Time limit for NIP - can I now relax?
Discussion
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Conversely, a notice sent by a registered or recorded delivery service will be deemed as served, even if it is not delivered.
Can we be certain this hasn't happened and the NIP is lost?
When first class post is used, however, the presumption that a notice has been served two business days after posting is rebuttable.
Your next question is likely to be, how do I know that the OP did not receive a NIP which had been issued by recorded delivery ? Answer, I don't. But on the grounds that it is only D & G in Scotland which routinely issues NIP by recorded delivery, then I'd say it was pretty unlikely.
So - from that, if you are on holiday for 2 weeks and can't sign that's the end of it?
I don't read the stated case like that. The appeal judge in Gidden v CC Humberside says -
In my judgment, these authorities are entirely consistent with the analysis I set out above. Rossi and Beer show that, prior to the introduction of the irrebuttable presumption, a letter delivered, even by recorded delivery or registered post, would not be served in the timescale required if in fact the defendant could show that he did not receive the letter within the prescribed period. It was only once the deeming profession was introduced that the court could treat such service as having been lawfully completed. However, that deeming provision in terms, as I have said, only applies where the letter is sent by recorded delivery or registered post.
I don't read the stated case like that. The appeal judge in Gidden v CC Humberside says -
In my judgment, these authorities are entirely consistent with the analysis I set out above. Rossi and Beer show that, prior to the introduction of the irrebuttable presumption, a letter delivered, even by recorded delivery or registered post, would not be served in the timescale required if in fact the defendant could show that he did not receive the letter within the prescribed period. It was only once the deeming profession was introduced that the court could treat such service as having been lawfully completed. However, that deeming provision in terms, as I have said, only applies where the letter is sent by recorded delivery or registered post.
SS2. said:
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Conversely, a notice sent by a registered or recorded delivery service will be deemed as served, even if it is not delivered.
Can we be certain this hasn't happened and the NIP is lost?When first class post is used, however, the presumption that a notice has been served two business days after posting is rebuttable.
Your next question is likely to be, how do I know that the OP did not receive a NIP which had been issued by recorded delivery ? Answer, I don't. But on the grounds that it is only D & G in Scotland which routinely issues NIP by recorded delivery, then I'd say it was pretty unlikely.
Lonely said:
So - from that, if you are on holiday for 2 weeks and can't sign that's the end of it?
If it was sent by registered or recorded post, then it would be deemed to have been served, even if it was returned as 'unsigned'.Lonely said:
I don't read the stated case like that. The appeal judge in Gidden v CC Humberside says -
In my judgment, these authorities are entirely consistent with the analysis I set out above. Rossi and Beer show that, prior to the introduction of the irrebuttable presumption, a letter delivered, even by recorded delivery or registered post, would not be served in the timescale required if in fact the defendant could show that he did not receive the letter within the prescribed period. It was only once the deeming profession was introduced that the court could treat such service as having been lawfully completed. However, that deeming provision in terms, as I have said, only applies where the letter is sent by recorded delivery or registered post.
As far as service by first class post is concerned, Gidden can be summarised by pretty much the first and one of the last paragraphs - In my judgment, these authorities are entirely consistent with the analysis I set out above. Rossi and Beer show that, prior to the introduction of the irrebuttable presumption, a letter delivered, even by recorded delivery or registered post, would not be served in the timescale required if in fact the defendant could show that he did not receive the letter within the prescribed period. It was only once the deeming profession was introduced that the court could treat such service as having been lawfully completed. However, that deeming provision in terms, as I have said, only applies where the letter is sent by recorded delivery or registered post.
Gidden v CC Humberside said:
1. .... If the police send the notice of intention to prosecute by first class post so that it ought, in the ordinary course of the post, to be received within time but in fact it is not, is a subsequent conviction lawful?
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Lonely said:
SS2. said:
Conversely, a notice sent by a registered or recorded delivery service will be deemed as served, even if it is not delivered.
Can we be certain this hasn't happened and the NIP is lost?When first class post is used, however, the presumption that a notice has been served two business days after posting is rebuttable.
Your next question is likely to be, how do I know that the OP did not receive a NIP which had been issued by recorded delivery ? Answer, I don't. But on the grounds that it is only D & G in Scotland which routinely issues NIP by recorded delivery, then I'd say it was pretty unlikely.
Registered post, sent in time = served, regardless what happens to the notice.
streaky said:
garyhun said:
... I have NEVER had any post go astray ...
How do you know? Or, like me, do you sometimes need a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley? 
- Streaky
garyhun said:
streaky said:
garyhun said:
... I have NEVER had any post go astray ...
How do you know? Or, like me, do you sometimes need a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley? - Streaky - Streakystreaky said:
garyhun said:
streaky said:
garyhun said:
... I have NEVER had any post go astray ...
How do you know? Or, like me, do you sometimes need a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley? - Streaky - StreakySS2. said:
As far as service by first class post is concerned, Gidden can be summarised by pretty much the first and one of the last paragraphs -
(Emphasis added)Gidden v CC Humberside said:
1. .... If the police send the notice of intention to prosecute by first class post so that it ought, in the ordinary course of the post, to be received within time but in fact it is not, is a subsequent conviction lawful?
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
Not a good summary, then. Paragraph 20 does not answer the question in paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 asks a question about a NIP that ought to be delivered on time "in the ordinary course...." whilst paragraph 20 deals with a NIP that "was not sent in time".
Edited by Observer2 on Tuesday 10th August 16:20
Observer2 said:
SS2. said:
As far as service by first class post is concerned, Gidden can be summarised by pretty much the first and one of the last paragraphs -
(Emphasis added)Gidden v CC Humberside said:
1. .... If the police send the notice of intention to prosecute by first class post so that it ought, in the ordinary course of the post, to be received within time but in fact it is not, is a subsequent conviction lawful?
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
///////////////
20. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal must succeed. The answer to the question posed in the case stated is that the notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. It follows that the conviction must be set aside.
Not a good summary, then. Paragraph 20 does not answer the question in paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 asks a question about a NIP that ought to be delivered on time "in the ordinary course...." whilst paragraph 20 deals with a NIP that "was not sent in time".
Edited by Observer2 on Tuesday 10th August 16:20
Even the judge summing up said the legislators had made a mistake when writing it and could not see why first class post should be different but it was not his job to put it right.
The law eh...........don't you just love it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff