Notice of intent to prosecute - error on form
Discussion
Hi, I hope someone might be able to help. A good friend of mine has been clocked doing 118mph in a 70mph zone, and is therefore staring down the barrel of a ban and hefty fine.
He's received a Notice of intent to prosecute, and all the details and timescales seem in order, EXCEPT that they've quoted the wrong number plate - its not even close.
2 questions really.
1) - presumably it will not jeopardise any future court dealings if he replies denying ownership of the stated vehicle.
2) - if he takes the approach above, and denies ownership of the stated vehicle - and then the police subsequently correct the details and resend the NIP - does the 14 day rule still apply? In which case (given that 10 days have already passed), should he wait until 13th day before posting his denial?
Any sensible help will be appreciated. If anyone has any information - I'd appreciate some indication of how much it is 'fact' and how much is here-say.
Many thanks,
Rich
He's received a Notice of intent to prosecute, and all the details and timescales seem in order, EXCEPT that they've quoted the wrong number plate - its not even close.
2 questions really.
1) - presumably it will not jeopardise any future court dealings if he replies denying ownership of the stated vehicle.
2) - if he takes the approach above, and denies ownership of the stated vehicle - and then the police subsequently correct the details and resend the NIP - does the 14 day rule still apply? In which case (given that 10 days have already passed), should he wait until 13th day before posting his denial?
Any sensible help will be appreciated. If anyone has any information - I'd appreciate some indication of how much it is 'fact' and how much is here-say.
Many thanks,
Rich
scorchingpost said:
Hi, I hope someone might be able to help. A good friend of mine has been clocked doing 118mph in a 70mph zone, and is therefore staring down the barrel of a ban and hefty fine.
He's received a Notice of intent to prosecute, and all the details and timescales seem in order, EXCEPT that they've quoted the wrong number plate - its not even close.
2 questions really.
1) - presumably it will not jeopardise any future court dealings if he replies denying ownership of the stated vehicle.
2) - if he takes the approach above, and denies ownership of the stated vehicle - and then the police subsequently correct the details and resend the NIP - does the 14 day rule still apply? In which case (given that 10 days have already passed), should he wait until 13th day before posting his denial?
Any sensible help will be appreciated. If anyone has any information - I'd appreciate some indication of how much it is 'fact' and how much is here-say.
Many thanks,
Rich
Your mate is one lucky son'bitch.
Some things on NIPs can be corrected (names, addresses etc.) but NOT registration plates. What your mate needs to do is to wait until AT LEAST day 14 (you have 28 days to respond), and send back a letter (*MUST* be SPECIAL DELIVERY) stating that he has no knowledge of the vehicle in question. By this time it will be too late for the police to amend the NIP as the 14 day period will have expired.
Hope this is of help.
>> Edited by DeMolay on Tuesday 14th September 11:08
>> Edited by DeMolay on Tuesday 14th September 11:12
De Molay,
thanks for your reply. It certainly sounds like there might be hope. Can I ask how you know this. Personal experience? Friend of a friend? Do you know the law?
I'm just trying to manage my mate's expectations - I'm confident he can get off this (and learn his lesson at the same time! He's bricking it right now). But i want to be sure the advice i give him is valid!
Thanks again. Please don't think i'm doubting you - just double checking!
thanks for your reply. It certainly sounds like there might be hope. Can I ask how you know this. Personal experience? Friend of a friend? Do you know the law?
I'm just trying to manage my mate's expectations - I'm confident he can get off this (and learn his lesson at the same time! He's bricking it right now). But i want to be sure the advice i give him is valid!
Thanks again. Please don't think i'm doubting you - just double checking!
Scorching - there are lots of people on here, from BiBs to lawyers to people who have been through the Scamera/NIP thing themselves...
we just know !
I agree with demorlay - a slight error on the reg no may be passable, a significant error as you say and it's "nothing to do with me, officer" etc...
we just know !
I agree with demorlay - a slight error on the reg no may be passable, a significant error as you say and it's "nothing to do with me, officer" etc...
scorchingpost said:
De Molay,
thanks for your reply. It certainly sounds like there might be hope. Can I ask how you know this. Personal experience? Friend of a friend? Do you know the law?
I'm just trying to manage my mate's expectations - I'm confident he can get off this (and learn his lesson at the same time! He's bricking it right now). But i want to be sure the advice i give him is valid!
Thanks again. Please don't think i'm doubting you - just double checking!
It's a fair question to ask. Let us just say that I know a bit about the law.
www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm#Slip_Rule This will give you a brief explanation of what I am talking about. Let me explain it in plain logic and using current legislation to back it up :
Firstly, let us say that the registration of your mate's car is AB123 XYZ. Let us then suppose that the car was involved in an alleged offence and the registered keeper was sent out an NIP for car registration no. AB123 ZYX. Does the car bearing that registration belong to your mate? Remember that you can only reply based on the information that the police send out. Again, wait until at least day 14 and reply using the s172 form, but filling out the section on the back which states "I have never been the owner of vehicle registration __________" or some such similar section as I believe most have them.
By doing it after day 14, you will eliminate the possibiltiy of the police issuing you with a new NIP as the 14 day rule applies to from the date of the alleged offence. So in effect, if the registered keeper of vehicle registration AB123 XYZ doesn't receive an NIP for THAT VEHICLE REGISTRATION WITHIN 14 DAYS, there is no case to answer :
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm#mdiv1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 1 states :
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
scorchingpost said:
Thanks again for the thorough explanation.
My only fear is that the police could reply saying that they did indeed make initial contact within the required period, and have since rectified a simple clerical error.
I am of course advising my mate to do exactly as you say.
Aaahh but they cannot! Look again at the legislation :
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
So you will see that in order to make a charge stick, the police have to submit an NIP (within 14 days) to the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, namely AB123 XYZ, and not AB123 ZYX.
Does your mate own vehicle registration AB123 ZYX?? If not, he has nowt to worry about. Trust me.
The logic certainly follows, and I hope to God you are right. I expect that the line you suggest might well work in defending a 'not guilty' plea in court, but may not be enough to have the police drop the case prior to a court hearing?
The response I received from Pryce Woodrow (moderator - can I mention the comp name? if not please delete) is different however:
That read
"The NIP merely has to identify the fact that an offence has occurred it does not have to be accurate as to exact place time etc. It is odd that such an
error has been made with the number plate but it seems to me that this is purely an admin error as for the police to have known to write to your
friend they obviously have got his correct number plate details somewhere.
As the NIP does not have to be factually correct then it has been served within 14 days albeit with incorrect details. Therefore I do not believe
that arguing the 14 day rule on re-service of the correct NIP as and when it arrives will assist your friend but he might as well give it a go."
The response I received from Pryce Woodrow (moderator - can I mention the comp name? if not please delete) is different however:
That read
"The NIP merely has to identify the fact that an offence has occurred it does not have to be accurate as to exact place time etc. It is odd that such an
error has been made with the number plate but it seems to me that this is purely an admin error as for the police to have known to write to your
friend they obviously have got his correct number plate details somewhere.
As the NIP does not have to be factually correct then it has been served within 14 days albeit with incorrect details. Therefore I do not believe
that arguing the 14 day rule on re-service of the correct NIP as and when it arrives will assist your friend but he might as well give it a go."
scorchingpost said:
The logic certainly follows, and I hope to God you are right. I expect that the line you suggest might well work in defending a 'not guilty' plea in court, but may not be enough to have the police drop the case prior to a court hearing?
I am going from past experience here. The police may drop it when it is explained and they may not. Ultimately it may have to go to court, where the chances of conviction have to be very slim!
Cheers
Playing Devil's Advocate here but I read the post as if "the mate" was speeding but the SCP have put the incorrect number on the paperwork and he wants to use this to his advantage.
Now if you go to Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 at 1 (c) it states within 14 days a NOIP has to be served and that the NOIP shall specify three items:
(a) Nature of alleged offence (Speed,.due care, dangerous, Trafic sign violation etc etc)
(b) Time,(which I presume would include Date but doesn't say so) and
(c) Place.
Nothing less, nothing more.
So if they have the vehicle VRM on their record as having offended, obtained Reg Keepers details on this and sent off NOIP to "your mate" (for how else would he get it and accept other than a wrong number) but SCP quoted wrong number on paper work sent out, then this will not preclude then for taking action as the law on NOIP has been complied with, has it not?.
At speeds mentioned, according to ACPO Guidelines then it is a case for immediate referral to a Court without the option of a Conditional Offer.
Now in a Not Guilty at Court, if the camera operator, with no photographic evidence ID'ing "the mates car correct number, gives evidence of the in correct number, then there is an argument that the vehicle involved was not one of "the mate".
This does not prevent what has been said elsewhere in contacting the SCP (after 14 days) to point out the error. They may throw the towel in.
DVD
Now if you go to Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 at 1 (c) it states within 14 days a NOIP has to be served and that the NOIP shall specify three items:
(a) Nature of alleged offence (Speed,.due care, dangerous, Trafic sign violation etc etc)
(b) Time,(which I presume would include Date but doesn't say so) and
(c) Place.
Nothing less, nothing more.
So if they have the vehicle VRM on their record as having offended, obtained Reg Keepers details on this and sent off NOIP to "your mate" (for how else would he get it and accept other than a wrong number) but SCP quoted wrong number on paper work sent out, then this will not preclude then for taking action as the law on NOIP has been complied with, has it not?.
At speeds mentioned, according to ACPO Guidelines then it is a case for immediate referral to a Court without the option of a Conditional Offer.
Now in a Not Guilty at Court, if the camera operator, with no photographic evidence ID'ing "the mates car correct number, gives evidence of the in correct number, then there is an argument that the vehicle involved was not one of "the mate".
This does not prevent what has been said elsewhere in contacting the SCP (after 14 days) to point out the error. They may throw the towel in.
DVD
Hi DVD,
".....registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence....."
This is a crucial point don't you think? It need not be argued that the NIP really HAS to give the registration number of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, otherwise how would the RK know it was his car that was involved. It must surely follow that if that registration is incorrect (and by scorchingpost's own admission, it's not even nearly correct), then the RK denies knowledge of the vehicle. I suggest that is more than a "slip"; but fatal to the prosecution's case.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Now if you go to Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 at 1 (c) it states within 14 days a NOIP has to be served and that the NOIP shall specify three items:
(a) Nature of alleged offence (Speed,.due care, dangerous, Trafic sign violation etc etc)
(b) Time,(which I presume would include Date but doesn't say so) and
(c) Place.
Nothing less, nothing more.
".....registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence....."
This is a crucial point don't you think? It need not be argued that the NIP really HAS to give the registration number of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, otherwise how would the RK know it was his car that was involved. It must surely follow that if that registration is incorrect (and by scorchingpost's own admission, it's not even nearly correct), then the RK denies knowledge of the vehicle. I suggest that is more than a "slip"; but fatal to the prosecution's case.
Thanks Dwight.
Jus to clarify - it was a fixed automatic camera - not a manned one, and yes - presumably somewhere on their records they must have the correct Vehicle Registration Number (VRN), else the paperwork would never have made it.
Its just whether or not its possible to defend on the basis that the NOIP contains significant errors or not. The VRN quoted is totally different from my mate's actual VRN.
He could legitamitely claim that the initial NOIP received was perceived as invalid, due to the VRN being totally different from his own - and then that the second is invalid due to the time that has elapsed between the alleged offence and the receipt of a meaningful NOIP.
Its clutching at straws I know, but wouldn't you be in you faced up to such a charge.
And thanks DeMolay for your persistent positivity! Its really helping spirits at this end!
>> Edited by scorchingpost on Tuesday 14th September 15:29
Jus to clarify - it was a fixed automatic camera - not a manned one, and yes - presumably somewhere on their records they must have the correct Vehicle Registration Number (VRN), else the paperwork would never have made it.
Its just whether or not its possible to defend on the basis that the NOIP contains significant errors or not. The VRN quoted is totally different from my mate's actual VRN.
He could legitamitely claim that the initial NOIP received was perceived as invalid, due to the VRN being totally different from his own - and then that the second is invalid due to the time that has elapsed between the alleged offence and the receipt of a meaningful NOIP.
Its clutching at straws I know, but wouldn't you be in you faced up to such a charge.
And thanks DeMolay for your persistent positivity! Its really helping spirits at this end!
>> Edited by scorchingpost on Tuesday 14th September 15:29
I take your point DM re Reg Keeper but what I was trying to show is that whereas all along the line a correct number is on file, but the error is only on the paperwork out, then the original NOIP is lawful as VRM details are not required. SCP can send out an amended NOIP outside the 14 days should they so desire but they have already complied with the law with the first one if received within the 14 days.
If the wrong number was recorded at the outset then NOIP sent out would immediately be contestable as Reg Keeper would know nothing about the incident which it appears to me he does in this case.
Yes by all mean have a go on the wrong number, tell them it's not his car never owned it. But do not be surprised if SCP re-check their records and have another go if the mistake is as quoted above. Nothing to stop them at law.
Do they quote a wrong number on the Section 172 form as well?
DVD
If the wrong number was recorded at the outset then NOIP sent out would immediately be contestable as Reg Keeper would know nothing about the incident which it appears to me he does in this case.
Yes by all mean have a go on the wrong number, tell them it's not his car never owned it. But do not be surprised if SCP re-check their records and have another go if the mistake is as quoted above. Nothing to stop them at law.
Do they quote a wrong number on the Section 172 form as well?
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:Hi DVD.
I take your point DM re Reg Keeper but what I was trying to show is that whereas all along the line a correct number is on file, but the error is only on the paperwork out, then the original NOIP is lawful as VRM details are not required. SCP can send out an amended NOIP outside the 14 days should they so desire but they have already complied with the law with the first one if received within the 14 days.
If the wrong number was recorded at the outset then NOIP sent out would immediately be contestable as Reg Keeper would know nothing about the incident which it appears to me he does in this case.
Yes by all mean have a go on the wrong number, tell them it's not his car never owned it. But do not be surprised if SCP re-check their records and have another go if the mistake is as quoted above. Nothing to stop them at law.
Do they quote a wrong number on the Section 172 form as well?
DVD
You mean to say that I can get scammed on my bike, and the partnerships do not legally have to provide details of my rear VRM?
So what is to stop them from recording only the required details and then using the picture of a plate from another bike that looks similar? or have I missed something?
I would have thought the law would require IRREFULTABLE photographic and speed evidence so that there was NO DOUBT as to exactly which vehicle was speeding. If what you say is true, then why is it that when in court on ANY OTHER OFFENCE, one has to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt? ( I seem to recall a thread on this subject a few weeks back ?
Blademan
You are blurring the Conditional Offer stage with Court case.
The CO was brought in for two reasons:
(1) It enabled people who were caught, admitted they had been caught and had no grounds to argue their case and wanted the matter to be dealt with/over and done within 28 days with no need to appear at Court.
(2) It freed up Court time in Guilty pleas.
At no stage was it meant to be treated as an inquisition as to Guilt.
The avenue for that is at Court where many of the facts that are argued (i.e. NOIP etc) can be aired and a decision made by the Magistrates. Court case can be some time after the offence and in months.
Which is why some SCP will not play ball on releasing their evidence at the CO stage, for there is no requirement for them to do so, but have to do so under Disclosure Rules for a Court hearing.
Now I, like you, would like to see a bit more openess by the SCP in supply of the necessary evidence at the CO stage proving the offence.
OK, I know that you are going to say that the procedure
is liken to have a gun pointed at ones head but if you look at it from both sides there is merit in it.
DVD
You are blurring the Conditional Offer stage with Court case.
The CO was brought in for two reasons:
(1) It enabled people who were caught, admitted they had been caught and had no grounds to argue their case and wanted the matter to be dealt with/over and done within 28 days with no need to appear at Court.
(2) It freed up Court time in Guilty pleas.
At no stage was it meant to be treated as an inquisition as to Guilt.
The avenue for that is at Court where many of the facts that are argued (i.e. NOIP etc) can be aired and a decision made by the Magistrates. Court case can be some time after the offence and in months.
Which is why some SCP will not play ball on releasing their evidence at the CO stage, for there is no requirement for them to do so, but have to do so under Disclosure Rules for a Court hearing.
Now I, like you, would like to see a bit more openess by the SCP in supply of the necessary evidence at the CO stage proving the offence.
OK, I know that you are going to say that the procedure
is liken to have a gun pointed at ones head but if you look at it from both sides there is merit in it.
DVD
Can you not argue it the other way round ?
What I mean is that a car with the registration number stated on the NOIP *did* commit the said offence and plod has sent the NOIP to the wrong address.
If I got a NOIP thought my door with a reg number of a car that I was not the keeper of I'd just send it back and say I'm not ( and never have been ) the keeper of that vechicle, so why are you writing to me ?
If there is no requirement to specify the correct reg number then surely that would mean that plod could just send NOIPs to anyone ?
What I mean is that a car with the registration number stated on the NOIP *did* commit the said offence and plod has sent the NOIP to the wrong address.
If I got a NOIP thought my door with a reg number of a car that I was not the keeper of I'd just send it back and say I'm not ( and never have been ) the keeper of that vechicle, so why are you writing to me ?
If there is no requirement to specify the correct reg number then surely that would mean that plod could just send NOIPs to anyone ?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Blademan
The CO was brought in for two reasons:
(1) It enabled people who were caught, admitted they had been caught and had no grounds to argue their case and wanted the matter to be dealt with/over and done within 28 days with no need to appear at Court.
(2) It freed up Court time in Guilty pleas.
At no stage was it meant to be treated as an inquisition as to Guilt.
Noble aims but that is not how it is used. The principle would work only if the penalty attached to the CO was the same as the penalty of going to court.
In reality the court penalty is an order of magnitude more larger. So you have a situation were
1) Those you mention in 1) pay up
2) Those who are 100% certain not guilty go to court safe that a not guilty verdict will be given and costs given
3) Those in the middle, those who are not sure who was not driving, those that have been caught by a clone, those who believe due process has not been followed or the device is not working correctly, or has been incorrectly sited.
The difference in outcome forces the majority of those in group 3 to take the CO. It is this which undermines justice.
It is also my belief that it was intended from day 1 to work like this. CO and other on the spot fines have little to do with justice and more to do with providing an income stream.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff