A summons must be served, no?
Discussion
I was stopped by a headmaster type cop for doing 34 in a 30 today.
First time ever, so I was a little unsure of the situation and offered to pay the fine on the spot.
' We don't do that, sir'
' Well, problem is, I am returning to NZ in 3 weeks, can it be sorted by then?'
' Most unlikely, sir'
' You expect me to come back from NZ to defend myself?'
'No sir, we'll just summons you and do you in your absence'
' How on earth can you serve a summons, I won't have a British address?'
'Doesn't matter, sir. We just send it to the one you have now, if you ignore it, you go down in absence. Much higher fine, sir'
We then argued a bit in true Monty Python style but go nowhere.
Anyhow, this is bull, isn't it? Surely I have the right to defend myself, and by sneakily sending a summons to an address I no longer live at, then using the lack of response to do me, is wrong?????
A summons has to be signed for me, or handed to me, does it not?
First time ever, so I was a little unsure of the situation and offered to pay the fine on the spot.
' We don't do that, sir'
' Well, problem is, I am returning to NZ in 3 weeks, can it be sorted by then?'
' Most unlikely, sir'
' You expect me to come back from NZ to defend myself?'
'No sir, we'll just summons you and do you in your absence'
' How on earth can you serve a summons, I won't have a British address?'
'Doesn't matter, sir. We just send it to the one you have now, if you ignore it, you go down in absence. Much higher fine, sir'
We then argued a bit in true Monty Python style but go nowhere.
Anyhow, this is bull, isn't it? Surely I have the right to defend myself, and by sneakily sending a summons to an address I no longer live at, then using the lack of response to do me, is wrong?????
A summons has to be signed for me, or handed to me, does it not?
Thanks. Yeah, he did come across as quite burnt out and tired of same old lines, but what can you do when it is the damn truth!!
I still can't see how unless that summons reaches me, it is OK for the police to presume I am doing a dirty and go for a higher fine in court.
When the NIP comes ( it has to within 14 days ) I plan on admitting the offence but giving my NZ address and take it from there.
Terrible to think the truth will land me stress and possible higher costs, whereas if I lied and pretended I was still in the UK, I'd get a straight £60 and 3!!
I still can't see how unless that summons reaches me, it is OK for the police to presume I am doing a dirty and go for a higher fine in court.
When the NIP comes ( it has to within 14 days ) I plan on admitting the offence but giving my NZ address and take it from there.
Terrible to think the truth will land me stress and possible higher costs, whereas if I lied and pretended I was still in the UK, I'd get a straight £60 and 3!!
jondude said:
I was stopped by a headmaster type cop for doing 34 in a 30 today.
This is slightly OT, but you were stopped for 34 in a 30, by a policeman?I know that the police are not obliged to follow ACPO guidelines, which would allow 35 in a 30, but for a full-fledged police officer to go to the trouble of not only stopping someone who was in technical violation and having a word, but actually of asserting the intention to prosecute, seems quite excessive.
Might there have been extenuating circumstances? Did he have another issue with your driving, or perhaps there were vulnerable road users about?
Or maybe he was part of a speed trap, and he was just trying to get his numbers up.
flemke said:
jondude said:
I was stopped by a headmaster type cop for doing 34 in a 30 today.
This is slightly OT, but you were stopped for 34 in a 30, by a policeman?I know that the police are not obliged to follow ACPO guidelines, which would allow 35 in a 30, but for a full-fledged police officer to go to the trouble of not only stopping someone who was in technical violation and having a word, but actually of asserting the intention to prosecute, seems quite excessive.
Might there have been extenuating circumstances? Did he have another issue with your driving, or perhaps there were vulnerable road users about?
Or maybe he was part of a speed trap, and he was just trying to get his numbers up.
I think it was a laser?? He flagged me down ahead of the trap.
The reason I have lost some faith is because not only was the copper extremely patronising ' Oh yes, I am sure you are, sir' when I said I was returning to NZ, this was a very, very nice sportscar I was borrowing. ( This is what I mean by headmaster - either he was genuinely tired or really trying hard to wind me up )
I have driven the same route and past the same trap for years in my tin box on the way to work, same speeds and driving style - nothing.
Honestly, I was driving slowly and carefully - this car was not mine and I therefore don't take the pee when someone has been nice enough to let me have spin.
The reason I have lost some faith is because not only was the copper extremely patronising ' Oh yes, I am sure you are, sir' when I said I was returning to NZ, this was a very, very nice sportscar I was borrowing. ( This is what I mean by headmaster - either he was genuinely tired or really trying hard to wind me up )
I have driven the same route and past the same trap for years in my tin box on the way to work, same speeds and driving style - nothing.
Honestly, I was driving slowly and carefully - this car was not mine and I therefore don't take the pee when someone has been nice enough to let me have spin.
- * I'd still like to know, as I a presuming some of you above are in the police, if it is right a summons does not have to be served ( received ) by me ****
jondude said:
I think it was a laser?? He flagged me down ahead of the trap.
The reason I have lost some faith is because not only was the copper extremely patronising ' Oh yes, I am sure you are, sir' when I said I was returning to NZ, this was a very, very nice sportscar I was borrowing. ( This is what I mean by headmaster - either he was genuinely tired or really trying hard to wind me up )
I have driven the same route and past the same trap for years in my tin box on the way to work, same speeds and driving style - nothing.
Honestly, I was driving slowly and carefully - this car was not mine and I therefore don't take the pee when someone has been nice enough to let me have spin.
I've said, you don't have to personally sign for it or it be handed to you in person. It has to be served at the address you have nominated that's all.The reason I have lost some faith is because not only was the copper extremely patronising ' Oh yes, I am sure you are, sir' when I said I was returning to NZ, this was a very, very nice sportscar I was borrowing. ( This is what I mean by headmaster - either he was genuinely tired or really trying hard to wind me up )
I have driven the same route and past the same trap for years in my tin box on the way to work, same speeds and driving style - nothing.
Honestly, I was driving slowly and carefully - this car was not mine and I therefore don't take the pee when someone has been nice enough to let me have spin.
- * I'd still like to know, as I a presuming some of you above are in the police, if it is right a summons does not have to be served ( received ) by me ****
flemke said:
Or maybe he was part of a speed trap, and he was just trying to get his numbers up.
jondude said:
I think it was a laser?? He flagged me down ahead of the trap.
Opening line from article in the Evening Standard one day last week:
"Police officers in London are being threatened with disciplinary action unless they meet arrest quotas."
Regardless of whether you were stopped in London, or the fact that this stoppage would not be part of the same tally as an arrest would be, it seems clear that the Police are setting priorities in order to tick boxes and satisfy the politicians within the Police, and those above them.
A sad state of affairs, jondude, and, if we were in your position, many of us would be a lot more annoyed by receiving such treatment than you appear to be.
vonhosen said:
I wished they'd tell me what my quota is. Everyone keeps talking about them & I'm being kept in the dark. How on earth am I supposed to hit a target when I don't know what it is ?
That must be because you're not on Borough Inspector Mark Payne's mailing list, from which the article quotes:Wrt officers who fail to make at least three "sanction detections" in a fifteen-week period,
"I am fully prepared to use police regulations to resolve issues should improvements not be forthcoming."
Response from Met Police Federation chairman Glen Smyth:
"Police officers should take action as and when it is necessary and when it is appropriate. For officers to be set artificial targets is entirely wrong.
"The public should not be simply targeted in this way to achieve an artificial target."
Smyth went on to say:
"Everything is driven by performance to meet Government targets and objectives."
Chief Superintendent Chris Bourlet said, "Police managers continually monitor performance set against targets to ensure they are reasonable and achievable and to ensure officers are supported in their efforts to meet the expected standards."
Just because you yourself have not been given targets, von, in your particular force or speciality, does not mean that they do not exist.
Even if formal "quotas" do not exist, that hardly means that the higher-ups do not look at the numbers, nor that many of their personnel decisions are not guided by them.
Come on, von - these people are the ones who are all the time prating about how much they have improved the law and order situation in Britain. To support their arguments, they throw stacks of (unverifiable) numbers at the public. They believe in numbers. They rely on numbers. This could not be more obvious.
Do you seriously think that nobody up top keeps constant track of this stuff, or that the Force is completely naive to that fact?
flemke said:
these people are the ones who are all the time prating about how much they have improved the law and order situation in Britain. To support their arguments, they throw stacks of (unverifiable) numbers at the public. They believe in numbers. They rely on numbers. This could not be more obvious.
Surely they are only reliant on statistics as a result of the way the government spins things. Even if I am told I am 7% safer than last year, it doesn't matter - I live in the real world and still do not feel safe in certain places at certain times.The senior officers, mostly, are reasonable people who have done their time 'on the streets'.
If Plod goes ahead then summons can be issued.
A summons is considered to have been served if :
served personally, or
handed to person authorised to receive, or
sent by post to the last known address.
Mags Court Act 1980.
Under Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Section 2a:
Summons requiring a person charged with an offence to appear before a court in the United Kingdom may be issued or made notwithstanding that the person in question is outside the United Kingdom and may be served outside the United Kingdom in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
I am not sure what arrangements S o S has with New Zealand but this seems pointless as under the same section:
Service of any process outside the United Kingdom by virtue of this section shall not impose any obligation under the law of any part of the United Kingdom to comply with it and accordingly failure to do so shall not constitute contempt of any court or be a ground for issuing a warrant to secure the attendance of the person in question or, in Scotland, for imposing any penalty.
Under S 55 Mags Court Act 1980:
Court cannot go ahead in the absence of defefendant until it is satisfied that summons served in accordance with law and/or issue warrant until they are satisfied defendant has had adequate notice of time/date of case.
Plod, as VH states, could have used his powers under Sect 110 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in that having evidence of an offence offender satisfied one of the criteria for grounds for arrest in that if not arrested will fail to attend Court.
As for 34 in a 30 zone I have that feeling that certain paperwork connected with this case could well be now reposing in a certain WPB in a nick somewhere - unless, as others have said, there are other circumstances that have not been mentioned.
dvd
A summons is considered to have been served if :
served personally, or
handed to person authorised to receive, or
sent by post to the last known address.
Mags Court Act 1980.
Under Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Section 2a:
Summons requiring a person charged with an offence to appear before a court in the United Kingdom may be issued or made notwithstanding that the person in question is outside the United Kingdom and may be served outside the United Kingdom in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
I am not sure what arrangements S o S has with New Zealand but this seems pointless as under the same section:
Service of any process outside the United Kingdom by virtue of this section shall not impose any obligation under the law of any part of the United Kingdom to comply with it and accordingly failure to do so shall not constitute contempt of any court or be a ground for issuing a warrant to secure the attendance of the person in question or, in Scotland, for imposing any penalty.
Under S 55 Mags Court Act 1980:
Court cannot go ahead in the absence of defefendant until it is satisfied that summons served in accordance with law and/or issue warrant until they are satisfied defendant has had adequate notice of time/date of case.
Plod, as VH states, could have used his powers under Sect 110 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in that having evidence of an offence offender satisfied one of the criteria for grounds for arrest in that if not arrested will fail to attend Court.
As for 34 in a 30 zone I have that feeling that certain paperwork connected with this case could well be now reposing in a certain WPB in a nick somewhere - unless, as others have said, there are other circumstances that have not been mentioned.
dvd
Mattt said:
flemke said:
these people are the ones who are all the time prating about how much they have improved the law and order situation in Britain. To support their arguments, they throw stacks of (unverifiable) numbers at the public. They believe in numbers. They rely on numbers. This could not be more obvious.
Surely they are only reliant on statistics as a result of the way the government spins things. Even if I am told I am 7% safer than last year, it doesn't matter - I live in the real world and still do not feel safe in certain places at certain times.The senior officers, mostly, are reasonable people who have done their time 'on the streets'.
- the professional politicians who try to run everyone else's life will seek to impose their will on the Police, at the same time that they seek to promote their own careers by "looking good" and pleasing the right people,
- the rank-and-file normal police officers, who compose perhaps 95% of all police, are normal people trying to do a proper job without regard for the political bullshit as above, but they must take their instructions from
- the remaining 5% of the police who started out as normal people trying to do a proper job, but have risen to proximity with the politicians, and cannot resist following their example as they seek to promote their own careers by looking good and pleasing the right people.
I'm not fully versed with these things but if the BiB gave you a verbal NIP at the roadside (something along the lines of 'I will submit your details for the question of prosecution for the offence of...') then the 14 day rule doesn't apply. The CPS just have to lay papers at the court within 6 months of the date of the offence so you'll be long gone!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff