nip with no car details
Discussion
Interesting.
Don't know if there is any recent case law on this that may knock down what I am about to say but.
Schedule 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that Sect 1 of the Act applies in relation to speeding in that a NOIP has to be served. The offence of speeding only relates to a "motor vehicle". VRM, make and colour are not specified as items of specific evidence to be included in the charge. Likewise there is no requirement at Section 1 to state that these have to be included.
There have been cases in the past which mention providing there is sufficient detail to give the idea of the offence for which accused and to guard against the possibilities of being taken unawares, which is the object of the NOIP, then the NOIP is OK.
Could well be argued either way? Advice to wait more than 15 days from date of offence before opening up correspondence on the apparent defect very sound.
DVD
Don't know if there is any recent case law on this that may knock down what I am about to say but.
Schedule 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that Sect 1 of the Act applies in relation to speeding in that a NOIP has to be served. The offence of speeding only relates to a "motor vehicle". VRM, make and colour are not specified as items of specific evidence to be included in the charge. Likewise there is no requirement at Section 1 to state that these have to be included.
There have been cases in the past which mention providing there is sufficient detail to give the idea of the offence for which accused and to guard against the possibilities of being taken unawares, which is the object of the NOIP, then the NOIP is OK.
Could well be argued either way? Advice to wait more than 15 days from date of offence before opening up correspondence on the apparent defect very sound.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
Could well be argued either way? Advice to wait more than 15 days from date of offence before opening up correspondence on the apparent defect very sound.
DVD
Hmmmmmm........no details at all?
Road Traffic Offenders Act (1988) Section 1(c(ii)) states :
(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.
Registered as the keeper of what vehicle exactly? The vehicle that isn't specified? Wait until after the 14 day period and write back with a letter. Post here if you want a draft letter.
>> Edited by DeMolay on Friday 7th January 17:14
Yup take your point.
I'm splitting hairs DM as you will gather so where does it say that the Notice itself has to include these details. CPS can say that they have complied as they have served Notice of Intention to prosecute for an offence of speeding at such and such place and time (why NOIP has to be served). In their file they will have VRM and details of Keeper etc. from which they can prove VRM and Reg Keeper and notice sent to that person.
Law is weird as there is no mention in the Act that for 172 offence reply has to be signed but HC states that is the law it has to be. Any thing goes these days.
DVD.
I'm splitting hairs DM as you will gather so where does it say that the Notice itself has to include these details. CPS can say that they have complied as they have served Notice of Intention to prosecute for an offence of speeding at such and such place and time (why NOIP has to be served). In their file they will have VRM and details of Keeper etc. from which they can prove VRM and Reg Keeper and notice sent to that person.
Law is weird as there is no mention in the Act that for 172 offence reply has to be signed but HC states that is the law it has to be. Any thing goes these days.
DVD.
Dwight VanDriver said:
I'm splitting hairs DM as you will gather so where does it say that the Notice itself has to include these details.
It's a grey area.
Road Traffic Act said:
(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—
It doesn't specifically mention the registration in this section, I grant you; but how does the 'keeper' know he is not being prosecuted for driving another vehicle? It would be almost impossible to mount a defence if you didn't know what vehicle you were alleged to be driving don't you think? I still believe that ss.c(ii) gives sufficient leverage to the keeper in order to mount a credible defence.
Dwight VanDriver said:
CPS can say that they have complied as they have served Notice of Intention to prosecute for an offence of speeding at such and such place and time (why NOIP has to be served). In their file they will have VRM and details of Keeper etc. from which they can prove VRM and Reg Keeper and notice sent to that person.
Hypothetically yes, but as above.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Law is weird as there is no mention in the Act that for 172 offence reply has to be signed but HC states that is the law it has to be. Any thing goes these days.
DVD.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/591.html This case I assume?
It's a shocker and no mistake. The last paragraph is jaw dropping. How did he get away with it......?
>> Edited by DeMolay on Friday 7th January 21:38
>> Edited by DeMolay on Friday 7th January 21:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff