NIP offence date incorrect
Discussion
I have just recieved a NIP for speeding on the M61,states that on the 19-05-2004 at 9.05am clocked doing 103 mph,I have checked in my log and timr sheets and found that at 9.05 on 19-05-2004 I was actually in Barrow in Furness about 70 miles away from 8.30am until 2.00pm. Any advice on what to do.
Thanks
G6OSV
Thanks
G6OSV
I personally would be careful about this one. Have you been doing that speed in that place at another time and they've just got things mixed up?
If you have and you warn them of the error, you could still get done when they sort the mistake. If however you wait to prove the error it in court, they don't get the opportunity of a second bite at the cherry.
What do our legal boys think?
>> Edited by tootler on Thursday 3rd June 22:07
If you have and you warn them of the error, you could still get done when they sort the mistake. If however you wait to prove the error it in court, they don't get the opportunity of a second bite at the cherry.
What do our legal boys think?
>> Edited by tootler on Thursday 3rd June 22:07
Pity G6OSV, Mr J. Archer it seems, is away as he knows a thing or two about NOIP's. So you will have to do with me as nobody else has stepped forward...
Firstly, there is no single precedent set by a High Court that a defect in a NOIP automatically makes it nul and void and a bar to proceedings. In fact in some cases the converse has applied in that NOIP's with defects have been accepted as good. The fact that the NOIP was bad has to be argued by you at Court and decision made by the Bench.
On the plus side for you is that time has elapsed for an amended NOIP to be sent to you. So the defect is preserved for you to use.
Under ACPO Guidelines on prosecution of speed offences anything over 96mph in a 70 limit is recommended for process at Court in order that Court can look at a possible ban.
So what to do in your case. (Im in the dark as to when your vehicle was driven to........ and by whom)
Seems you have one of two options for consideration:
1. Elect for the inevitable Court case when all matters may be argued, or.
2. Try and get the matter dropped on the defect in time/date of NOIP by returning the forms (Retain the NOIP as best evidence send photocopy) with a polite but terse letter to the fact that you acknowledge receipt of the forms, that you are unable to name the driver as the time and date stated as the vehicle was 70 odd miles away at.............. That you have a record of this and that as the sole driver(I presume) you can produce witnesses. This leads you to the conclusion that the record of the incident is incorrect and/or that they have recorded a vehicle on false plates and the facts should be re-checked. Ask if it is possible to send you a copy of the photograph so that you can see if you can assist in their enquiries. (If they do and you are in the seat not good news). Ask also to be informed of the progress of their enquiries. Now this should put them in the invidious position of having to put up or shut up. .i.e. drop proceedings or take to Court, for either/and speed/fail to name driver.
If the later course is taken then you still have the evidence to assist in a Not Guilty pleas although it may be prudent, if this is the case, to seek legal representation which even if you lose the case against the defect in NOIP and a ban is on the cards a Solicitor may be able to prove any ban would cause hardship etc and the Mags not to impose this.
All this is on the assumption that you have not been uneconomical with the truth as it is a serious offence to attempt to pervert the course of justice.
DVD
Edit = Spellin
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 4th June 10:59
Firstly, there is no single precedent set by a High Court that a defect in a NOIP automatically makes it nul and void and a bar to proceedings. In fact in some cases the converse has applied in that NOIP's with defects have been accepted as good. The fact that the NOIP was bad has to be argued by you at Court and decision made by the Bench.
On the plus side for you is that time has elapsed for an amended NOIP to be sent to you. So the defect is preserved for you to use.
Under ACPO Guidelines on prosecution of speed offences anything over 96mph in a 70 limit is recommended for process at Court in order that Court can look at a possible ban.
So what to do in your case. (Im in the dark as to when your vehicle was driven to........ and by whom)
Seems you have one of two options for consideration:
1. Elect for the inevitable Court case when all matters may be argued, or.
2. Try and get the matter dropped on the defect in time/date of NOIP by returning the forms (Retain the NOIP as best evidence send photocopy) with a polite but terse letter to the fact that you acknowledge receipt of the forms, that you are unable to name the driver as the time and date stated as the vehicle was 70 odd miles away at.............. That you have a record of this and that as the sole driver(I presume) you can produce witnesses. This leads you to the conclusion that the record of the incident is incorrect and/or that they have recorded a vehicle on false plates and the facts should be re-checked. Ask if it is possible to send you a copy of the photograph so that you can see if you can assist in their enquiries. (If they do and you are in the seat not good news). Ask also to be informed of the progress of their enquiries. Now this should put them in the invidious position of having to put up or shut up. .i.e. drop proceedings or take to Court, for either/and speed/fail to name driver.
If the later course is taken then you still have the evidence to assist in a Not Guilty pleas although it may be prudent, if this is the case, to seek legal representation which even if you lose the case against the defect in NOIP and a ban is on the cards a Solicitor may be able to prove any ban would cause hardship etc and the Mags not to impose this.
All this is on the assumption that you have not been uneconomical with the truth as it is a serious offence to attempt to pervert the course of justice.
DVD
Edit = Spellin
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 4th June 10:59
As Dwight has comprehensively pointed out, the position with regard to the innaccuracy of the NIP in this case is uncertain.
Also, as he has also pointed out, you have given insufficient details as to what actually happened.
I.e.
1) Was the car never actually driven on that road (a cloned car)?
2) The car actually was driven on that road within a day or so of the allegation (a typo)?
Also, what does the declaration on the NIP say? It will say something like, "I was the driver of the vehicle at that time and on that occassion," however, what does it say, exactly?
Also, as he has also pointed out, you have given insufficient details as to what actually happened.
I.e.
1) Was the car never actually driven on that road (a cloned car)?
2) The car actually was driven on that road within a day or so of the allegation (a typo)?
Also, what does the declaration on the NIP say? It will say something like, "I was the driver of the vehicle at that time and on that occassion," however, what does it say, exactly?
Hi,Iwill give a few more details,
1. The car may have been driven on this road a few days previous to 19-5-04.I think maybe the 17-5-04.
2. The date of alleged offence is 19-05-2004the NIP
is dated 28-05-04,I recieved it in the post on 2-06-04.
3. The declaration part1, is "IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE,AND YOU ARE THE PERSON TO WHICH THIS FORM IS ADDRESSED,COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY."
part2,"IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE COMPLETE THIS SECTION."(supply name of driver).
I cannot fill in any of these sections as at the time of the alleged offence there was no driver as the car was parked up.
Hope this helps
Ian G6OSV
1. The car may have been driven on this road a few days previous to 19-5-04.I think maybe the 17-5-04.
2. The date of alleged offence is 19-05-2004the NIP
is dated 28-05-04,I recieved it in the post on 2-06-04.
3. The declaration part1, is "IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE,AND YOU ARE THE PERSON TO WHICH THIS FORM IS ADDRESSED,COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY."
part2,"IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE COMPLETE THIS SECTION."(supply name of driver).
I cannot fill in any of these sections as at the time of the alleged offence there was no driver as the car was parked up.
Hope this helps
Ian G6OSV
G60sv
If it had been driven on 19th May then NOIP had to be posted to arrive no later than last post on 2nd June, which was accomplished. So service of NOIP good unless other than by RegPost/Rec delivery/ First class post.
Action 2 I mentioned above in other post seems favourite course of action. You cannot name if your vehicle was not being driven at the time/date they state. If you have evidence to prove this then this is more beans in your bag.
DVD
If it had been driven on 19th May then NOIP had to be posted to arrive no later than last post on 2nd June, which was accomplished. So service of NOIP good unless other than by RegPost/Rec delivery/ First class post.
Action 2 I mentioned above in other post seems favourite course of action. You cannot name if your vehicle was not being driven at the time/date they state. If you have evidence to prove this then this is more beans in your bag.
DVD
g6osv said:Nah! Just a civvy making a b4lls of it again. Might miss their target for the month ... but I doubt it. Bonus will get paid anyway!
Thanks again to all,I recieved a letter today from lancs constab ,"due to the circumstances the Notice of Intended Prosecution has been withdrawn.".
Could there be another constable on the beat in Chorley tomorrow.
Ian G6OSV
[Cynic mode=OFF]
Streaky
g6osv said:
Thanks again to all,I recieved a letter today from lancs constab ,"due to the circumstances the Notice of Intended Prosecution has been withdrawn.".
Could there be another constable on the beat in Chorley tomorrow.
Ian G6OSV
This really pisses me off! (not the result -good on ya! 
) but what if you had been mr averidge "the law is right and i must accept my punishment". Had you have not stood your ground and challenged it you wouldhave been £££ worse off!!!1 f
king theiving s!!!!!! if they get it wront they should reimburse you for your time!!!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff