Help legal advice please!
Discussion
Advice is needed not directly me me but my 21 year old daughter who has just had a police letter, 'Notice of intended prosecution'. Having never been in trouble with the law she is extremely worried.
A couple of weeks ago my daughter phones me telling me a guy in our public car park in town accused her of damaging his car as she was parking next to him. She was with her boyfriend who is obviously a witness. The third party was parked up already in a space and my daughter parked next to him, she pulled in forwards and the third party was reversed in to her left. He says she hit his car and caused a small crease in a panel but she and her boyfriend insist she never touched his car. After she had parked he insisted on her insurance details to which she refused on the grounds she didn't damage his car (there isn't any marks on her car). He repeated she had damaged his car and was calling the Police if she didn't give her details, she gave her name that's all.
Yesterday she received this letter along with another letter asking who the driver was at the time of the 'alleged' incident. She has 28 days to fill out and send off who the driver was at the date and time recorded.
I have no reason to not believe her as she's a good kid, i've asked her again saying if you did damage the other guys car it would be the right thing to do and pay. She still insists she never did it and i have no choice but to believe her.
Can anyone shed any light as to what may happen? We will be contesting the claim, she's worried about the Police notice of Intended Prosecution.
A couple of weeks ago my daughter phones me telling me a guy in our public car park in town accused her of damaging his car as she was parking next to him. She was with her boyfriend who is obviously a witness. The third party was parked up already in a space and my daughter parked next to him, she pulled in forwards and the third party was reversed in to her left. He says she hit his car and caused a small crease in a panel but she and her boyfriend insist she never touched his car. After she had parked he insisted on her insurance details to which she refused on the grounds she didn't damage his car (there isn't any marks on her car). He repeated she had damaged his car and was calling the Police if she didn't give her details, she gave her name that's all.
Yesterday she received this letter along with another letter asking who the driver was at the time of the 'alleged' incident. She has 28 days to fill out and send off who the driver was at the date and time recorded.
I have no reason to not believe her as she's a good kid, i've asked her again saying if you did damage the other guys car it would be the right thing to do and pay. She still insists she never did it and i have no choice but to believe her.
Can anyone shed any light as to what may happen? We will be contesting the claim, she's worried about the Police notice of Intended Prosecution.
What is the offence the N.I.P is for?
Was there CCTV on the car park to back her up?
Get to a solicitor and go to the Police station offering to be formally interviewed for the alleged offence/offences in question. Her boyfirend can not be a neutral witness and a statement would need to be made by the driver of the other car that saw the incident. The N.I.P is due to lack of evidence the Police should have followed it up and once a statement and CCTV evidence gathered it is up to the CPS to either cancel the N.I.P or proceed and at the moment they only have one side of the story. CCTV and an independant witness should be enough of a defence for it never to get to court, "he said she said" evidence won't be enough for a magistrate anyway.
Was there CCTV on the car park to back her up?
Get to a solicitor and go to the Police station offering to be formally interviewed for the alleged offence/offences in question. Her boyfirend can not be a neutral witness and a statement would need to be made by the driver of the other car that saw the incident. The N.I.P is due to lack of evidence the Police should have followed it up and once a statement and CCTV evidence gathered it is up to the CPS to either cancel the N.I.P or proceed and at the moment they only have one side of the story. CCTV and an independant witness should be enough of a defence for it never to get to court, "he said she said" evidence won't be enough for a magistrate anyway.
gareth.e said:
The police try to screw you over sometimes
Think you'll find if the young lady attended a police station at her own behest to explain her version of events she is under no obligation to answer any questions whatsoever.She is merely stating her version and is free to leave at any time. The Police may take notes on her version but that's it.
Boba Fret said:
gareth.e said:
The police try to screw you over sometimes
Think you'll find if the young lady attended a police station at her own behest to explain her version of events she is under no obligation to answer any questions whatsoever.She is merely stating her version and is free to leave at any time. The Police may take notes on her version but that's it.
A solicitor will be better able to help express the girl's side of the story, without giving her accuser free rein to pillage the contents of her insurance policy and potentially leave her exposed to the cheery folk at the CPS.
ludicrous speed said:
Giving her name was a mistake but that doesn't really matter now, personally i'd ignore it, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
"Your defence is at risk if you fail to mention anything during questioning you may later rely upon in court".No interview = No defence prior to court.
Take a solicitor to the initial Police interview because you'd be an idiot not to.
Liquid Knight said:
"Your defence is at risk if you fail to mention anything during questioning you may later rely upon in court".
No interview = No defence prior to court.
Take a solicitor to the initial Police interview because you'd be an idiot not to.
it's "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned (or 'now' in the case of reporting for summons) something which you may later rely on in court"No interview = No defence prior to court.
Take a solicitor to the initial Police interview because you'd be an idiot not to.
The wording is incredibly important. I've seen cases overturned on an incorrect caution on recorded interview.
Besides, it's not an interview if she goes there herself and refuses to, quite legally, answer any questions put to her.
Admittedly, in her position it MAY be a good pre-emptive move to call upon the services of a solicitor given her 'youth' but it's not absolutely essential.
To the OP, have a good scour through road traffic law and PACE Interviews before she attends. But don't forget that it's wiser to use it as a base of any defence rather than an attack on their 'questioning'. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
In this scenario she is not being reported for an offence
For what it's worth...
This doesn't sound like it should require a NIP, it should a s.172 notice requiring the registered keeper to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence.
If she has failed to stop and report an accident, there is no requirement to serve a NIP. What offence is specified on there? The only one that springs to mind as a possibility is driving without due care of all the NIP-able offences.
Correspondingly if it is failure to stop and report an accident, there's technically no need for her to be interviewed prior to being summonsed for the offence.
Could do with a little more info i.e. what offences are specified on the paperwork that was sent?
This doesn't sound like it should require a NIP, it should a s.172 notice requiring the registered keeper to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence.
If she has failed to stop and report an accident, there is no requirement to serve a NIP. What offence is specified on there? The only one that springs to mind as a possibility is driving without due care of all the NIP-able offences.
Correspondingly if it is failure to stop and report an accident, there's technically no need for her to be interviewed prior to being summonsed for the offence.
Could do with a little more info i.e. what offences are specified on the paperwork that was sent?
Liquid Knight said:
What is the offence the N.I.P is for?
This. Answer this so we can give better opinions.Also, note that it's an offence not to respond in writing to the NIP. 6 points and a fine, so if she's passed her test in last two years her licence will be revoked.
Absent more information, I'd be inclined to fill in the NIP and return it. Then, if further action is taken, fight the allegation in court.
*Al* said:
Advice is needed not directly me me but my 21 year old daughter who has just had a police letter, 'Notice of intended prosecution'. Having never been in trouble with the law she is extremely worried.
A couple of weeks ago my daughter phones me telling me a guy in our public car park in town accused her of damaging his car as she was parking next to him. She was with her boyfriend who is obviously a witness. The third party was parked up already in a space and my daughter parked next to him, she pulled in forwards and the third party was reversed in to her left. He says she hit his car and caused a small crease in a panel but she and her boyfriend insist she never touched his car. After she had parked he insisted on her insurance details to which she refused on the grounds she didn't damage his car (there isn't any marks on her car). He repeated she had damaged his car and was calling the Police if she didn't give her details, she gave her name that's all.
Yesterday she received this letter along with another letter asking who the driver was at the time of the 'alleged' incident. She has 28 days to fill out and send off who the driver was at the date and time recorded.
I have no reason to not believe her as she's a good kid, i've asked her again saying if you did damage the other guys car it would be the right thing to do and pay. She still insists she never did it and i have no choice but to believe her.
Can anyone shed any light as to what may happen? We will be contesting the claim, she's worried about the Police notice of Intended Prosecution.
Is the issue that the accuser's car was undamaged but he insisted that somehow it was, or is the issue that the car bore a scar but your daughter and the b/f insist that her car did not cause it?A couple of weeks ago my daughter phones me telling me a guy in our public car park in town accused her of damaging his car as she was parking next to him. She was with her boyfriend who is obviously a witness. The third party was parked up already in a space and my daughter parked next to him, she pulled in forwards and the third party was reversed in to her left. He says she hit his car and caused a small crease in a panel but she and her boyfriend insist she never touched his car. After she had parked he insisted on her insurance details to which she refused on the grounds she didn't damage his car (there isn't any marks on her car). He repeated she had damaged his car and was calling the Police if she didn't give her details, she gave her name that's all.
Yesterday she received this letter along with another letter asking who the driver was at the time of the 'alleged' incident. She has 28 days to fill out and send off who the driver was at the date and time recorded.
I have no reason to not believe her as she's a good kid, i've asked her again saying if you did damage the other guys car it would be the right thing to do and pay. She still insists she never did it and i have no choice but to believe her.
Can anyone shed any light as to what may happen? We will be contesting the claim, she's worried about the Police notice of Intended Prosecution.
In my experience, unless there is personal injury, the police are not in the lesast interested in such cases.
Especially an alleged low speed ding in a car park. "Civil matter, sir. That's why you have insurance". So what are they intending to prosecute her for? Failure to report? An accident that she avers never happened.
Either she and b/f are mistaken or the other motorist is a chancer who has seen a way to get some damage repaired by blaming an innocent third party. Don't believe that doesn't/cannot happen. Proving that someone is lying through their teeth can be a lot harder than you think. It doesn't help when insurance companies take the path of least resistance.
Especially an alleged low speed ding in a car park. "Civil matter, sir. That's why you have insurance". So what are they intending to prosecute her for? Failure to report? An accident that she avers never happened.
Either she and b/f are mistaken or the other motorist is a chancer who has seen a way to get some damage repaired by blaming an innocent third party. Don't believe that doesn't/cannot happen. Proving that someone is lying through their teeth can be a lot harder than you think. It doesn't help when insurance companies take the path of least resistance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff