Notice of intended prosecution letter
Discussion
I've just got a letter today about a 'Notice of intended prosecution' for speeding from the police asking who was driving at the time and gives my reg plate and car Make (but not model).
This can't have been me or my car as it says an adress I haven't visited for years and the time of day meant I would have been at work.
My car hasn't been stolen or used by others either so how have they got my reg number? Could it have been cloned?
The letter also states the 'allegation is supported by photographic and/or video evidence' but they haven't sent this.
what are my options now as I've never had a speeding fine before?
This can't have been me or my car as it says an adress I haven't visited for years and the time of day meant I would have been at work.
My car hasn't been stolen or used by others either so how have they got my reg number? Could it have been cloned?
The letter also states the 'allegation is supported by photographic and/or video evidence' but they haven't sent this.
what are my options now as I've never had a speeding fine before?
PanzerCommander said:
Whatever you do, make sure you respond to the letter, you will be in the s
t if you don't.
If what you say is genuine and you can prove your whereabouts then you should have nothing to worry about.
If he has an alibi and is genuinely innocent then yes, I agree, he should reply, but I disagree that it's always a bad idea to ignore NIPs/not identify the driver. I never have had to do this, but there are circumstances where a wise person might do so.t if you don't.If what you say is genuine and you can prove your whereabouts then you should have nothing to worry about.
The most you can get for failing to identify the driver is, afaik, 6 points. Well, if the speed is say 120mph, assuming you have no other points, you're better off getting 6 points than a 56 day ban or whatever they give for that sort of speed. Obviously they can, within the 6 month time limit on summary matters, still seek to prove your guilt on the speeding charge without an admission as to being the driver, but that might be quite a bit more difficult than they can be bothered with (not 100% sure, but if I was caught at instant ban speeds I'd consider my options very carefully before admitting to being the driver).
pulptruth said:
PanzerCommander said:
Whatever you do, make sure you respond to the letter, you will be in the st if you don't.
If what you say is genuine and you can prove your whereabouts then you should have nothing to worry about.
If he has an alibi and is genuinely innocent then yes, I agree, he should reply, but I disagree that it's always a bad idea to ignore NIPs/not identify the driver. I never have had to do this, but there are circumstances where a wise person might do so.t if you don't.If what you say is genuine and you can prove your whereabouts then you should have nothing to worry about.
The most you can get for failing to identify the driver is, afaik, 6 points. Well, if the speed is say 120mph, assuming you have no other points, you're better off getting 6 points than a 56 day ban or whatever they give for that sort of speed. Obviously they can, within the 6 month time limit on summary matters, still seek to prove your guilt on the speeding charge without an admission as to being the driver, but that might be quite a bit more difficult than they can be bothered with (not 100% sure, but if I was caught at instant ban speeds I'd consider my options very carefully before admitting to being the driver).
btcc123 said:
With those views its no wonder that leasing companies will not let you lease a car from them.
What a dim, nasty comment- are you such a prat you have to make everything personal? As if they know my views on this.Anyway, the ECHR ruling on the privilege against self-incrimination re:NIPs was a hack job.
It's a fundamental right, or at least it should be, never to be your own betrayer- it is a hallmark of a civilised justice system. When a man accused of raping and murdering a child can, very rightly, answer "no reply" to every question put to him by the police and exercise his right to silence at trial (albeit with the risk of an adverse inference) do you really think someone accused of opening the throttle on their car shouldn't be able to say, "Prove I was driving" without being incriminated by his own reticence?
This derogation from the right to silence, which is even more egregious than the ss.34-37 CJPOA adverse inferences, is utterly revolting. I salute anyone who can find a way to drive a coach and horses through their anti-motorist bulls
t, yes. Look at the way our justice system is going/has been going and you will see what I mean. It is no longer an adversarial system of justice, with a very strong presumption of innocence and protections for defendants, it is an inquisitorial bureaucracy. I could rant all day, but I'll end up going severely off topic. My point remains, the powers that be are bullies, if you roll over for them they will gladly bugger you.
For reference I have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
pulptruth said:
The most you can get for failing to identify the driver is, afaik, 6 points. Well, if the speed is say 120mph, assuming you have no other points, you're better off getting 6 points than a 56 day ban or whatever they give for that sort of speed.
An MS90 decoration on your driving licence will probably sting your insurance more than a speeding ticket 
mcflurry said:
An MS90 decoration on your driving licence will probably sting your insurance more than a speeding ticket
Fair enough, but if you risk getting banned if convicted on the speeding charge then, depending on your job situation/money, it may be better to take the insurance hit. pulptruth said:
Obviously they can, within the 6 month time limit on summary matters, still seek to prove your guilt on the speeding charge without an admission as to being the driver, but that might be quite a bit more difficult than they can be bothered with (not 100% sure, but if I was caught at instant ban speeds I'd consider my options very carefully before admitting to being the driver).
If they'd nabbed someone at 120MPH it's pretty unlikely they'll cheerfully let it go.Sheepshanks said:
If they'd nabbed someone at 120MPH it's pretty unlikely they'll cheerfully let it go.
Depending on where it happened they might have problems not letting it go. Yes, with the extensive network of ANPR, they could trace its journey (most likely- there are probably blindspots in rural areas) and then trace it back to the last place where there was proper CCTV and prove you were driving. But it might be worth calling their bluff on this, especially as they only have 6 months to lay an information- well a month and change of that is gone by the time they realise the NIP isn't coming back. Then it has to get looked into as a non-urgent investigation etc.
Anyway, Code E (I think, don't hold me to it) of PACE often makes using/calling CCTV evidence a b
h. You may end up needing to have an expert witness, albeit one who may only be an "expert" by dint of having viewed the footage many times, if the footage is grainy and identity is in issue (which it will be- iirc you don't have to file a defence statement at the Mags court, so ambush defences are still a decent strategy).I am not a policeman, so I cannot be sure about anything. I'm saying if you were faced with "identify yourself and almost certainly get a ban" or "chance it and maybe get away with 6 points" you may be better off taking option number two. Just my two pence, not sure why anyone is getting bent out of shape about it- I just come here to have a discussion with other motorists.
pulptruth said:
......It's a fundamental right, or at least it should be, never to be your own betrayer- it is a hallmark of a civilised justice system. When a man accused of raping and murdering a child can, very rightly, answer "no reply" to every question put to him by the police and exercise his right to silence at trial (albeit with the risk of an adverse inference) do you really think someone accused of opening the throttle on their car shouldn't be able to say, "Prove I was driving" without being incriminated by his own reticence?
This derogation from the right to silence, which is even more egregious than the ss.34-37 CJPOA adverse inferences, is utterly revolting. I salute anyone who can find a way to drive a coach and horses through their anti-motorist bullst, yes.
Look at the way our justice system is going/has been going and you will see what I mean. It is no longer an adversarial system of justice, with a very strong presumption of innocence and protections for defendants, it is an inquisitorial bureaucracy. I could rant all day, but I'll end up going severely off topic. My point remains, the powers that be are bullies, if you roll over for them they will gladly bugger you.
For reference I have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
Right on, shove it to 'the man' man....This derogation from the right to silence, which is even more egregious than the ss.34-37 CJPOA adverse inferences, is utterly revolting. I salute anyone who can find a way to drive a coach and horses through their anti-motorist bulls
t, yes. Look at the way our justice system is going/has been going and you will see what I mean. It is no longer an adversarial system of justice, with a very strong presumption of innocence and protections for defendants, it is an inquisitorial bureaucracy. I could rant all day, but I'll end up going severely off topic. My point remains, the powers that be are bullies, if you roll over for them they will gladly bugger you.
For reference I have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
But in the real world, you're not being asked to admit guilt, you're being asked to confirm who was driving at the time. You still have the ability to plead innocent to the speeding later on and have your day in court.
The Surveyor said:
Right on, shove it to 'the man' man....
But in the real world, you're not being asked to admit guilt, you're being asked to confirm who was driving at the time. You still have the ability to plead innocent to the speeding later on and have your day in court.
Plead innocent? A plea of 'not guilty' is not saying, "I'm innocent", it's saying, "I do not wish to admit guilt at this stage, present your case against me". Of course many people who plead not guilty are innocent, but that's a side point. If you don't see the difference then everything I said about the importance of the privilege against self-incrimination won't appeal to you.But in the real world, you're not being asked to admit guilt, you're being asked to confirm who was driving at the time. You still have the ability to plead innocent to the speeding later on and have your day in court.
Anyway, in non-motoring investigations you are never required to confirm facts which are essential to the Crown's case. Cue: obscure example under the DTI investigatory powers getting paraded out by someone.
I'd love to see how most murder cases would proceed if you were forced to admit presence at the scene.
If a man's defence is, "Yes I was driving but the speed detection device is faulty" then that's fine, he can agree he was driving, but it should be his and his counsel's decision to do that.
mcflurry said:
An MS90 decoration on your driving licence will probably sting your insurance more than a speeding ticket
I just checked:no convictions £540
3 points for speeding £542
2 month ban for speeding £687
4 or 6 points (in one offence) for speeding £700
MS90 £817
MS90 2.5 years ago still £817
MS90 3.5 years ago still £754
So it could cost another £600 or so over the next few years. Better than losing your job because you can't get to work!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff