NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure
Discussion
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?
I should add it’s not me; also you do need to be a very special cockwomble to be done by fixed camera at those sort of speeds..
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?
I should add it’s not me; also you do need to be a very special cockwomble to be done by fixed camera at those sort of speeds..
They've already got £800 + 6pts for the failure to identify.
That doesn't mean they won't also face the speeding - and if they're found guilty of that, then they're going to get hit for that, too. Harder, because of the obvious attempt to avoid it.
If they try to suggest it wasn't them, it was somebody else, but they couldn't possibly be expected to know who, then possibly PCoJ?
Please, at least, tell us it wasn't Scotland...?
That doesn't mean they won't also face the speeding - and if they're found guilty of that, then they're going to get hit for that, too. Harder, because of the obvious attempt to avoid it.
If they try to suggest it wasn't them, it was somebody else, but they couldn't possibly be expected to know who, then possibly PCoJ?
Please, at least, tell us it wasn't Scotland...?
jwo said:
Nope not Scotland
Lucky. I suspect that would have crossed the line to "Dangerous" up there.jwo said:
Personally I would question how it could have done...
The time to go for the "Nah, the kit must be lying - I couldn't POSSIBLY have been doing north of 90ish in that 50..." defence passed when he tried to avoid responsibility...From my knowledge of the fines system, he will have to contact and send in a means for to the Enforcement office fairly soon after conviction. If he fails to do that then they have a choice of passing it to a bailiff or a further appearance in Court which he must attend or a warrant for his arrest may be issued.
Helicopter123 said:
lawyer up time.
Why? He’s already been convicted. Unless the court have indicated they are considering disqualification, which is unlikely as they have already sentenced him, it’s just a matter of a fines hearing. Either pay it or ask for time to pay. Paying a solicitor would be throwing good money after bad.Edited by zarjaz1991 on Saturday 20th January 10:20
zarjaz1991 said:
Hold on. If you fail to identify on a NIP then you get prosecuted and will receive a similar punishment to what you would have received had the actual offence gone to court.
You don’t then face the speeding charge separately. They don’t get two bites at the cherry.
I would have thought this, but the penalty for this sort of offence is signicantly more than the non disclosure one - 6pts and up to £1k fine for non disclosure. 2.x times over the speed limit would in my view lead to a ban. You don’t then face the speeding charge separately. They don’t get two bites at the cherry.
Distilling the facts still further - if they can’t idnetofy the driver through indisputable evidence then you could in theory be caught at 160mph on rear taking camera, non disclose and only suffer 6pts and £1k - I would suggest one wouldn’t want to repeat too often.
zarjaz1991 said:
Hold on. If you fail to identify on a NIP then you get prosecuted and will receive a similar punishment to what you would have received had the actual offence gone to court.
You don’t then face the speeding charge separately. They don’t get two bites at the cherry.
First off, let's get something straight: You don’t then face the speeding charge separately. They don’t get two bites at the cherry.
The NIP is not a request for driver details, it is a notice from the police to tell the registered keeper of the vehicle that they intend to prosecute the driver of the vehicle at a certain time, foe an offence committed.
The requirement to identify the driver is covered by the S172 (which is often sent out with the NIP), and failure to disclose the identity of the driver can result in 6 points being put on the registered keepers licence (NOTE: The registered keeper - Not the driver! [unless they are the same person obviously] ), and a fine.
Failure to disclose the identity of the driver is a separate offence to the original offence that the NIP was for, so being convicted of the S172 offence doesn't automatically void the original offence, as you seem to think it does.
(Think about it: If you're the registered keeper of a car that your partner drives, and they commit a speeding offence, the NIP and S172 will be sent to you. If you decide to ignore the S172 and are found guilty, getting 6 points on your licence, that doesn't mean that your partners original offence has to be ignored. The Police can still seek a prosecution of your partner for the original offence)
In the case of the OP's post, the registered keeper of the car in question has been successfully prosecuted for failing to identify the driver, and is now, as the suspected driver of the car, facing a prosecution for the original offence.
It's not a case of getting "two bites of the cherry" as you suggest, it's a case of seeking prosecutions for two separate offences.
zarjaz1991 said:
Helicopter123 said:
lawyer up time.
Why? He’s already been convicted. Unless the court have indicated they are considering disqualification, which is unlikely as they have already sentenced him, it’s just a matter of a fines hearing. Either pay it or ask for time to pay. Paying a solicitor would be throwing good money after bad.Edited by zarjaz1991 on Saturday 20th January 10:20
He is now going into this with an additional 6 points and fine for non-disclosure, which is a separate offence.
He needs tread carefully from here, with the right advice, to avoid making a very bad situation worse.
He will still be a suspect for the speeding offence. If he is the only insured driver there will be questions as to who was driving, if he still denies it there could be a further charge of 'permitting use without insurance'
110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
110mph in a 50 is very unlikely to just be forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.
HantsRat said:
He will still be a suspect for the speeding offence. If he is the only insured driver there will be questions as to who was driving, if he still denies it there could be a further charge of 'permitting use without insurance'.
Could a court be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mystery driver was not covered under their own insurance policy?On the speeding, I imagine, absent the camera evidence identifying the driver, you're left with an inference from the failure to identify and whatever further investigation into the defendent's movements unearths. At that point, you'd have to ask how far you go to maintain some sense of proportion?
janesmith1950 said:
HantsRat said:
He will still be a suspect for the speeding offence. If he is the only insured driver there will be questions as to who was driving, if he still denies it there could be a further charge of 'permitting use without insurance'.
Could a court be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mystery driver was not covered under their own insurance policy?On the speeding, I imagine, absent the camera evidence identifying the driver, you're left with an inference from the failure to identify and whatever further investigation into the defendent's movements unearths. At that point, you'd have to ask how far you go to maintain some sense of proportion?
The keeper may be a "suspect" for the speeding, but absent some evidence that the keeper was the driver (for example if he is interviewed and says anything), what can be done? Such are the perils of automated law enforcement, it seems...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff