Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE
Discussion
To the best of my knowledge Spain has a system that presumes the RK is responsible, unless the RK can provide evidence to the contrary.
Like the 172, that (more oppressive) system has also been found to be compatible with the ECHR. The rights of those citizens who need to be protected from offending outweigh the (minimal) rights lost by having to confirm your location at the scene of an alleged crime.
In any case, where the guilt in the related crime is disputed, the person filling in the 172 would still have access to the fair system of Courts and Appeals through which they could maintain their innocence or have their guilt proven, one way or the other.
Like the 172, that (more oppressive) system has also been found to be compatible with the ECHR. The rights of those citizens who need to be protected from offending outweigh the (minimal) rights lost by having to confirm your location at the scene of an alleged crime.
In any case, where the guilt in the related crime is disputed, the person filling in the 172 would still have access to the fair system of Courts and Appeals through which they could maintain their innocence or have their guilt proven, one way or the other.
WhereamI said:
And that is what they do. If there is evidence that the NIP was not received in 14 days then the driver will be not be convicted.
So, how do you propose to prove a negative ?As people keep saying, sworn testimony is likely to be ignored and the case pushed through to court, where they may not believe the defendant, because of the system as it is set up.
Deva Link said:
Sorry to do a “think of the children’ thing, but what if the car was alleged to have run over a small child. Say it was someone else’s car but your small child - would you still think it’s OK for everyone to just shrug and say ‘dunno’?
S172 is not used in properly serious cases like that.Why? Because it is likely to render any conviction unsafe.
daz3210 said:
That does sound very simple.
Is there any layout for such a statement, and anything that should/should not be included?
Or should you trot down to your local station to make the statement?
And should the S9 Statement then be sent with the completed NIP?
Wary of traps here.Is there any layout for such a statement, and anything that should/should not be included?
Or should you trot down to your local station to make the statement?
And should the S9 Statement then be sent with the completed NIP?
Anything in s9 format must be true, it is served s9 so as to make it legally relevant and carry weight with the Prosecution. The downside to this is that a false s9 statement leaves the provider liable to a charge of (I must confess to making an educated guess at this point, the exact offence escapes my mind at this second, but I can check and confirm to be sure) perverting the course of justice.
The s9 should be your FACTUAL version of events. It must be true, and should certainly only contain the facts of the matter. This is not to say it cannot be somewhat anecdotal. I must further confess (so this is what it's like being Catholic...) that I have previously avoided a speeder in this exact manner. So, if you recall the day on which you received the papers being a Saturday because you always visit aunty Mable on a Saturday, or because it was your dogs birthday and you went for a special walkies, then say so. Do not make the mistake of thinking you know anything about the law based on two episodes of Judge John Deed, it's not a forum for you to rant about the inequities of the criminal justice system, and to tell the CPS how "the police should be out catching burglars, not filming me speeding".
If you look on Google, I'm sure you will find a s9 template somewhere. I would return it with the NIP, but be sure to keep a copy, because the CJU (the people who deal with road traffic offences before the CPS get them, no real need to explain the procedure here, you;ll trust me when I say it's complicated and boring) WILL lose it/eat it/wipe their arses with it, because they are minimum wage public servants who could not care less if their lives depended upon it. I would send a covering letter with it, explaining the circumstances and that you have included a s9 statement which is served upon them in accordance with s9 of the CJA 1967 (link here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80).
Failing to reply within the proper time frame will leave one liable to prosecution for a s172 offence (failing to name the driver), for which a defective NIP is not a defence.
As to the man who suggests that if the lady in question has broken the speed limit and been caught, she should be guilty. You follow the logic then, when applied to the prosecuting authority, that if they have broken the rules (exactly the same as the speeding driver), they too must be held accountable. What sets the civilised world apart from the Neanderthals of Syria and Iraq and other tyrannous states is that our citizens are ruled by a fair hand. If we allow the prosecuting authorities to do as they wish (you, presumably, wouldn't allow the driver the defence of "but I was only a couple of MPH over the limit" so why do you presume to allow the prosecution the defence of "but the NIP was only a couple of days late"?), then the whole thing loses its validity and becomes arbitrary.
Simon.
Snowboy said:
We’re talking about 6 days.
Do I know who was driving one of my card 14 days ago? Yes.
Do I know who was driving one of my case 20 days ago? Yes.
6 days delay is not, in my opinion, a reason to throw out the case.
2 months would be enough of a reason to throw it out.
You are repeating the same thing you said previously, so I will respond in like vein. It matters no one whit what your opinion is. Parliament has decreed that the period is 14 days. No ifs, no buts. If you want it changed to suit your personal prejudices, I suggest you lobby your MP. Do I know who was driving one of my card 14 days ago? Yes.
Do I know who was driving one of my case 20 days ago? Yes.
6 days delay is not, in my opinion, a reason to throw out the case.
2 months would be enough of a reason to throw it out.
Snowboy said:
With regards to the question about the letter getting lost in the post.
I know, from experience with the TV licensing people on a flat I used to rent, that if you do not respond to mail that eventually the police will show up at your parents house with a warrant for your arrest for missing a court date.
If you are polite they will not arrest you, but will tell you to call the TV people immediately.
It’s then a few days of frustrating phonecalls after which everything is resolved amicably.
Care to elaborate on this? Were you the subject of the warrant? If so what mail was lost or you had ignored? What offence required your attendance at court?I know, from experience with the TV licensing people on a flat I used to rent, that if you do not respond to mail that eventually the police will show up at your parents house with a warrant for your arrest for missing a court date.
If you are polite they will not arrest you, but will tell you to call the TV people immediately.
It’s then a few days of frustrating phonecalls after which everything is resolved amicably.
Does anyone have anything constructive to add to this thread to help the OP or just slag them off?
Bottom line is the letter is late - legislation must be on their side. I wonder if its possible to setup a mailbox forwarding service via your registered driver address details which logs the arrival of letters - that would be all the proof needed.
Bottom line is the letter is late - legislation must be on their side. I wonder if its possible to setup a mailbox forwarding service via your registered driver address details which logs the arrival of letters - that would be all the proof needed.
fluffnik said:
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
The whole SCP racket and the entirely pernicious S172 on which they depend are entirely incompatible with a free and just society; they should be purged without mercy.
Oh dear...Do you know how crazy you sound
Steffan said:
Does anyone know whether the provable, absence on holiday, of the defendant for example would constitute a defence and render the prosecution void? I rather doubt it but I do wonder?
Would probably provide a defence for responding late to a s172 but would not mean the NIP was served late or affect any prosecution for original offence.BusaMK said:
Does anyone have anything constructive to add to this thread to help the OP or just slag them off?
There is nothing constructive to add. There is no evidence that the NIP was sent late and no proof that it was received late so it's time to accept the punishment and move on.Zeeky said:
So which is then, evidence or proof?
Both, evidence is 'that which tends to prove something'. But if you want the full definition of the situation you need section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
So you need to provide evidence to prove that it was not delivered in time.
You are using the words evidence and proof synonymously. Why do you state that the OP's mother does not have evidence to prove the NIP was delivered late? Why can't the proof, on the balance of probabilities, be achieved by convincing witness evidence that the NIP was delivered on a particular day?
Zeeky said:
You are using the words evidence and proof synonymously. Why do you state that the OP's mother does not have evidence to prove the NIP was delivered late? Why can't the proof, on the balance of probabilities, be achieved by convincing witness evidence that the NIP was delivered on a particular day?
What? I use them synonymously because to a great extent they are synonymous, proof is a subset of evidence, it is evidence that proves something.There is no suggestion in this thread that the OP's mother has any evidence, witness or otherwise, to show that the NIP was delivered late. If she has such evidence she can put it forwards but in the absence of that all she can do is accept it and move on.
WhereamI said:
...There is no suggestion in this thread that the OP's mother has any evidence, witness or otherwise, to show that the NIP was delivered late....
How does the OP's mother know that the NIP was delivered late? She must have knowledge of it being delivered late. That knowledge can be used in evidence. Zeeky said:
How does the OP's mother know that the NIP was delivered late? She must have knowledge of it being delivered late. That knowledge can be used in evidence.
Oh look, let's join the real world here. In practice getting off a speeding fine by claiming that the NIP was late doesn't work except in exceptional circumstances. OK, if there was a postal strike or something like that you stand a chance, but the court is not going to accept that the NIP was late simply because you say so.stemll said:
fluffnik said:
Tell me where I'm wrong and why.
Because a s172 is not an admission of guilt in any way, shape or form. Even the cowardly majority at the ECHR admitted that S172 encroached on basic rights rendering it unusable in serious cases.
The SCPs are racketeers, we need to recognise them for what they are and treat them accordingly; they should have NO place in a free society.
WhereamI said:
Oh look, let's join the real world here. In practice getting off a speeding fine by claiming that the NIP was late doesn't work except in exceptional circumstances. OK, if there was a postal strike or something like that you stand a chance, but the court is not going to accept that the NIP was late simply because you say so.
That's because the SCPs are racketeers, not creditable parts of a Justice System.We should not tolerate them.
The problem is that sometimes you do have to do something to stop people speeding. I used to live on a road where there were an inordinate number of people crashing into things largely because they were driving too fast. In an eighteen month period there were six major accidents including four fatalities and it really isn't that pleasant hearing it happen and running out to try and help only to find, in one case, a car had run the length of the fence before hitting the wall and the occupants were impaled on bits of fencing. Believe me it is not a sight you would forget.
Signage and road markings were tried but the thing that worked was putting up a speed camera. From that time until we moved there were no more accidents.
So I believe that they can have their uses and bearing in mind that they have signs around them and are painted yellow I struggle to understand how people fail to notice them.
As far as the process is concerned, it's not perfect but how else do you do it? If someone can get off by simply claiming they didn't get the NIP in time the system isn't working, similarly if sent by registered post all you would have to do is if you think you might be getting one don't answer the door to the postman and wait awhile before going to collect it from the sorting office.
Signage and road markings were tried but the thing that worked was putting up a speed camera. From that time until we moved there were no more accidents.
So I believe that they can have their uses and bearing in mind that they have signs around them and are painted yellow I struggle to understand how people fail to notice them.
As far as the process is concerned, it's not perfect but how else do you do it? If someone can get off by simply claiming they didn't get the NIP in time the system isn't working, similarly if sent by registered post all you would have to do is if you think you might be getting one don't answer the door to the postman and wait awhile before going to collect it from the sorting office.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff