S.172 NIP - Incorrect time
Discussion
ashleyman said:
The OP says:
"This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a Premier Inn Car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there"
To me, that means that the car had been parked up at the Premier Inn at 14:20 and was still there at 15:00 when the supposed speeding occurred. If the OP can prove it is parked up at 15:00 on the hotel CCTV then how is it possible he also got a speeding ticket? If the OP can get the CCTV footage and send it off to the Police force then he's proven without doubt that the car was elsewhere at the time stated on the NIP.
If the time on the NIP is wrong (which it sounds like it is) then that's really not OP's problem and it comes down to the the NIP issuer to prove that it was the OP. If the Police prove it was the OP by saying that the time on the NIP is wrong then that casts doubt on the equipment.
You could easily argue what should have been and if it was a mistake but a mistake is a mistake and that would be enough to cast doubt.
And I know all that, I read it before and the same thing has been said by other on here. However, and this is quite important is that at the moment he doesn't have any CCTV from the Hotel and even if he did (which will be unlikely given the time which has expired) then that would show was that he was at the Hotel at 'a' time. "This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a Premier Inn Car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there"
To me, that means that the car had been parked up at the Premier Inn at 14:20 and was still there at 15:00 when the supposed speeding occurred. If the OP can prove it is parked up at 15:00 on the hotel CCTV then how is it possible he also got a speeding ticket? If the OP can get the CCTV footage and send it off to the Police force then he's proven without doubt that the car was elsewhere at the time stated on the NIP.
If the time on the NIP is wrong (which it sounds like it is) then that's really not OP's problem and it comes down to the the NIP issuer to prove that it was the OP. If the Police prove it was the OP by saying that the time on the NIP is wrong then that casts doubt on the equipment.
You could easily argue what should have been and if it was a mistake but a mistake is a mistake and that would be enough to cast doubt.
What I'm interested in is just what level of evidence is actually needed to cast enough doubt over the timing on the NIP to get it thrown out. In the real world what is actually needed because at the moment, the OP has nothing. He is just making a claim of a error based upon something he 'may' be able to show, but can't at the moment and may never be able to. I'm not doubting what he's saying but he has nothing to back that up with sufficient gravitas to counter an official NIP, and official photo with a time that matches the NIP, and a SCP who aren't backing down.
It can't be as easy to get off a speeding ticket as just saying 'I was somewhere else at that time' 'I can prove the SCP's clock was wrong because the Premier Inn's clock was right' 'the receptionist saw me at some time on that day' 'I have a credit card receipt 50 minutes earlier from somewhere else' etc.. If it was that easy, everybody would manufacture an equally elaborate backstory to cast doubt over the NIP's validity. Is it really that easy?
SS2. said:
The Surveyor said:
Don't get me wrong, I hope this doesn't proceed, but on the face of it unless the SCP back down and admit that all NIP's issued that day are void, the OP is going to have to spend a lot of time and money trying to demonstrate that his claims trump the SCP's 'official' evidence.
Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.Red Devil said:
SS2. said:
The Surveyor said:
Don't get me wrong, I hope this doesn't proceed, but on the face of it unless the SCP back down and admit that all NIP's issued that day are void, the OP is going to have to spend a lot of time and money trying to demonstrate that his claims trump the SCP's 'official' evidence.
Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.Red Devil said:
SS2. said:
The Surveyor said:
Don't get me wrong, I hope this doesn't proceed, but on the face of it unless the SCP back down and admit that all NIP's issued that day are void, the OP is going to have to spend a lot of time and money trying to demonstrate that his claims trump the SCP's 'official' evidence.
Even if he was able to prove conclusively that his vehicle was elsewhere at the time alleged on the notice, the NIP would not be considered invalid unless the Magistrates found that the error was sufficient to prejudice his defence.The Surveyor said:
I'd agree with Red Devil, 'if' there was enough evidence to show that the time was wrong on the NIP / Photo, it wouldn't proceed. If the time was wrong, what else was wrong on the only bit of evidence submitted by the SCP?
Why would the time render anything else wrong?The time isn't connected to the speed measurement system so how can what you suggest be likely? You are not making any sense.
The Surveyor said:
ashleyman said:
The OP says:
"This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a Premier Inn Car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there"
To me, that means that the car had been parked up at the Premier Inn at 14:20 and was still there at 15:00 when the supposed speeding occurred. If the OP can prove it is parked up at 15:00 on the hotel CCTV then how is it possible he also got a speeding ticket? If the OP can get the CCTV footage and send it off to the Police force then he's proven without doubt that the car was elsewhere at the time stated on the NIP.
If the time on the NIP is wrong (which it sounds like it is) then that's really not OP's problem and it comes down to the the NIP issuer to prove that it was the OP. If the Police prove it was the OP by saying that the time on the NIP is wrong then that casts doubt on the equipment.
You could easily argue what should have been and if it was a mistake but a mistake is a mistake and that would be enough to cast doubt.
What I'm interested in is just what level of evidence is actually needed to cast enough doubt over the timing on the NIP to get it thrown out. "This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a Premier Inn Car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there"
To me, that means that the car had been parked up at the Premier Inn at 14:20 and was still there at 15:00 when the supposed speeding occurred. If the OP can prove it is parked up at 15:00 on the hotel CCTV then how is it possible he also got a speeding ticket? If the OP can get the CCTV footage and send it off to the Police force then he's proven without doubt that the car was elsewhere at the time stated on the NIP.
If the time on the NIP is wrong (which it sounds like it is) then that's really not OP's problem and it comes down to the the NIP issuer to prove that it was the OP. If the Police prove it was the OP by saying that the time on the NIP is wrong then that casts doubt on the equipment.
You could easily argue what should have been and if it was a mistake but a mistake is a mistake and that would be enough to cast doubt.
Can you get off a murder charge by saying you were somewhere else at the time of the murder? Well, yes! If you have the evidence to prove that you were elsewhere. If the evidence exists to prove the OP was elsewhere then whats the difference? It doesn't come down to prejudice or anything like that. NIP says 15:00, not me. Here's a CCTV of car at hotel at 15:00 along with check in slip which was at 14:45. Here's our phones data to show our phones were at hotel along with car. That's just an example but I hope you see my point.
As for not being able to get the CCTV, I suggest that people try a little harder. It's not our policy isn't a good enough answer for me and I'd be going up and up the corporate ladder until someone did release it. If they refused then take them to court for it if you're that bothered.
What about all the other drivers being caught out by this equipment with the incorrect time on their tickets?
Edited by ashleyman on Tuesday 6th December 17:44
Edited by ashleyman on Tuesday 6th December 17:51
Red Devil said:
If I have understood you correctly the case could still go to trial but would then be trumped by the defendant's conclusive evidence. Seems a waste of valuable court time to me. Wouldn't the prosecution simply fold before the case was called or tell the bench it had decided to offer no evidence?
Not quite.Of course it could go to trial but it would be a matter of fact and degree as to whether the Magistrates found that the error of 40 to 50 minutes was sufficient to seriously mislead or prejudice the defendant.
IMHO, it matters not how 'conclusive' the OP's evidence is which confirms the vehicle to have been elsewhere at the exact time specified on the notice. If the bench decided that the OP could be under no doubt that the notice referred to the occasion when his wife was driving past the camera (ie because they did drive down that road, on that day, around that time, and they drove it only once), then the NIP would be deemed valid and the prosecution could continue.
If the Magistrates decided that the error did seriously mislead or prejudice the defendant, then the notice would be deemed invalid and prosecution of the substantive offence would likely fold at that point.
ashleyman said:
But you're assuming that they have tested the machine. I'm sorry but I seriously cannot see how this can go any further.
There's plenty of well established case law which confirms that errors or omissions on a NIP may not automatically render the notice invalid - a matter of fact and degree, each case on its merits, etc.The Surveyor said:
I'd agree with Red Devil, 'if' there was enough evidence to show that the time was wrong on the NIP / Photo, it wouldn't proceed.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.Would you be willing to pay the OP's fines, costs & surcharges if the matter was proceeded to court and conviction followed ?
The Surveyor said:
What I'm interested in is just what level of evidence is actually needed to cast enough doubt over the timing on the NIP to get it thrown out.
The evidence could be rock solid that the time stated on the NIP was incorrect but, if it didn't serve to mislead or prejudice the defendant, it would make not a jot of difference to the validity of the notice.ashleyman said:
Can you get off a murder charge by saying you were somewhere else at the time of the murder? Well, yes! If you have the evidence to prove that you were elsewhere. If the evidence exists to prove the OP was elsewhere then whats the difference? It doesn't come down to prejudice or anything like that. NIP says 15:00, not me. Here's a CCTV of car at hotel at 15:00 along with check in slip which was at 14:45. Here's our phones data to show our phones were at hotel along with car. That's just an example but I hope you see my point.
The police have a video of you murdering someone and the time stamp on the video says 0200 the day after the clocks go back. I doubt that arguing that you weren't there at 0200 and crossing your fingers is going to see you skipping happily home from court.Garybee said:
The police have a video of you murdering someone and the time stamp on the video says 0200 the day after the clocks go back. I doubt that arguing that you weren't there at 0200 and crossing your fingers is going to see you skipping happily home from court.
Hopefully we would all be somewhat more concerned about a murder than this totally trivial event. And the police don't issue N.I.P.s for capital crimes with 14 day deadlines and all other considerations.SS2. said:
There's plenty of well established case law which confirms that errors or omissions on a NIP may not automatically render the notice invalid - a matter of fact and degree, each case on its merits, etc.
A lot of which deals with repealed legislation. Pope v Clarke (1953), for example, considered the Road Traffic Act 1930. The notice stated 1:15 p.m., not 11:15 a.m. An accident had occured and the defendant was aware of that fact. He had not been misled by the error in the section 21 notice. The case would be considered differently today. Section 2(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides that a notice of intended prosecution is not required where an accident occured. Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 7th December 09:17
These trivial things, due to their very volume, are often considered on a 'computer says no' basis. If he had knocked down a cyclist or been doing 65mph in town then it truly deserves ramping up and getting more real thought and actual real humans involved. I'd however hope that someone had more in the way of brains rather than blind vengeance in the SCP/CPS when they realise that the facts don't align with the allegation?
Just wondering if OP was at the hotel that makes you tap in your residents' reg number at reception to avoid the ANPR car park similar petty invoicers?
Just wondering if OP was at the hotel that makes you tap in your residents' reg number at reception to avoid the ANPR car park similar petty invoicers?
While its always nice to 'get one over' on the establishment: pick your fights carefully; there's always a risk of tripping up.
1. The OP knows he's been popped. (Lord Howard and his wife could not remember who was driving - while accepting their honesty the Court decided the technology proved the offence had occurred - they were both fined!)
2. The OP has no real, factual evidence that can prove it was not his car speeding.
3. There is no evidence the camera 'clock' impacts the speed measuring capability.
4. If the OP pushes (he's already in danger of having said too much) and it gets in front of a Magistrate the whole story looks silly as it does not unwind the fact that the car was photographed speeding.
I'd pay up it might be the best financial decision!
1. The OP knows he's been popped. (Lord Howard and his wife could not remember who was driving - while accepting their honesty the Court decided the technology proved the offence had occurred - they were both fined!)
2. The OP has no real, factual evidence that can prove it was not his car speeding.
3. There is no evidence the camera 'clock' impacts the speed measuring capability.
4. If the OP pushes (he's already in danger of having said too much) and it gets in front of a Magistrate the whole story looks silly as it does not unwind the fact that the car was photographed speeding.
I'd pay up it might be the best financial decision!
agtlaw said:
drf765 said:
OK, see if this defence works then. Maybe your Wilkinson's will already have the answer but it isn't the answer that you are saying it gives. I would say good luck but you don't need it.
Not if you're involved, Steve.
sad no mark wannabebutwouldnotmakethegradetrafficpoliceman gets it up him again.cmaguire said:
Garybee said:
The police have a video of you murdering someone and the time stamp on the video says 0200 the day after the clocks go back. I doubt that arguing that you weren't there at 0200 and crossing your fingers is going to see you skipping happily home from court.
Hopefully we would all be somewhat more concerned about a murder than this totally trivial event. And the police don't issue N.I.P.s for capital crimes with 14 day deadlines and all other considerations.Oh look, another PH'er looking for something to have an argument about. To provide context to my previous comment you could always quote the comment I replied to. Obviously I believe murder and speeding are EXACTLY the same. I'm certainly not light-heartedly pointing out how the previous poster's analogy doesn't work.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff