Wrong Name on NIP is it valid??
Discussion
The NIP comes with a 28 day response time - use it wisely. Certainly don't write back to them within 14 days of the alleged offence pointing out a potential error on their NIP thus giving them the opportunity to rectify it..
How wrong is the name - is it just spelled incorrectly or is it an entirely different person ?
Is your dad the RK of the vehicle and is his name correct on the V5 log book ?
How wrong is the name - is it just spelled incorrectly or is it an entirely different person ?
Is your dad the RK of the vehicle and is his name correct on the V5 log book ?
Basically what has happened is that the car is registered to my mother. They sent a form to her, to confirm who was driving. She sent it back and they have sent one to my father, as he is the other insured on it. It is addressed to a Wing House ****** rather than Wing Hong ******. Where does he stand? Does he have any chances or is it bound for failure as my mother has already sent one form back?
He is not disputing it but getting points for doing 36mph whilst moving with the traffic at speed when it is rush hour... we think it was a hidden camera or talivan, but he didn't see anyone.
He is not disputing it but getting points for doing 36mph whilst moving with the traffic at speed when it is rush hour... we think it was a hidden camera or talivan, but he didn't see anyone.
Wildfire said:
Basically what has happened is that the car is registered to my mother. They sent a form to her, to confirm who was driving. She sent it back and they have sent one to my father, as he is the other insured on it.
Presumably she sent it back naming your father and they've had to read her writing.
Not much of a defence I'd say.
Mamma San has named Wing Hong as driver.
No action by Wing Hong or Not Guilty Plea will land the matter at Court.
In this case dual offence speed/fail to name if form not returned.
At Court error on summons can be amended with little difficulty.
Gives CPS ammunition to call Mamma San as witness, if reluctant can issue Summons to attend. I believe in these circumstances she would be competent and compellable but would have to research further to be sure.
dvd
No action by Wing Hong or Not Guilty Plea will land the matter at Court.
In this case dual offence speed/fail to name if form not returned.
At Court error on summons can be amended with little difficulty.
Gives CPS ammunition to call Mamma San as witness, if reluctant can issue Summons to attend. I believe in these circumstances she would be competent and compellable but would have to research further to be sure.
dvd
Agree that a slightly mis-spelled name could probably be amended prior to / at trial under the 'slip rule'.
Summons for both offences for failure to complete and return S.172 ?? No signed S172 or equivalent (PACE, Jones compliant letter etc) = no evidence of driver identity = no case to answer on the speeding.
Bear in mind though that the penalty for conviction for S.172 offence = 3 points and max £1000 fine (typically £250 - £300) plus nasty MS90 endorsement code on licence. This compared to £60 plus 3 points which (at 30 something) would be offered upon receipt of dad's completed S.172 response.
Regards compelling - I thought spouses could only be compelled to give evidence where the case involved violent or sexual offences..
www.pepipoo.com if your dad is itching for a fight. He completes and returns S.172 if he isn't..
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 16th March 17:39
Summons for both offences for failure to complete and return S.172 ?? No signed S172 or equivalent (PACE, Jones compliant letter etc) = no evidence of driver identity = no case to answer on the speeding.
Bear in mind though that the penalty for conviction for S.172 offence = 3 points and max £1000 fine (typically £250 - £300) plus nasty MS90 endorsement code on licence. This compared to £60 plus 3 points which (at 30 something) would be offered upon receipt of dad's completed S.172 response.
Regards compelling - I thought spouses could only be compelled to give evidence where the case involved violent or sexual offences..
www.pepipoo.com if your dad is itching for a fight. He completes and returns S.172 if he isn't..
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 16th March 17:39
Dwight VanDriver said:
Gives CPS ammunition to call Mamma San as witness, if reluctant can issue Summons to attend. I believe in these circumstances she would be competent and compellable but would have to research further to be sure.
dvd
I vaguely recall something about a spouse NOT being a compellable witness. If correct, then this would raise some interesting issues regarding s172.
kenp said:
I vaguely recall something about a spouse NOT being a compellable witness. If correct, then this would raise some interesting issues regarding s172.
Hmmm, a s.172 prosecution would be based on the fact that Mr X had been served a NIP / s.172 and no satisfactory response to that request had been received.
Its immaterial, IMHO, whether it was Mrs X or A N Other who nominated Mr X as the driver. No response = case to answer and testimony of Mrs X / A N Other would not be required for prosecution's case.
Re: competent and compellable witnesses -
CPS said:
Spouses are generally competent to give evidence against their partners. The only exception is if the spouses are jointly charged. If they are, neither is competent or compellable to give evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, against the other, unless the spouse witness has already pleaded guilty, or the proceedings in respect of the spouse witness have been discontinued.
Spouses are competent and compellable to give evidence on behalf of the defendant or the defendant's co-accused.
The prosecution can only compel a spouse to give evidence for the prosecution in cases which involve:
* an allegation of violence against the spouse;
* an allegation of violence against a person under the age of sixteen years;
* an alleged sexual offence against a victim under the age of sixteen years; or
* attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
>> Edited by SS2. on Friday 17th March 11:05
SS2. said:
I vaguely recall something about a spouse NOT being a compellable witness. If correct, then this would raise some interesting issues regarding s172.
Hmmm, a s.172 prosecution would be based on the fact that Mr X had been served a NIP / s.172 and no satisfactory response to that request had been received.
Its immaterial, IMHO, whether it was Mrs X or A N Other who nominated Mr X as the driver. No response = case to answer and testimony of Mrs X / A N Other would not be required for prosecution's case.
Re: competent and compellable witnesses -CPS said:
Spouses are generally competent to give evidence against their partners. The only exception is if the spouses are jointly charged. If they are, neither is competent or compellable to give evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, against the other, unless the spouse witness has already pleaded guilty, or the proceedings in respect of the spouse witness have been discontinued.
Spouses are competent and compellable to give evidence on behalf of the defendant or the defendant's co-accused.
The prosecution can only compel a spouse to give evidence for the prosecution in cases which involve:
* an allegation of violence against the spouse;
* an allegation of violence against a person under the age of sixteen years;
* an alleged sexual offence against a victim under the age of sixteen years; or
* attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.
>> Edited by SS2. on Friday 17th March 11:05
I know this is a thread drift, but the point is, if Mr X receives a FPN and as RK is required to comply with s172 when his wife was driving, could he not fall back on the defence that he cannot be compelled to give evidence against his wife?
Wildfire said:
Basically what has happened is that the car is registered to my mother. They sent a form to her, to confirm who was driving. She sent it back and they have sent one to my father, as he is the other insured on it. It is addressed to a Wing House ****** rather than Wing Hong ******. Where does he stand? Does he have any chances or is it bound for failure as my mother has already sent one form back?
He is not disputing it but getting points for doing 36mph whilst moving with the traffic at speed when it is rush hour... we think it was a hidden camera or talivan, but he didn't see anyone.
I seem to remember a similar case where the summons was served by first class post but was never received by the driver. I cant remember which but either the driver was convicted for not replying without him being at court and he appealed.
Although the slip rule is the case with regard to mistakes, that is if it is a minor mistake the summons stands, in this case the CPS sent to the summons to something like 'Green Co.' or something like that as an abreviation for Green Court. The defence argued in court that this was a mistake by the CPS and showed how post often got mistakenly delivered to another 'Green Covert' or something like that, and thus introduced doubt that the summons had been served.
The decision was made on the fact that it was researched that whatever the abbreviation for the street was, it was not a commonly accepted abbreviation and thus the summons/NIP was invalid.
Not sure if this helps, but it is worth a try! If must also be noted that this argument was put forward by what sounds like a good solicitor, so it depends on how much you want to spend fighting the case!
kenp said:
I know this is a thread drift, but the point is, if Mr X receives a FPN and as RK is required to comply with s172 when his wife was driving, could he not fall back on the defence that he cannot be compelled to give evidence against his wife?
My take on this...
If Mr X receives a NIP / s.172 and Mrs X was driving:
Mr X commits an offence if he does not respond to his s.172
Mrs X will receive her own NIP / s.172 if she is nominated by Mr X
Mrs X commits an offence is she does not respond to her s.172
Whilst it could be argued that Mr X has been compelled (under threat of criminal sanctions) to name Mrs X as the driver, this nomination is not 'evidence' in that it has zero evidential value and cannot be used to prove driver identity for the speeding offence.
WRT spousal compulsion for the s.172 offence - Mr X's compelled nomination of Mrs X does not see her charged with the offence of failure to furnish. That would happen at least 28 days later if she did not provide a satisfactory response to her s.172.
In short, Mr X has not been compelled to provide any 'evidence' against Mrs X..
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff