Norfolk NIP's invalid
Discussion
From http://tinyurl.com/a2rdk
Legal row over speeding form
MARK NICHOLLS
20 May 2005 08:25
Top-level talks are being held between police and prosecution lawyers in Norfolk over the validity of forms issued to drivers snared by speed cameras.
And last night it remained unclear whether hundreds of motorists could exploit a legal loophole that could see them evade paying speeding fines.
The discussions follow a case at Norwich Magistrates' Court earlier this week in which 39-year-old Mike Cutting saw his case dismissed after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.
Mr Cutting had failed to respond to a speeding notice because he was not convinced by its credibility. He was then accused of failing to provide evidence, and appeared before the court on Monday.
The crux of the case lay in whether the so-called section 172 form received by Mr Cutting – asking him for information on who was driving at the time – had been issued by an official who was acting on behalf of the chief constable of Norfolk.
He contested its validity and, after discussions, the case was dropped.
Norfolk police and the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which operates speed cameras in the county, maintain that the form was clearly issued on behalf of the chief constable.
However, it does not specifically say that on the form.
But Mr Cutting, of Bracon Ash, near Norwich, said he felt the force needed to make it clear to the recipients that that person was authorised by the chief constable.
Mr Cutting, a commercial manager for Cable & Wireless, was accused of speeding on the A11 near Snetterton, having been detected by a camera. He was issued with a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution).
At the bottom of the form was the signature of what appears to be S Bille for Unit Manager (it is in fact the name of Sue Bilbie, the unit manager of the force's Central Ticket Office).
This contrasts, for example, with a Dorset police form. At the bottom of its form, the name MA Garratt, Head of Fixed Penalties, is clearly defined – and crucially so are the words “On behalf of the Chief Constable of Dorset”.
Case law has long-since established that such forms need clearly to demonstrate they are issued on the Chief Constable's authority.
Mr Cutting claimed that the Norfolk form did not convey that.
“I didn't even think the form was real, it was unconvincing. I thought it was someone messing about so I ignored it. It also meant they could not prosecute me for speeding as they did not know who was driving,” he said.
He was prosecuted for not supplying information, an offence that carries a maximum fine of £1000 and three penalty points on a driver's licence.
In preparation for his case Mr Cutting stumbled across the website www.pepipoo.com, which acts as a forum for motorists contesting speeding accusations.
He picked up information on how to prepare his case and read up on relevant case law, along with examples of NIP forms from other forces
He then went to Norwich Magistrates Court, expecting a trial on Monday, but the CPS eventually offered no evidence.
Mr Cutting now thinks that the floodgates could be open for other motorists to evade paying fines if they have received the form that he claims is invalid.
“I think all letters sent out in this form should be retracted because if people know about this case, they could get off. The case law is compelling,” he added.
Last night, a spokeswoman for the CPS said two of its lawyers were speaking with Norfolk police to assess the validity of the form and decide if it needed to be amended or upgraded.
Norfolk police confirmed that discussions were taking place over the nature of the form.
Chief Insp Paul Hurren, of the force's Criminal Justice Department, insisted its s172 form was legitimately issued on behalf of the Chief Constable and signed by the unit manager.
He said: “The unit manager of the Central Ticket Office is acting with the delegated authority of, and on behalf of, the Chief Constable.”
He believed it unlikely that the fall-out from Monday's court case would open the floodgates to motorists seeking to overturn accusations of speeding.
Chief Insp Hurren said the police would have preferred to have seen Mr Cutting's case adjourned, rather than thrown out, as this would have enabled the force to prove to the court that the NIP was issued on the Chief Constable's behalf.
Legal row over speeding form
MARK NICHOLLS
20 May 2005 08:25
Top-level talks are being held between police and prosecution lawyers in Norfolk over the validity of forms issued to drivers snared by speed cameras.
And last night it remained unclear whether hundreds of motorists could exploit a legal loophole that could see them evade paying speeding fines.
The discussions follow a case at Norwich Magistrates' Court earlier this week in which 39-year-old Mike Cutting saw his case dismissed after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.
Mr Cutting had failed to respond to a speeding notice because he was not convinced by its credibility. He was then accused of failing to provide evidence, and appeared before the court on Monday.
The crux of the case lay in whether the so-called section 172 form received by Mr Cutting – asking him for information on who was driving at the time – had been issued by an official who was acting on behalf of the chief constable of Norfolk.
He contested its validity and, after discussions, the case was dropped.
Norfolk police and the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which operates speed cameras in the county, maintain that the form was clearly issued on behalf of the chief constable.
However, it does not specifically say that on the form.
But Mr Cutting, of Bracon Ash, near Norwich, said he felt the force needed to make it clear to the recipients that that person was authorised by the chief constable.
Mr Cutting, a commercial manager for Cable & Wireless, was accused of speeding on the A11 near Snetterton, having been detected by a camera. He was issued with a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution).
At the bottom of the form was the signature of what appears to be S Bille for Unit Manager (it is in fact the name of Sue Bilbie, the unit manager of the force's Central Ticket Office).
This contrasts, for example, with a Dorset police form. At the bottom of its form, the name MA Garratt, Head of Fixed Penalties, is clearly defined – and crucially so are the words “On behalf of the Chief Constable of Dorset”.
Case law has long-since established that such forms need clearly to demonstrate they are issued on the Chief Constable's authority.
Mr Cutting claimed that the Norfolk form did not convey that.
“I didn't even think the form was real, it was unconvincing. I thought it was someone messing about so I ignored it. It also meant they could not prosecute me for speeding as they did not know who was driving,” he said.
He was prosecuted for not supplying information, an offence that carries a maximum fine of £1000 and three penalty points on a driver's licence.
In preparation for his case Mr Cutting stumbled across the website www.pepipoo.com, which acts as a forum for motorists contesting speeding accusations.
He picked up information on how to prepare his case and read up on relevant case law, along with examples of NIP forms from other forces
He then went to Norwich Magistrates Court, expecting a trial on Monday, but the CPS eventually offered no evidence.
Mr Cutting now thinks that the floodgates could be open for other motorists to evade paying fines if they have received the form that he claims is invalid.
“I think all letters sent out in this form should be retracted because if people know about this case, they could get off. The case law is compelling,” he added.
Last night, a spokeswoman for the CPS said two of its lawyers were speaking with Norfolk police to assess the validity of the form and decide if it needed to be amended or upgraded.
Norfolk police confirmed that discussions were taking place over the nature of the form.
Chief Insp Paul Hurren, of the force's Criminal Justice Department, insisted its s172 form was legitimately issued on behalf of the Chief Constable and signed by the unit manager.
He said: “The unit manager of the Central Ticket Office is acting with the delegated authority of, and on behalf of, the Chief Constable.”
He believed it unlikely that the fall-out from Monday's court case would open the floodgates to motorists seeking to overturn accusations of speeding.
Chief Insp Hurren said the police would have preferred to have seen Mr Cutting's case adjourned, rather than thrown out, as this would have enabled the force to prove to the court that the NIP was issued on the Chief Constable's behalf.
Go get em boys 
Would have thought that Norfolk SPC would have had a certificate signed by Chief Constable to effect they act on his behalf when chasing drivers under S 172 although this is not specifically stated only
" person keeping vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by OR ON BEHALF OF CHIEF OF POLICE."
Note: held - Where the notice has been produced from an official source and has every appearance of authenticity, justices may draw an inference as to the validity of the Notice and providing they are satisfied that the sender of the notice was "acting on behalf of the C O P" it is not necessary that the specially authorised person should sign every notice issued. [Arnold v DPP (1999) and Pamlin v Gorman (1980)]
Very wise to adjourn to get sorted as if the Mags had thrown out would have been like the little Dutch boy pulling his finger out of the dyke (embankment).
DVD
" person keeping vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by OR ON BEHALF OF CHIEF OF POLICE."
Note: held - Where the notice has been produced from an official source and has every appearance of authenticity, justices may draw an inference as to the validity of the Notice and providing they are satisfied that the sender of the notice was "acting on behalf of the C O P" it is not necessary that the specially authorised person should sign every notice issued. [Arnold v DPP (1999) and Pamlin v Gorman (1980)]
Very wise to adjourn to get sorted as if the Mags had thrown out would have been like the little Dutch boy pulling his finger out of the dyke (embankment).
DVD
[quote]
Very wise to adjourn to get sorted as if the Mags had thrown out would have been like the little Dutch boy pulling his finger out of the dyke (embankment).
DVD
[/quote]
"Chief Insp Hurren said the police would have preferred to have seen Mr Cutting's case adjourned, rather than thrown out, as this would have enabled the force to prove to the court that the NIP was issued on the Chief Constable's behalf.
"
But wasnt it thrown out?
Very wise to adjourn to get sorted as if the Mags had thrown out would have been like the little Dutch boy pulling his finger out of the dyke (embankment).
DVD
[/quote]
"Chief Insp Hurren said the police would have preferred to have seen Mr Cutting's case adjourned, rather than thrown out, as this would have enabled the force to prove to the court that the NIP was issued on the Chief Constable's behalf.
"
But wasnt it thrown out?
Norfolk police have been forced to change notices issued to speeding drivers after a case was thrown out of court when a form was deemed to be incorrectly worded.
And the wording blunder has led to the immediate adjournment of hundreds of speeding cases in Norfolk until a legal loophole has been plugged.
The EDP revealed today that a prosecution against motorist Mike Cutting was dismissed after he demonstrated to Norwich magistrates that a form issued by Norfolk police should carry the words "issued on behalf of the Chief Constable".
Because that authority was not conveyed on the section 172 Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form – asking for information on who was driving at the time of an alleged speeding offence – the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.
On Thursday, top-level talks took place between police and CPS lawyers, resulting in a decision for the forms to be re-drafted.
The NIP form, signed by Central Ticketing Office unit manager Sue Bilbie, did not clearly carry the words showing it was issued with the Chief Constable's authority, whereas forms sent out by other forces do.
A spokeswoman for the CPS said: "What has happened is that the section 172 signed by Sue Bilbie is going to be amended to include the words 'acting under the authority given by the Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary'."
All future s172 forms will be amended while existing cases will be adjourned for a section 9 witness statement to be obtained which will state that Sue Bilbie is acting on behalf of the Chief Constable when requesting the information.
With all current cases adjourned for that reason, it is believed that no motorists will be able to exploit the loophole in the way Mr Cutting did.
However, in another twist to the saga, the CPS has now said that it was wrong to drop Mr Cutting's case despite the loosely-worded police form.
Mr Cutting, 39, had failed to respond to a speeding notice because he was not convinced by its credibility. He was then accused of failing to provide evidence, and appeared before the court on Monday.
He contested the validity of the s172 form, arguing that it was invalid because it did not appear to have been issued by an official acting on behalf of the Chief Constable of Norfolk. After discussions, the case was dropped.
Earlier this week Norfolk police and the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which operates speed cameras in the county, maintained that the form was clearly issued on behalf of the chief constable but were forced to back down and re-draft the form.
Mr Cutting, of Bracon Ash, near Norwich, used relevant case law, along with examples of correctly-worded NIP forms from 15 other police forces to fight his case.
Mr Cutting said he felt there was still a question mark over the validity of all outstanding cases.
"I think all existing cases have still got a chance and if I was in the same position now I would probably seek legal advice," he said.
A spokeswoman for Norfolk Police said: "We have the ability to adjourn cases in the system in order to get the correct statement from the Central Ticket Office Manager. This would apply if cases were due to be imminently heard."
She said it does not affect the validity of the NIP under traffic law and pointed out that the force can make the alteration beyond the statutory 14-day limit on issuing the forms if necessary.
The spokeswoman added: "The CPS and the police are rectifying the omission and a new NIP form will be issued with the correct wording.
"Until this resolution is made, a separate statement will be issued explaining where the Central Ticket Office Managers gets her authority from."
And the wording blunder has led to the immediate adjournment of hundreds of speeding cases in Norfolk until a legal loophole has been plugged.
The EDP revealed today that a prosecution against motorist Mike Cutting was dismissed after he demonstrated to Norwich magistrates that a form issued by Norfolk police should carry the words "issued on behalf of the Chief Constable".
Because that authority was not conveyed on the section 172 Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form – asking for information on who was driving at the time of an alleged speeding offence – the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.
On Thursday, top-level talks took place between police and CPS lawyers, resulting in a decision for the forms to be re-drafted.
The NIP form, signed by Central Ticketing Office unit manager Sue Bilbie, did not clearly carry the words showing it was issued with the Chief Constable's authority, whereas forms sent out by other forces do.
A spokeswoman for the CPS said: "What has happened is that the section 172 signed by Sue Bilbie is going to be amended to include the words 'acting under the authority given by the Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary'."
All future s172 forms will be amended while existing cases will be adjourned for a section 9 witness statement to be obtained which will state that Sue Bilbie is acting on behalf of the Chief Constable when requesting the information.
With all current cases adjourned for that reason, it is believed that no motorists will be able to exploit the loophole in the way Mr Cutting did.
However, in another twist to the saga, the CPS has now said that it was wrong to drop Mr Cutting's case despite the loosely-worded police form.
Mr Cutting, 39, had failed to respond to a speeding notice because he was not convinced by its credibility. He was then accused of failing to provide evidence, and appeared before the court on Monday.
He contested the validity of the s172 form, arguing that it was invalid because it did not appear to have been issued by an official acting on behalf of the Chief Constable of Norfolk. After discussions, the case was dropped.
Earlier this week Norfolk police and the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which operates speed cameras in the county, maintained that the form was clearly issued on behalf of the chief constable but were forced to back down and re-draft the form.
Mr Cutting, of Bracon Ash, near Norwich, used relevant case law, along with examples of correctly-worded NIP forms from 15 other police forces to fight his case.
Mr Cutting said he felt there was still a question mark over the validity of all outstanding cases.
"I think all existing cases have still got a chance and if I was in the same position now I would probably seek legal advice," he said.
A spokeswoman for Norfolk Police said: "We have the ability to adjourn cases in the system in order to get the correct statement from the Central Ticket Office Manager. This would apply if cases were due to be imminently heard."
She said it does not affect the validity of the NIP under traffic law and pointed out that the force can make the alteration beyond the statutory 14-day limit on issuing the forms if necessary.
The spokeswoman added: "The CPS and the police are rectifying the omission and a new NIP form will be issued with the correct wording.
"Until this resolution is made, a separate statement will be issued explaining where the Central Ticket Office Managers gets her authority from."
Remember Boosted there are two elements here.
1. Notice of Intended Prosecution aspect that has to be served within 14days and which can not be tinkered with out of time unless for a special reason which is not present in the Norfolk cases.
2. A requirement under 172 to name and shame which can be sent at ant time and totally different from requirement of NOIP. There is nothing to prevent them sending out IMHO a second request. But why bother. In a Not Guilty plea just either have CC in a Section 9 statement or head of SCP regarding authority to request.
DVD
1. Notice of Intended Prosecution aspect that has to be served within 14days and which can not be tinkered with out of time unless for a special reason which is not present in the Norfolk cases.
2. A requirement under 172 to name and shame which can be sent at ant time and totally different from requirement of NOIP. There is nothing to prevent them sending out IMHO a second request. But why bother. In a Not Guilty plea just either have CC in a Section 9 statement or head of SCP regarding authority to request.
DVD
Well I should be able to give you a good update on this scenario as my wife recieved a NIP from Norfolk safety camera partnership 2 weeks ago.
It too was signed by the Unit Manager, and everything about the NIP is as stated in the orginal thread. My wife even got flashed at the same point on the A11.
The NIP has been sent back unsigned, along with a copy of the BBC news report and a a letter stating that we believe that the NIP is invalid.
I'll let you know how it progresses. If at all.
Edited to add:
As of last night, Norfolk went to court to adjourn all current speeding cases (so it could prepare a Sect 9 witness statement) and the courts refused the adjurnments...
>> Edited by apguy on Tuesday 24th May 09:28
It too was signed by the Unit Manager, and everything about the NIP is as stated in the orginal thread. My wife even got flashed at the same point on the A11.
The NIP has been sent back unsigned, along with a copy of the BBC news report and a a letter stating that we believe that the NIP is invalid.
I'll let you know how it progresses. If at all.
Edited to add:
As of last night, Norfolk went to court to adjourn all current speeding cases (so it could prepare a Sect 9 witness statement) and the courts refused the adjurnments...
>> Edited by apguy on Tuesday 24th May 09:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff