NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure
Discussion
jwo said:
Fellow Phers after opinions/thoughts please.
Scenario: a person I know has been photographed by static camera at over 110mph on a 50mph limited road. I don’t know what type of road (single/dual/motorway) but overarching factor is it’s a 50mph limit.
They have chosen to ignore the NIP and effectively have said they don’t know who was driving. This vehicle is owned by said person who is sole user.
There is a no bail warrant out for them - from what I can determine they have been tried in their absence and have a fine of £800+ and six points for non disclosure of driver.
They intend to hand themselves in in the not to distant future and negotiate on paying (obviously arrested and trip to court).
Now forgive my ignorance, but if it is that easy to get out of admitting a high speed speeding offence surely everyone would do this to limit liability (yep up to £1k and 6 Points bad enough but for example if you had been doing a lot worse you’d take it)?
To my mind the no bail warrant would suggest they will go to court and be told that you are the RK and this driving in light of no evidence to suggest otherwise (or reasonable attempt etc) and this have more punishment.
Thoughts?
WNB suggests a disqualification is pending. Scenario: a person I know has been photographed by static camera at over 110mph on a 50mph limited road. I don’t know what type of road (single/dual/motorway) but overarching factor is it’s a 50mph limit.
They have chosen to ignore the NIP and effectively have said they don’t know who was driving. This vehicle is owned by said person who is sole user.
There is a no bail warrant out for them - from what I can determine they have been tried in their absence and have a fine of £800+ and six points for non disclosure of driver.
They intend to hand themselves in in the not to distant future and negotiate on paying (obviously arrested and trip to court).
Now forgive my ignorance, but if it is that easy to get out of admitting a high speed speeding offence surely everyone would do this to limit liability (yep up to £1k and 6 Points bad enough but for example if you had been doing a lot worse you’d take it)?
To my mind the no bail warrant would suggest they will go to court and be told that you are the RK and this driving in light of no evidence to suggest otherwise (or reasonable attempt etc) and this have more punishment.
Thoughts?
If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
agtlaw said:
WNB suggests a disqualification is pending.
If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
I'm not sure being smug about it is the right attitude though. This is an obvious loophole that people that are grossly exceeding the speed limit can choose to take, but I'm not sure we should celebrate this state of affairs or be coy about the whole "oops how forgetful" side of things. I'm sure your client learnt a lot from this experience, which is sortof the purpose of points is it not? (for average people without large disposable incomes at any rate)If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
shrug maybe I'm just cranky.
Durzel said:
agtlaw said:
WNB suggests a disqualification is pending.
If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
I'm not sure being smug about it is the right attitude though. This is an obvious loophole that people that are grossly exceeding the speed limit can choose to take, but I'm not sure we should celebrate this state of affairs or be coy about the whole "oops how forgetful" side of things. I'm sure your client learnt a lot from this experience, which is sortof the purpose of points is it not? (for average people without large disposable incomes at any rate)If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
shrug maybe I'm just cranky.
Sure, it could be worse, and arguably should have been... But he's got a six-pointer that insurers love to hate. So what's the answer? Instant non-negotiable ban for any and every genuine s172? (I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to whether there ever is such a thing...)
Do the current s172 penalties already encourage people to lie where they genuinely don't know, and take an SP30 where they weren't actually driving - simply because it's so much easier and less painful?
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
Based on this thread if I get collared for 150 and not stopped at the roadside then there is zero chance of me naming myself on the S172
Based on that post, I think there's a reasonable chance of PCoJ if ever that happens...agtlaw said:
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
Based on this thread if I get collared for 150 and not stopped at the roadside then there is zero chance of me naming myself on the S172
Based on that post, I think there's a reasonable chance of PCoJ if ever that happens...agtlaw said:
WNB suggests a disqualification is pending.
If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
There you go playmates...told ya.If your info is correct then the speeding offence has evaporated (if ever charged). They wouldn’t sentence for one offence and adjourn another. The ‘fine’ is actually fine + prosecution costs + surcharge.
Ignoring the s.172 request is a legitimate strategy in some cases. A wealthy client of mine did this for a high speed case quite recently. Very forgetful chap. He was properly advised about his legal obligation to return the form but he had a memory lapse when it came to returning it. Stroke of luck actually as he wasn’t too keen a ban and didn’t fancy a fine of up to £2,500 for a motorway speeding offence. The document offence is limited to £1000. Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine. It tends to happen to stupid and or unrepresented defendants.
ghe13rte said:
There you go playmates...told ya.
You completely ignored the rest of what he said. You have yet to show any evidence of "several cases" that you apparently know about where this has happened. agtlaw has even said that it hasn't happened in his experience, and one could reasonably conclude that he's represented people in hundreds of these cases.You've been talking about it in this thread from the start like its a slam dunk that if you fail to name a driver that the court will just up and decide "welp the RK is a shifty lookin' fella, I reckon he did it". Clearly this is not the case in practice (it would be pretty Orwellian if it did) and that you would have to otherwise damn yourself in some other fashion that could be used to enable the court to reasonably conclude that you were the driver - e.g. if you were a "stupid and or unrepresented defendant[s]".
Simply not telling them who was driving is not an automatic route to be prosecuted for both offences, and asserting it over and over again without providing any evidence of these "several cases" you apparently know about makes you look a bit silly to be honest.
Durzel said:
ghe13rte said:
There you go playmates...told ya.
You completely ignored the rest of what he said. You have yet to show any evidence of "several cases" that you apparently know about where this has happened. agtlaw has even said that it hasn't happened in his experience, and one could reasonably conclude that he's represented people in hundreds of these cases.People have been convicted of both offences quite rightly. What he hasn't seen is a court impose disqualification for the Sec 172 offence alone, but the court have the power to do so.
vonhosen said:
Can he not be convicted of both though?
If they believe they have sufficient evidence for him speeding (without him filling in the Sec 172) but he nevertheless fails to complete the administerial section 172 request thus committing that offence?
The 6 months limit for the speeding doesn't come into it if proceedings have been commenced for it (ie information has been laid before the court & he has been summonsed).
In those circumstances could he not be convicted of the 172 offence in his absence, but a fail to appear warrant issued in relation to the speeding (for a speed where they are likely to consider banning him & wanting him present)?
Yes, he could be convicted of both, but he was apparently only convicted on the s172 (according to the OP). (The easiest way to achieve that would be to plead guilty to both charges when dual-charged for the s172 and the underlying offence.)If they believe they have sufficient evidence for him speeding (without him filling in the Sec 172) but he nevertheless fails to complete the administerial section 172 request thus committing that offence?
The 6 months limit for the speeding doesn't come into it if proceedings have been commenced for it (ie information has been laid before the court & he has been summonsed).
In those circumstances could he not be convicted of the 172 offence in his absence, but a fail to appear warrant issued in relation to the speeding (for a speed where they are likely to consider banning him & wanting him present)?
Yes, again, but it is likely that they have no other evidence of the driver's identity, which is an essential element of the speeding offence that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If they did have such evidence, they would not have needed the s172, but could have sent it anyway. However, then the OP's friend probably would have been convicted of both offences, which the OP says he was not. That tells me that they most likely did not have such evidence.
Yes, that is correct. Although I understand the procedure is now somewhat different with a Single Justice Procedure, which is more common than a court summons now. The six months runs from the date of the speeding offence, but the OP's friend would not be "in the clear" until several weeks after that, just in case the proceedings had been begun within the time limit, but notification had not yet worked its way through to the defendant.
Yes, but only if they have evidence of the identity of the driver, which we do not know, but I think is unlikely.
vonhosen said:
Durzel said:
ghe13rte said:
There you go playmates...told ya.
You completely ignored the rest of what he said. You have yet to show any evidence of "several cases" that you apparently know about where this has happened. agtlaw has even said that it hasn't happened in his experience, and one could reasonably conclude that he's represented people in hundreds of these cases.People have been convicted of both offences quite rightly. What he hasn't seen is a court impose disqualification for the Sec 172 offence alone, but the court have the power to do so.
It appears to me in the last paragraph that when he has represented someone being prosecuted for failure to complete the S172 they have not subsequently been prosecuted for the speeding. I.E. it has been an either/or scenario.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Durzel said:
ghe13rte said:
There you go playmates...told ya.
You completely ignored the rest of what he said. You have yet to show any evidence of "several cases" that you apparently know about where this has happened. agtlaw has even said that it hasn't happened in his experience, and one could reasonably conclude that he's represented people in hundreds of these cases.People have been convicted of both offences quite rightly. What he hasn't seen is a court impose disqualification for the Sec 172 offence alone, but the court have the power to do so.
It appears to me in the last paragraph that when he has represented someone being prosecuted for failure to complete the S172 they have not subsequently been prosecuted for the speeding. I.E. it has been an either/or scenario.
agtlaw said:
It is right to say that they could pursue both the index offence and the s. 172 offence and that defendants have been properly convicted of both offences. I’ve never had that happen to a client of mine.
He also said that he has never seen somebody disqualified for the172 offence on it's own, but they can be.agtlaw said:
Disqualification is available for the document matter but I’ve never seen the power exercised.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff