore this creates the 'requirement'.
Similarly if they put a space asking for your inside leg measurement this would also create a 'requirement'.
Are these LEGAL requirements though.
I think not.
The NIP and S172 requires that information is provided by the person the vehicle is registered to about the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
In most cases the registered person is also going to be the driver.
You give your name and address etc and decided to leave it unsigned.
This IMHO constitutes information provided to the police to assist in their enquiries and is all that is required to conform to S172.
By signing your name to this information, this document then ceases to be simply 'information' and becomes your 'confession' of guilt.
This 'confession' is what they are referring to when they say
"but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle" ie used as a confession. After all a more traditional confession for a crime, lets say bank robbery, will also not be accepted in court unless the accused signs it. The judges comments simply refer to the significance of asking for the 'signature' but he does not say the signature is covered by the reuirmements of S172.
IMHO it is not your responsibility to provide a 'confession' ,but simply to provide information that S172 requires, unless you wish to do so out of some moral or ethical desire.
Certainly there is no legal requirement for you to 'confess' to anything whatsoever.
The Police/CPS are IMHO simply trying to establish that because a signature is 'asked' for on the NIP that the S172 requirement for 'information' covers this signature requiremnt also.
Going back to my original example of the 'inside leg measuremnet' requirement, you would have no trouble dismissing this as a requirment of S172 would you and similarly the signature requirement should be so dismissed.
Of course whoever designed the NIP intended that the accused should sign it and and as a consequence save the police the work of investigating it and enable the smooth flow of convictions and revenue from Gatso's and the like....
....and this HAS been the case for many years, but they have been toooo greedy and forced the public into looking at ways out and loopholes.
And here the loophole is - Dont sign.
To reiterrate, the judges comments regarding the significance of signing are correct and clear ie the intention of asking you to sign is to CONVERT simple INFORMATION into a CONFESSION, that makes sense from thje point of view of the police/CPS.
But you are not legally required to do so.
Just make sure you get a good solicitor who is willing to actually fight your case seriously as many (i have met these types) may not want to get involved or simply disagree that you should get away with it.
>> Edited : The NIP is intended to embody the requirements of S172, but does not necessarily have to limit the information it asks for to that of S172, which in this case the additional info asked for is the SIGNATURE
>> Edited by swilly on Thursday 7th August 10:52
The NIP provides a space for you to sign, therefore this creates the 'requirement'.
Similarly if they put a space asking for your inside leg measurement this would also create a 'requirement'.
Are these LEGAL requirements though.
I think not.
The NIP and S172 requires that information is provided by the person the vehicle is registered to about the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
In most cases the registered person is also going to be the driver.
You give your name and address etc and decided to leave it unsigned.
This IMHO constitutes information provided to the police to assist in their enquiries and is all that is required to conform to S172.
By signing your name to this information, this document then ceases to be simply 'information' and becomes your 'confession' of guilt.
This 'confession' is what they are referring to when they say
"but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle" ie used as a confession. After all a more traditional confession for a crime, lets say bank robbery, will also not be accepted in court unless the accused signs it. The judges comments simply refer to the significance of asking for the 'signature' but he does not say the signature is covered by the reuirmements of S172.
IMHO it is not your responsibility to provide a 'confession' ,but simply to provide information that S172 requires, unless you wish to do so out of some moral or ethical desire.
Certainly there is no legal requirement for you to 'confess' to anything whatsoever.
The Police/CPS are IMHO simply trying to establish that because a signature is 'asked' for on the NIP that the S172 requirement for 'information' covers this signature requiremnt also.
Going back to my original example of the 'inside leg measuremnet' requirement, you would have no trouble dismissing this as a requirment of S172 would you and similarly the signature requirement should be so dismissed.
Of course whoever designed the NIP intended that the accused should sign it and and as a consequence save the police the work of investigating it and enable the smooth flow of convictions and revenue from Gatso's and the like....
....and this HAS been the case for many years, but they have been toooo greedy and forced the public into looking at ways out and loopholes.
And here the loophole is - Dont sign.
To reiterrate, the judges comments regarding the significance of signing are correct and clear ie the intention of asking you to sign is to CONVERT simple INFORMATION into a CONFESSION, that makes sense from thje point of view of the police/CPS.
But you are not legally required to do so.
Just make sure you get a good solicitor who is willing to actually fight your case seriously as many (i have met these types) may not want to get involved or simply disagree that you should get away with it.
>> Edited : The NIP is intended to embody the requirements of S172, but does not necessarily have to limit the information it asks for to that of S172, which in this case the additional info asked for is the SIGNATURE
>> Edited by swilly on Thursday 7th August 10:52
Their response shows they don't know squat about case law as the Broomfield case was about not providing details in writing.
The bit they add on about signing was not a part of the case as the guy was getting done for not supplying the details in the correct manner!
S172 says you have to fill in the form, nothing about signing!
I note they didn't reply to your comment about the relevant case in this instance.
The bit they add on about signing was not a part of the case as the guy was getting done for not supplying the details in the correct manner!
S172 says you have to fill in the form, nothing about signing!
I note they didn't reply to your comment about the relevant case in this instance.
Hello fella's.Have any of you got THE DRIVER'S SURVIVAL HANDBOOK writen by an ex traffic policeman? This book is a must and covers the following: 1 Police versus motorists....you can win
2 Dealing with the police
3 Motoring offences,fixed penalties and prosecutions
4 Speeding - drivers survival techniques
5 Other road traffic offences
6 How to win in court
7 changes to the law affecting motorists
8 Case studies
If anyone is interested let me know and I will post the address. The book cost £19.95 and worth every penny !!
ALWAYS GO TO COURT AT LEAST IF YOU DEFEND YOUR TICKET YOU'VE A 50% CHANCE OF LOSING,MAYBE LESS.ADMIT IT AND YOU'VE 100% CHANCE OF LOSING
Blueyes, was this letter from the Police or the CPS ?
I would still not be convinced this will actually get to court.
In the Pickford case: www.safespeed.org.uk/pickford.html
"In giving judgment, HH Judge Ticehurst confirmed that there was a "lacuna" in the law in that there was no requirement to sign the S172 form (thus making it an admissible "statement", and however unpalatable that result might be it was up to Parliament, not the Courts to remedy defective legislation."
The judge cleary states there is no requirement in law to sign the NIP, and this is a higher court than the Magistrates court, therefore it is difficult to see how a Magistrate could convict you.
But I agree with swilly, if you can get a good brief who know this stuff, I think this saga is far from over..
I would still not be convinced this will actually get to court.
In the Pickford case: www.safespeed.org.uk/pickford.html
"In giving judgment, HH Judge Ticehurst confirmed that there was a "lacuna" in the law in that there was no requirement to sign the S172 form (thus making it an admissible "statement", and however unpalatable that result might be it was up to Parliament, not the Courts to remedy defective legislation."
The judge cleary states there is no requirement in law to sign the NIP, and this is a higher court than the Magistrates court, therefore it is difficult to see how a Magistrate could convict you.
But I agree with swilly, if you can get a good brief who know this stuff, I think this saga is far from over..
[quote]=just troubleALWAYS GO TO COURT AT LEAST IF YOU DEFEND YOUR TICKET YOU'VE A 50% CHANCE OF LOSING,MAYBE LESS.ADMIT IT AND YOU'VE 100% CHANCE OF LOSING [/quote]
The problem with going to court is that you need a lot of money in your pocket to plead Not Guilty in order to cover the costs if you lose the case.
I had a friend few years back that pleaded Not Guilty to a traffic offence (driving over white line), and it cost about £700, and that was 15 years ago.
[/quote] The problem with going to court is that you need a lot of money in your pocket to plead Not Guilty in order to cover the costs if you lose the case.
I had a friend few years back that pleaded Not Guilty to a traffic offence (driving over white line), and it cost about £700, and that was 15 years ago.
All that has happened is the "scameraship back office" has been unable to get you to sign a confession and so has passed the file to the court/CPS in the normal manner for them to make a decision on what to do. My guess is you will hear nothing else until after the CPS have got a test case in their favour. If they don't issue you a court date within six months of the offence I think you are also home and dry.
OK, someone with precise knowledge of the system please now shoot holes in/correct what I've said.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren (moderator) on Thursday 7th August 12:29
OK, someone with precise knowledge of the system please now shoot holes in/correct what I've said.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren (moderator) on Thursday 7th August 12:29
ledfoot said:
I had a friend few years back that pleaded Not Guilty to a traffic offence (driving over white line), and it cost about £700, and that was 15 years ago.
rather give £700 to a brief than the police.
Don't worry, like I said I'm fighting this ALL the way: got a fully clued up solicitor on the case.
I'm lucky enough to be able to afford to fight it, so I will (hope that didn't sound to big-headed)Some people out there can't afford to risk loosing the money so, it's up to those of us who can to do it.
If you ARE one of the former it's YOUR job to stand up and fight. You might lose the price of a trackday and get a few points but it's not the end of the world. Remember! Hanging has been abolished!
trust me they will bin it. they ushally do even if you aint gotem.
if had loads they forgot about or bined.
it was 4 at the last count that have passed the 6 mounths time limet.
having said that, localy they probly know its a wast of time, as even if i do get found guilty. I wont pay em shit.
if had loads they forgot about or bined.
it was 4 at the last count that have passed the 6 mounths time limet.
having said that, localy they probly know its a wast of time, as even if i do get found guilty. I wont pay em shit.
outlaw said:
trust me they will bin it. they ushally do even if you aint gotem.
if had loads they forgot about or bined.
it was 4 at the last count that have passed the 6 mounths time limet.
having said that, localy they probly know its a wast of time, as even if i do get found guilty. I wont pay em shit.
That's the spirit!
F*** the system!
Cheers
Mrs Leadfoot has a non-signing battle going on at the mo'.
Last week she had the camera units letter saying that the NIP was incomplete, I wrote her a nice snotogram to send back with it. Cheeky buggers had dated their letter with the date of the offence but sent the NIP back with a Sussex Plod recieved stamp on it dated 3 weeks later. I wrote along the lines of this being a deliberated falsification but SWMBO got the jitters at this bit & made me change it to politely pointing out their mistake!
TBH she's a bit nervous of the whole process & would probably be happier just getting the points & fine, but she's toughing it out still.
We shall see what develops. Even if we fail & it costs more in the end we'll have stood up & been counted (well SWMBO will have, I'll have been in the shadows directing the battle!).
Last week she had the camera units letter saying that the NIP was incomplete, I wrote her a nice snotogram to send back with it. Cheeky buggers had dated their letter with the date of the offence but sent the NIP back with a Sussex Plod recieved stamp on it dated 3 weeks later. I wrote along the lines of this being a deliberated falsification but SWMBO got the jitters at this bit & made me change it to politely pointing out their mistake!
TBH she's a bit nervous of the whole process & would probably be happier just getting the points & fine, but she's toughing it out still.
We shall see what develops. Even if we fail & it costs more in the end we'll have stood up & been counted (well SWMBO will have, I'll have been in the shadows directing the battle!).
Leadfoot said:
Mrs Leadfoot has a non-signing battle going on at the mo'.
Last week she had the camera units letter saying that the NIP was incomplete, I wrote her a nice snotogram to send back with it. Cheeky buggers had dated their letter with the date of the offence but sent the NIP back with a Sussex Plod recieved stamp on it dated 3 weeks later. I wrote along the lines of this being a deliberated falsification but SWMBO got the jitters at this bit & made me change it to politely pointing out their mistake!
TBH she's a bit nervous of the whole process & would probably be happier just getting the points & fine, but she's toughing it out still.
We shall see what develops. Even if we fail & it costs more in the end we'll have stood up & been counted (well SWMBO will have, I'll have been in the shadows directing the battle!).
good luck and respect for standing up to them.
I've been following this saga quite thoroughly and would just like to add my support.
I'm starting my Law degree in a few weeks, so it's been very interesting. I'm still of the opinion that the requirements are to identify the driver, not to sign it and make a confession.
I'm not wanting to put a downer on things but I think there could be a potential problem
The NIP is sent to the registered keeper, as it is returned unsigned, in law it is unknown who returned the NIP, as it is unsigned there is no conclusive proof whom it is from. Let's just call them "person x" as they haven't been identified.
The road traffic act states that the registered keepermust identify the driver.
At this point "person x" identifies the driver. The problem being, as it's unsigned, where's the proof that that the registered keeper has filled it in?
Afterall, it could be Mrs Smith down the road who filled in the form, not the registered keeper. What proof do you have that you did indentify the driver?
The NIP isn't about innocent until proven guilty, there's a legal requirement to identify the driver. If you can't prove that you have, (for all the court knows someone else could have filled the form in) then surely you are guilty of not filling it in?
You're perfectly within your rights not to sign it, however, you then can't prove that it was even you that filled it in.
>> Edited by Muncher83 on Friday 8th August 18:53
I'm starting my Law degree in a few weeks, so it's been very interesting. I'm still of the opinion that the requirements are to identify the driver, not to sign it and make a confession.
I'm not wanting to put a downer on things but I think there could be a potential problem
The NIP is sent to the registered keeper, as it is returned unsigned, in law it is unknown who returned the NIP, as it is unsigned there is no conclusive proof whom it is from. Let's just call them "person x" as they haven't been identified.
The road traffic act states that the registered keepermust identify the driver.
At this point "person x" identifies the driver. The problem being, as it's unsigned, where's the proof that that the registered keeper has filled it in?
Afterall, it could be Mrs Smith down the road who filled in the form, not the registered keeper. What proof do you have that you did indentify the driver?
The NIP isn't about innocent until proven guilty, there's a legal requirement to identify the driver. If you can't prove that you have, (for all the court knows someone else could have filled the form in) then surely you are guilty of not filling it in?
You're perfectly within your rights not to sign it, however, you then can't prove that it was even you that filled it in.
>> Edited by Muncher83 on Friday 8th August 18:53
Muncher83 said:
I've been following this saga quite thoroughly and would just like to add my support.
I'm starting my Law degree in a few weeks, so it's been very interesting. I'm still of the opinion that the requirements are to identify the driver, not to sign it and make a confession.
I'm not wanting to put a downer on things but I think there could be a potential problem
The NIP is sent to the registered keeper, as it is returned unsigned, in law it is unknown who returned the NIP, as it is unsigned there is no conclusive proof whom it is from. Let's just call them "person x" as they haven't been identified.
The road traffic act states that the registered keepermust identify the driver.
At this point "person x" identifies the driver. The problem being, as it's unsigned, where's the proof that that the registered keeper has filled it in?
Afterall, it could be Mrs Smith down the road who filled in the form, not the registered keeper. What proof do you have that you did indentify the driver?
The NIP isn't about innocent until proven guilty, there's a legal requirement to identify the driver. If you can't prove that you have, (for all the court knows someone else could have filled the form in) then surely you are guilty of not filling it in?
You're perfectly within your rights not to sign it, however, you then can't prove that it was even you that filled it in.
>> Edited by Muncher83 on Friday 8th August 18:53
But by that argument if someone get to the post before the registered keeper, opens and returns it unsigned (or whatever) then you get done
. Incidentally, has someone tried sending back an NIP with a random scrawl (or "Daffy Duck" (or "Up yours you scheming CNUTS")) instead of a signature? And then said in court "I never got that form, and that's not my signature, M'lud:tugsforelock:"? Cos if not that has to be the next tack.
mechsympathy said:
I've been following this saga quite thoroughly and would just like to add my support.
I'm starting my Law degree in a few weeks, so it's been very interesting. I'm still of the opinion that the requirements are to identify the driver, not to sign it and make a confession.
I'm not wanting to put a downer on things but I think there could be a potential problem
The NIP is sent to the registered keeper, as it is returned unsigned, in law it is unknown who returned the NIP, as it is unsigned there is no conclusive proof whom it is from. Let's just call them "person x" as they haven't been identified.
The road traffic act states that the registered keepermust identify the driver.
At this point "person x" identifies the driver. The problem being, as it's unsigned, where's the proof that that the registered keeper has filled it in?
Afterall, it could be Mrs Smith down the road who filled in the form, not the registered keeper. What proof do you have that you did indentify the driver?
The NIP isn't about innocent until proven guilty, there's a legal requirement to identify the driver. If you can't prove that you have, (for all the court knows someone else could have filled the form in) then surely you are guilty of not filling it in?
You're perfectly within your rights not to sign it, however, you then can't prove that it was even you that filled it in.
>> Edited by Muncher83 on Friday 8th August 18:53
But by that argument if someone get to the post before the registered keeper, opens and returns it unsigned (or whatever) then you get done
Incidentally, has someone tried sending back an NIP with a random scrawl (or "Daffy Duck" (or "Up yours you scheming CNUTS")) instead of a signature? And then said in court "I never got that form, and that's not my signature, M'lud:tugsforelock:"? Cos if not that has to be the next tack.
YES QUITE RIGHT BUT
the berden of proof is on them to probe you dident fill it in and complie with the NIP.
all so they always **** up and send a offer of a fixed fine before they sumones you.
and that, in its self is tantermount to them admitining that you have complied with section 172.
Or how else can they send the offer of the fine out.
I may not be right, but it's an argument you may have to consider.
If they couldn't prove that you did not sign it, surely they'd have the same difficulty as if you didn't return it altogether.
On one hand they'd have an NIP from an unknown person, and on the other hand they'd have nothing whatsoever.
If they could successfully prosecute for the latter, why couldn't they prosecute for the former?
From the police's point of view, they recieve the NIP back back cannot verify who it came from, such as in the Dwight Yorke case where it was filled in by his agent/lawyer.
If they couldn't prove that you did not sign it, surely they'd have the same difficulty as if you didn't return it altogether.
On one hand they'd have an NIP from an unknown person, and on the other hand they'd have nothing whatsoever.
If they could successfully prosecute for the latter, why couldn't they prosecute for the former?
From the police's point of view, they recieve the NIP back back cannot verify who it came from, such as in the Dwight Yorke case where it was filled in by his agent/lawyer.
Outlaw: Good point, I wonder if they'd admit to sending the offer being a fishing trip.
Muncher83: True, but (and I don't agree they'd be right) they could argue that if you claim to have returned it, but they didn't receive it (or lost it) then by your admission that you filled it in etc you're guilty. Whereas if you filled it in incorrectly and it got to court as part of their evidence their case would (hopefully) be thrown out.
yer 'onour
Muncher83: True, but (and I don't agree they'd be right) they could argue that if you claim to have returned it, but they didn't receive it (or lost it) then by your admission that you filled it in etc you're guilty. Whereas if you filled it in incorrectly and it got to court as part of their evidence their case would (hopefully) be thrown out.
yer 'onour
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff