Discussion
Just got the NIP through the post this morning with a nice FAQ attached from those nice people at Humberside Police. Are these right?
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
Q.What if I do not sign the notice?
A.Contrary to recent media reports, Section 172(7) of the Road Traffic Act states that a notice must be returned signed. If you return the unsigned, you be summonsed for failing to identify the driver.
Q.Are my human rights infringed if I respond to the notice?
A. The Human Rights Act does not affect the requirements under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act in terms of returning of this paperwork. Primary legistation dictates that you are obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution.
Q.Can I have a copy of the calibration certificate?
A. No. As this is a summary offence no advanced disclosure is required. All certification is correct and meets the required standards and will be produced at court. The certificate is to support a prosecution case.
Sounds like they've had enough of the unsigned NIP. I need a new plan...
Humberside Lying Gits said:
Q.What if I do not sign the notice?
A.Contrary to recent media reports, Section 172(7) of the Road Traffic Act states that a notice must be returned signed. If you return the unsigned, you be summonsed for failing to identify the driver.
That's so wrong it's not funny.
Ask them to point out where S172 says that. They won't be able to, simply because it doesn't.
Lying like this simply to get a signature is absolutely shocking and something needs to be done. These people are meant to be upholding the law, not making up their own version of it!
ship said:
Just had a look for the section they are referring to(Section 172 (7)). It doesn't seem to exist...
It was replaced by S21(7) of the RTA 1991 and can be read here:
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv21
Still doesn't say it needs signing though!
'the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it'
Am I reading this right? It states that if it is not reasonably practical for me to give my name, I don't have to give the information. I would think that saving myself from 3 points and a £60 fine would be reasonably practical.
>> Edited by ship on Thursday 8th January 11:52
Am I reading this right? It states that if it is not reasonably practical for me to give my name, I don't have to give the information. I would think that saving myself from 3 points and a £60 fine would be reasonably practical.
>> Edited by ship on Thursday 8th January 11:52
Lets get this into perspective:
Presume that you have been flashed for a speed offence which as you know is an offence against Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Now Bib were not present to stop and get particulars of the driver committing the offence. So, to help the State to prosecute this law breaker, legislation exists under 172 RTA 88 as amended, for Chief of Police in such cases, to ask the Reg Keeper, or any person with information, to name the driver and failure to do so is an offence. There is no set form by law and there IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THIS INFORMATION BE SIGNED. If thye form was set by Law then there would be requirement for a signature.Period.
Now having been flashed, the State in its wisdom, appreciates that if the offender wants to admit the offence and to help clear up Court space and time and his own time, then a Conditional Offer is made to pay the sum of 60 notes and collect 3 points on the DL and leaves this offer open for 28 days. Simple, no hassle, job done if accepted.
There is nothing at this stage which states that State must show its hand and divulge its evidence. However by practice some Forces will give that information and I applaud them that do.
I have covered elsewhere the importance of NOIP so nothing more said here.
The driver at the time will know - yes you do- whether or not you committed the offence and for those that don't agree then there is the option of not accepting the Conditional Offer and electing a full Court case.
Now to do this when a Guilty plea is forwarded doesn't make sense, but for a Not Guilty then the case is heard as normal and all the evidence paraded and disclosed.
Now Humberside want you to sign the Form as they can then invoke Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which allows a certificate signed by a driver (the form) to be used as evidence that the accused was the driver without any verbal evidence of this fact.
So the return of an unsigned form causes them problems as for the offence of speeding to be prosecuted then you have to have a driver. So if you don't return drivers details then they will summons for failing to supply.
Instead of farming out the unsigned returned form with drivers details for BiB enquiry to get an admission of driving face to face then it appears it has become common practice to lob in the speeding offence as well for a Court hearing.
Why the form:
Now, consider someone mowing down someone close to you
and leaving seriously injured, failing stop and witness gets a VRM.
BiB goes to Keeper "You driver"
Reply "No"
"Who was?"
"Not saying"
Bit of a burgher if things were left at that and you would be not best pleased.
Hence S.172. If they persist in not naming then they get it in the neck and quite rightly too.
Those of you with an interest in the Law will see by what is in the Traffic Management Bill that things are moving more to the civil side and way things are going I can see law being that the Reg.Keeper will be made responsible for offences by the driver - no argy bargy, and fined accordingly. Non payment being dealt with by a Civil Court and Baliffs. It's on the cards now for parking.
DVD
Presume that you have been flashed for a speed offence which as you know is an offence against Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Now Bib were not present to stop and get particulars of the driver committing the offence. So, to help the State to prosecute this law breaker, legislation exists under 172 RTA 88 as amended, for Chief of Police in such cases, to ask the Reg Keeper, or any person with information, to name the driver and failure to do so is an offence. There is no set form by law and there IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THIS INFORMATION BE SIGNED. If thye form was set by Law then there would be requirement for a signature.Period.
Now having been flashed, the State in its wisdom, appreciates that if the offender wants to admit the offence and to help clear up Court space and time and his own time, then a Conditional Offer is made to pay the sum of 60 notes and collect 3 points on the DL and leaves this offer open for 28 days. Simple, no hassle, job done if accepted.
There is nothing at this stage which states that State must show its hand and divulge its evidence. However by practice some Forces will give that information and I applaud them that do.
I have covered elsewhere the importance of NOIP so nothing more said here.
The driver at the time will know - yes you do- whether or not you committed the offence and for those that don't agree then there is the option of not accepting the Conditional Offer and electing a full Court case.
Now to do this when a Guilty plea is forwarded doesn't make sense, but for a Not Guilty then the case is heard as normal and all the evidence paraded and disclosed.
Now Humberside want you to sign the Form as they can then invoke Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which allows a certificate signed by a driver (the form) to be used as evidence that the accused was the driver without any verbal evidence of this fact.
So the return of an unsigned form causes them problems as for the offence of speeding to be prosecuted then you have to have a driver. So if you don't return drivers details then they will summons for failing to supply.
Instead of farming out the unsigned returned form with drivers details for BiB enquiry to get an admission of driving face to face then it appears it has become common practice to lob in the speeding offence as well for a Court hearing.
Why the form:
Now, consider someone mowing down someone close to you
and leaving seriously injured, failing stop and witness gets a VRM.
BiB goes to Keeper "You driver"
Reply "No"
"Who was?"
"Not saying"
Bit of a burgher if things were left at that and you would be not best pleased.
Hence S.172. If they persist in not naming then they get it in the neck and quite rightly too.
Those of you with an interest in the Law will see by what is in the Traffic Management Bill that things are moving more to the civil side and way things are going I can see law being that the Reg.Keeper will be made responsible for offences by the driver - no argy bargy, and fined accordingly. Non payment being dealt with by a Civil Court and Baliffs. It's on the cards now for parking.
DVD
DVD said "...I can see law being that the Reg.Keeper will be made responsible for offences by the driver..."
So, one person being responsible for another's offences? If this happens, that is surely a very dark day for democracy and general freedom. The movement towards a police state would have just progressed a little further.
So, one person being responsible for another's offences? If this happens, that is surely a very dark day for democracy and general freedom. The movement towards a police state would have just progressed a little further.
Ship
I had the same FAQ sheet with an NIP I received from Cumbria Scamera. The item refering to the RTA1988 section 172 requiring a signature is completely false, I challenged this, and threatened to call the person from Cumbria Scamera as a witness if the case should ever go to court, to cut a long story short I got the case dropped, not totally certain exactly why the case was dropped, but have a read of the link that I posted on Pepipoo, with the thougts of a few others.
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=848
The simple fact to remember is that they have lied to you in writing, on behalf of the Chief Constable of a UK Police force, about an act of Parliment, now IANAL, but that doesn't appear to me to be right, and should be challenged.
I hope it helps.
Giles
I had the same FAQ sheet with an NIP I received from Cumbria Scamera. The item refering to the RTA1988 section 172 requiring a signature is completely false, I challenged this, and threatened to call the person from Cumbria Scamera as a witness if the case should ever go to court, to cut a long story short I got the case dropped, not totally certain exactly why the case was dropped, but have a read of the link that I posted on Pepipoo, with the thougts of a few others.
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=848
The simple fact to remember is that they have lied to you in writing, on behalf of the Chief Constable of a UK Police force, about an act of Parliment, now IANAL, but that doesn't appear to me to be right, and should be challenged.
I hope it helps.
Giles
ship said:Demand a copy (a) to assist you in identifying the driver so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice, and (b) to enable the driver to determine whether they too are an innocent victim of this problem.
Just got the NIP through the post this morning with a nice FAQ attached from those nice people at Humberside Police. Are these right?
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
...
Streaky
james_j said:
DVD said "...I can see law being that the Reg.Keeper will be made responsible for offences by the driver..."
So, one person being responsible for another's offences? If this happens, that is surely a very dark day for democracy and general freedom. The movement towards a police state would have just progressed a little further.
I guess that DVD is referring to the following,
Traffic Management Bill
PART 6 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS
clause 68 Civil penalties for road traffic contraventions
(2) The regulations shall include provision specifying the person or persons by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid (who may be the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention, its driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person).
ship said:
Just got the NIP through the post this morning with a nice FAQ attached from those nice people at Humberside Police. Are these right?
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
False - You can request any information from the CPS which they are using aganist. The CPS will often claim that the photo is not be used as evidence and therefore you are not allowed to see it. You must state to the CPS that you believe the camera is wrong and require the photo which will be examined by experts to detemine is validity. They then have to give it to you at least 7 days before your trial. Note you have to plead not guilty all the way but eventually they have to give it to you. You can also request the operators, police etc to be present in order to question them.
ship said:
Q.What if I do not sign the notice?
A.Contrary to recent media reports, Section 172(7) of the Road Traffic Act states that a notice must be returned signed. If you return the unsigned, you be summonsed for failing to identify the driver.
False. S172 itself does not say it needs to be signed. However, this is a complicated argument with lots of case law. Suggest you read up on www.safespeed.co.uk or Peppio for the lastest.
ship said:
Q.Are my human rights infringed if I respond to the notice?
A. The Human Rights Act does not affect the requirements under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act in terms of returning of this paperwork. Primary legistation dictates that you are obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution.
Correct. Where the fine is not significant (eg speeding) it does not infer your ECHR. This has been decided by the lords. There is a case taking to the Europe who called overturn this decision - expected around 2005/6 - justice is a slow thing.
ship said:
Q.Can I have a copy of the calibration certificate?
A. No. As this is a summary offence no advanced disclosure is required. All certification is correct and meets the required standards and will be produced at court. The certificate is to support a prosecution case.
1st sentenance is false, 2nd is true, 3rd well they would say that. 4th is true.
See answer to question 1, you can request it if you believe the device not to be calibrated.
Ship,
You must have more courage. With 6 points already you don't want any more - right?
If you take a really robust line, don't sign the NIP and take all the actions already posted on the various web sites there seems a 99% chance the whole thing will go away. If it does not, they can't find you guilty of failure to provide and speeding, it would need to be either/or. Thus only 3 points in the worst case.
Just keep on fighting and you'll win. Why make it easy for them to scam £60 off of you.
You must have more courage. With 6 points already you don't want any more - right?
If you take a really robust line, don't sign the NIP and take all the actions already posted on the various web sites there seems a 99% chance the whole thing will go away. If it does not, they can't find you guilty of failure to provide and speeding, it would need to be either/or. Thus only 3 points in the worst case.
Just keep on fighting and you'll win. Why make it easy for them to scam £60 off of you.
ship said:
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
Nope this is correct the bpb has missed the point. This is an NIP so when it is completed the Authorities may deal with the matter by a fixed penalty or a prosecution. Only if they intend to prosecute must they disclose the photograph. Having said that many will if asked.
ship said:
Q.What if I do not sign the notice?
A.Contrary to recent media reports, Section 172(7) of the Road Traffic Act states that a notice must be returned signed. If you return the unsigned, you be summonsed for failing to identify the driver.
bpb is sort of right but there is no case law which is a problem.
ship said:
Q.Are my human rights infringed if I respond to the notice?
A. The Human Rights Act does not affect the requirements under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act in terms of returning of this paperwork. Primary legistation dictates that you are obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution.
Nope the letter is wrong in Law.. The EHRA 1988 takes precedent over all primary legislation, as does Article 6 of the ECHR. Unfortunately, the Privy Council in Brown v Procurator Fiscal 2002 decided that the NIP system did not contravene the EHRA. Although this was a drink driving case and not one on speeding.
Cooperman said:
Ship,
You must have more courage. With 6 points already you don't want any more - right?
If you take a really robust line, don't sign the NIP and take all the actions already posted on the various web sites there seems a 99% chance the whole thing will go away. If it does not, they can't find you guilty of failure to provide and speeding, it would need to be either/or. Thus only 3 points in the worst case.
Just keep on fighting and you'll win. Why make it easy for them to scam £60 off of you.
Totally agree with Cooperman, atleast ask for the picture to help you identify the driver, tell them you are very worried about making a mistake as to the identity of the driver. Also ask them to explain why they have deliberately lied to you with respect to an act of parliment, your goal should be to ensure that they make a loss even if you pay the fixed penalty.
With the 9 points you will have after this offence, your insurance is going to rise by big numbers.
Finally remember if it goes to court the Scamera partnership get nothing.
[quote]If it does not, they can't find you guilty of failure to provide and speeding, it would need to be either/or. Thus only 3 points in the worst case.
Just keep on fighting and you'll win. Why make it easy for them to scam £60 off of you.[/quote]
the only problem is a failure to supply gives a MS90 on your licence, instead of an SPxx. An MS90 will cause a 33% uplift, an SP is 0-10%.
Just keep on fighting and you'll win. Why make it easy for them to scam £60 off of you.[/quote]
the only problem is a failure to supply gives a MS90 on your licence, instead of an SPxx. An MS90 will cause a 33% uplift, an SP is 0-10%.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff