Help - NIP arrived!!!
Discussion
Guys
Just received my first ever (in 10 years) NIP!! I knew I had been caught and I have no excuse for the speeding apart from the fact I was massively late for a friends wedding due to some roadworks on the M25. I was caught doing 97 in a 60! I know it was stupid and totally not like me but I am just worried about what is going to happen. I received a NIP and not a summons so does anyone know what could happen? Will I end up in court do you think or may I get a fixed penalty due to a first offence etc.
Thanks in advance guys - I am hating this!
DJ
Just received my first ever (in 10 years) NIP!! I knew I had been caught and I have no excuse for the speeding apart from the fact I was massively late for a friends wedding due to some roadworks on the M25. I was caught doing 97 in a 60! I know it was stupid and totally not like me but I am just worried about what is going to happen. I received a NIP and not a summons so does anyone know what could happen? Will I end up in court do you think or may I get a fixed penalty due to a first offence etc.
Thanks in advance guys - I am hating this!
DJ
cardenshaft said:
at that speed you will probably be banned (unless it affects your lievelehood perhaps?)
Which is why Bond has the right idea. If you dont fill out the forms or refuse to name a driver they will do you for not naming a driver for which the punishment will be harsh compared to a standard £60/3 points but for 97 in a 60 you are looking at 6 points/£200ish or a short ban.
The Notice of intended prosecution as been sent to you by way of section 172, of The Road Traffic Act. Violation of this offence is a criminal offence.
In the first instance I would personally write back to the camera partnership involved requesting confirmation that they are happy to request information that incriminates by means of penalty due, to the ECJ stating in various cases that; "It is not permissable to request information that incriminates under means of penaltly in criminal charges only. in that of civil charges".
I would also request that the person who have signed the NIP sent to you has a legal practice certificate.
This as worked on a couple of occasions recently where we have heard nothing further. But yes taking the Rap for s.172 is better than the resultant of the offence however, you could be charged with both offences if the photograph is good enough to prove guilt. Request the photograph also before making any decisions.
In the first instance I would personally write back to the camera partnership involved requesting confirmation that they are happy to request information that incriminates by means of penalty due, to the ECJ stating in various cases that; "It is not permissable to request information that incriminates under means of penaltly in criminal charges only. in that of civil charges".
I would also request that the person who have signed the NIP sent to you has a legal practice certificate.
This as worked on a couple of occasions recently where we have heard nothing further. But yes taking the Rap for s.172 is better than the resultant of the offence however, you could be charged with both offences if the photograph is good enough to prove guilt. Request the photograph also before making any decisions.
justinp1 said:
cardenshaft said:
at that speed you will probably be banned (unless it affects your lievelehood perhaps?)
Which is why Bond has the right idea. If you dont fill out the forms or refuse to name a driver they will do you for not naming a driver for which the punishment will be harsh compared to a standard £60/3 points but for 97 in a 60 you are looking at 6 points/£200ish or a short ban.
Sec 172 as an offence may only carry a 3 point endorsement at the moment, but it is also a discretionary disqualification offence. If they think you are trying to have them over don't be surprised if they dig, they may have a very good picture after all. The bench where you get caught out like that, may be less forgiving when it comes to any plead for leniency on sentence.
vonhosen said:
Sec 172 as an offence may only carry a 3 point endorsement at the moment, but it is also a discretionary disqualification offence. If they think you are trying to have them over don't be surprised if they dig, they may have a very good picture after all. The bench where you get caught out like that, may be less forgiving when it comes to any plead for leniency on sentence.
I have never heard of a ban being handed down for s.172.
"I assumed it was just junk mail, your honour. I threw it in the bin without opening it."
Another good reason to ban the use of first class mail for issuing NIPs.
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended) is the law that provides for the offence of 'failing to name the driver'.
The document you have is a combined Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and S172 notice.
If you fail to comply with the S172 demand for information, as the law stands (and assuming that the request meets all legal requirements) you are guilty of an offence.
Perhaps read the thread again in the light of this?
The document you have is a combined Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and S172 notice.
If you fail to comply with the S172 demand for information, as the law stands (and assuming that the request meets all legal requirements) you are guilty of an offence.
Perhaps read the thread again in the light of this?
cen said:
safespeed said:
May I please remind everyone that S172 is likely to die at the hands of the ECHR shortly.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Or more likely the ECJ
Is there an ECJ case expected this year? The Francis and O'Halloran -v- UK 'right to silence' case will be heard before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasborg at the end of September.
safespeed said:
cen said:
safespeed said:
May I please remind everyone that S172 is likely to die at the hands of the ECHR shortly.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Or more likely the ECJ
Is there an ECJ case expected this year? The Francis and O'Halloran -v- UK 'right to silence' case will be heard before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasborg at the end of September.
And I will be there to watch!!!
Sean
7db said:
safespeed said:
May I please remind everyone that S172 is likely to die at the hands of the ECHR shortly.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Most likely it will be gone before any such cases get to court.
Do you think the OP should bet his licence on it? Will you?
The collective advice was already heading towards a 'planned refusal' to the S172 request. It certainly isn't a question of 'betting his driving licence' on the basis of 'most likely' (which is what I said).
But it is one more reason to thnk that a planned refusal may be optimal. And don't forget, that his licence is very likely to be toast for at least a fortnight if he plays by the obvious rules.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff