Just got my first NIP !
Discussion
But fortunately it`s for the car not me. 
It`s for one of my taxis. The jockey got caught at 03:55 jumping a red light at 18mph. Two thoughts.........
If he had been spotted by a copper, IMO the most he would have got is a bollocking. The cops in Brighton are fairly leniant with cabs as they want the drunks off the streets and home in bed ASAP. (Unofficially, drivers have been told that 45ish is OK once out of the town centre.)
This guy drives for a living. He covers the same roads day in day out. He should be aware of a red light camera and drive accordingly.
Either way, it`s immaterial. A ticket has been issued so it`s up to the driver whether he goes to court or pays up.
Any ideas for believable excuses?
Steve
It`s for one of my taxis. The jockey got caught at 03:55 jumping a red light at 18mph. Two thoughts.........
If he had been spotted by a copper, IMO the most he would have got is a bollocking. The cops in Brighton are fairly leniant with cabs as they want the drunks off the streets and home in bed ASAP. (Unofficially, drivers have been told that 45ish is OK once out of the town centre.)
This guy drives for a living. He covers the same roads day in day out. He should be aware of a red light camera and drive accordingly.
Either way, it`s immaterial. A ticket has been issued so it`s up to the driver whether he goes to court or pays up.
Any ideas for believable excuses?
Steve
If its the same form ie:section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 then the following reply can be submitted.
You have furnished me with a notice of Intended prosecution that informs me that driver details must be submitted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Under the said act it would be an offence not to comply with the order served upon me. Failure to provide such information would result in penalty.
However, the request is made under British Law. By the signing of Treaties the UK as submitted itself to European Judgement as a precidence.
Therefore, we wish to quote a recent Judgement from the ECJ that would make the request for information with penalty an illegal activity by the UK judicial standards and an infringment of European Law.
The case in question is Weh v Austria (April 2004). The Judgement refers to Funke and others stating that to request information that would incriminate oneself and would include a penalty should not be a subject of Law in criminal charges only that of certain civil proceedings.
>> Edited by cen on Monday 20th September 09:36
You have furnished me with a notice of Intended prosecution that informs me that driver details must be submitted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Under the said act it would be an offence not to comply with the order served upon me. Failure to provide such information would result in penalty.
However, the request is made under British Law. By the signing of Treaties the UK as submitted itself to European Judgement as a precidence.
Therefore, we wish to quote a recent Judgement from the ECJ that would make the request for information with penalty an illegal activity by the UK judicial standards and an infringment of European Law.
The case in question is Weh v Austria (April 2004). The Judgement refers to Funke and others stating that to request information that would incriminate oneself and would include a penalty should not be a subject of Law in criminal charges only that of certain civil proceedings.
>> Edited by cen on Monday 20th September 09:36
cen said:
If its the same form ie:section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 then the following reply can be submitted.
You have furnished me with a notice of Intended prosecution that informs me that driver details must be submitted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Under the said act it would be an offence not to comply with the order served upon me. Failure to provide such information would result in penalty.
However, the request is made under British Law. By the signing of Treaties the UK as submitted itself to European Judgement as a precidence.
Therefore, we wish to quote a recent Judgement from the ECJ that would make the request for information with penalty an illegal activity by the UK judicial standards and an infringment of European Law.
The case in question is Weh v Austria (April 2004. The Judgement refers to Funke stating that to request information that would incriminate oneself and would include a penalty should not be a subject of Law in criminal charges only that of certain civil charges.
Doesnt work anymore Cen. Have a read through the posts. I think one member got £750 and many points for his trouble
cen said:
You are incorrect Ghost. Note the Judgement is April 2004. This defence is about to be taken to the ECHR in reply to a conviction of S172.
We have moved on from the original defence whilst the Weh judgement now overules Brown Stott
Really? For once I am glad to be wrong
Note to self - Read more carefully in future
We have all been there Ghost. Whilst we are all guilty of assumption. Believe me its easy to scan a post and miss a crucial comment. What as been more difficult is reading and the interpretation of the Weh judgement. A lady of learned qualifications in European Law had to explain it to me and I have a Law degree.
>> Edited by cen on Monday 20th September 09:56
>> Edited by cen on Monday 20th September 09:56
I say shop the Knob. He could have killed himself, his passengers and any third parties that happened to be going through the junction on Green.
My thoughts are that had the POLICE stopped him, they might also have breathalised him, and you might have found yourself looking for a new driver.
Trying to defend him send out the wrong message to your employees. You should be saying : Drive carefully and sensibly.
That said. I recently jumped an orange light, but my excuse is it was raining and I was driving too fast, so I'm just being hypocritical. I will try to drive more sensible !!!
My thoughts are that had the POLICE stopped him, they might also have breathalised him, and you might have found yourself looking for a new driver.
Trying to defend him send out the wrong message to your employees. You should be saying : Drive carefully and sensibly.
That said. I recently jumped an orange light, but my excuse is it was raining and I was driving too fast, so I'm just being hypocritical. I will try to drive more sensible !!!
So the section 172 demand (I hesitate to say loophole, as i believe it to be a fundamental right to silence that has been steamrollered) is once again innefective or has someone got to stand up and go the high court route to decide once more?
If so, I hope its not some high profile bloody footballer again.
If so, I hope its not some high profile bloody footballer again.
cen said:
The case in question is Weh v Austria (April 2004). The Judgement refers to Funke and others stating that to request information that would incriminate oneself and would include a penalty should not be a subject of Law in criminal charges only that of certain civil proceedings.
Maybe showing my ignorance here but Towman is in no danger of incriminating himself so how would this matter?
jacko lah said:
I say shop the Knob. He could have killed himself, his passengers and any third parties that happened to be going through the junction on Green.
Wow - you`re a friendly sort of chap. Obviously my post wasn`t very well written, What I intended to convey was that this is a case of early hours/ zero traffic / red light / slow down / good look / make progress. Hardly the crime of the century.
And FYI I do not employ drivers - they rent the cars from me. And as its my insurance, I only rent to people I know don`t drink. A pretty brisk assumption on your part.
Have a nice day
Steve
cen said:
You are incorrect Ghost. Note the Judgement is April 2004. This defence is about to be taken to the ECHR in reply to a conviction of S172.
We have moved on from the original defence whilst the Weh judgement now overules Brown Stott
Thanks or your info. Not applicable (to me) in this case, but filed away for when I (eventually)get caught!
Steve
jacko lah said:Mmm. There are quite a few sets of lights that I personally treat as a "give way" in the wee small hours, I hardly think this is the crime of the century at 4am now is it? Take the lights installed at J1 of the M6. Pitiful waste of time and money even at peak hours, but after midnight how much sense does it make to sit for 2 mins waiting for a green when you can plainly see there is no-one else about? It was perfectly safe to use judgement before the light were installed a couple of years ago, and still is as far as I am concerned.
I say shop the Knob. He could have killed himself, his passengers and any third parties that happened to be going through the junction on Green.
My thoughts are that had the POLICE stopped him, they might also have breathalised him, and you might have found yourself looking for a new driver.
Trying to defend him send out the wrong message to your employees. You should be saying : Drive carefully and sensibly.
That said. I recently jumped an orange light, but my excuse is it was raining and I was driving too fast, so I'm just being hypocritical. I will try to drive more sensible !!!
cen said:
If its the same form ie:section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 then the following reply can be submitted.
You have furnished me with a notice of Intended prosecution that informs me that driver details must be submitted under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Under the said act it would be an offence not to comply with the order served upon me. Failure to provide such information would result in penalty.
However, the request is made under British Law. By the signing of Treaties the UK as submitted itself to European Judgement as a precidence.
Therefore, we wish to quote a recent Judgement from the ECJ that would make the request for information with penalty an illegal activity by the UK judicial standards and an infringment of European Law.
The case in question is Weh v Austria (April 2004). The Judgement refers to Funke and others stating that to request information that would incriminate oneself and would include a penalty should not be a subject of Law in criminal charges only that of certain civil proceedings.
>> Edited by cen on Monday 20th September 09:36
Err, the decision was made by the ECHR not the ECJ.
Secondly, the the decision was that there was noviolation of Article 6. There was a dissenting judgement (four votes to three) that there was a violation, but the effect of the case seems to be the response by the government is proportionate so there is no article 6 violation.
Tonker you are correct on both accounts but that still does not mean that the Weh V Austria case may not spell the end of s172 notices.
If you read the case Weh was convicted not of speeding or, of not completing the Austrian version of an NIP but for lying when he complete the form. I think he said the driver was cousin in the US.
If you read the judgement the court seems to suggest that the use of compulsorily powers to obtained information is acceptable so long as this information is then not used against the giver of the information in a criminal case.
Since Weh was not convicted of an offence which relied on the compulsorily obtained information but for lying when providing that information a charge which is unrelated to the actual right of silence.
If you read the case Weh was convicted not of speeding or, of not completing the Austrian version of an NIP but for lying when he complete the form. I think he said the driver was cousin in the US.
If you read the judgement the court seems to suggest that the use of compulsorily powers to obtained information is acceptable so long as this information is then not used against the giver of the information in a criminal case.
Since Weh was not convicted of an offence which relied on the compulsorily obtained information but for lying when providing that information a charge which is unrelated to the actual right of silence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff