NIP & 14 day rule when stopped at roadside

[paulmoonraker]

Hi,

A mate got stopped at the roadside and issued a speeding ticket. The NIP has turned up 6 weeks later. Does the 14 day rule apply if you're stopped, or is it just speed cameras and the like.

Thanks

[Fastdruid]

The stop at the road side *is* the NIP.

[paulmoonraker]

Fastdruid said:

The stop at the road side *is* the NIP.

Ah, okay. Makes sense.

Thanks

[Dixy]

As above NIP stands for notice of intention to prosecute, the ticket at the side of the road was more than just a good clue.

[HantsRat]

When stopped at the roadside the officer would have said... "You are being reported for the question of prosecuting you for ..... "

It most likely also had this written on the ticket too.

This is the NIP.

[mph1977]

Fastdruid said:

The stop at the road side *is* the NIP.

" I must caution you that I am considering reporting you for the offence of <whatever > , rest of the caution... " = NIP 'served'.

[agtlaw]

Not quite. There's some obvious confusion from posters above.

A Notice of Intended Prosecution is not required if "he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration". The "warning at the time" can be a form of words. See section 1 RTOA 1988.

[Fastdruid]

agtlaw said:

Not quite. There's some obvious confusion from posters above.

A Notice of Intended Prosecution is not required if "he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration". The "warning at the time" can be a form of words. See section 1 RTOA 1988.

I was possibly somewhat general as you are (of course) correct that they require the warning but the OP said he was issued a "speeding ticket" at the roadside. Hence he was already given a NIP.

[agtlaw]

Fastdruid said:

I was possibly somewhat general as you are (of course) correct that they require the warning but the OP said he was issued a "speeding ticket" at the roadside. Hence he was already given a NIP.

That's probably right. But was it a TOR and if so then was it compliant with section 1? I had some success challenging a Thames Valley TOR with a so-called "verbal NIP".

[HantsRat]

agtlaw said:

That's probably right. But was it a TOR and if so then was it compliant with section 1? I had some success challenging a Thames Valley TOR with a so-called "verbal NIP".

If the TOR have the 'NIP speech' written down and has been signed, if this not evidence of the warning being given?

[agtlaw]

HantsRat said:

If the TOR have the 'NIP speech' written down and has been signed, if this not evidence of the warning being given?

The key thing is that the warning must be at the time of the offence. The particular case mentioned above was defective because the TVP TOR was purportedly used as evidence of a "verbal NIP" the day after an offence. Not guilty verdict. There's a thread about it on this forum.