14 Days for Notice of Intended Prosecution NOT ANY MORE
Discussion
I have received a reminder from the Metropolitan Police, telling me I have not replied to their NIP dated 4th JULY, for a GATSO offense. I wrote to tell them that this is the first letter I have received 37 days after the alleged offense, in reply I got a letter stating it was posted within 14 days by first class post. Therefore they have complied, by the act of posting it was served. So I would have to pay up.
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
goskins17 said:
I have received a reminder from the Metropolitan Police, telling me I have not replied to their NIP dated 4th JULY, for a GATSO offense. I wrote to tell them that this is the first letter I have received 37 days after the alleged offense, in reply I got a letter stating it was posted within 14 days by first class post. Therefore they have complied, by the act of posting it was served. So I would have to pay up.
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
Yes they send out reminders & yes they should have a record of the original being posted/served. It's up to you to fight it in court.I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
goskins17 said:
I have received a reminder from the Metropolitan Police, telling me I have not replied to their NIP dated 4th JULY, for a GATSO offense. I wrote to tell them that this is the first letter I have received 37 days after the alleged offense, in reply I got a letter stating it was posted within 14 days by first class post. Therefore they have complied, by the act of posting it was served. So I would have to pay up.
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
If you are willing to go to court and give sworn evidence that you did not receive the original NIP then you have a good defence - provided there is no good reason why the first NIP wouldn't have reached you.I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
I would appear to me that all a Prosecution Section of any police force would have to do is, send out reminders at some point after the offense, not within the 14 days, and then claim a previous NIP was sent out. Therefore getting round the 14 day rule set in law.
Are you the RK?
Is your current address correctly recorded at DVLA?
Have you recently moved?
No need to ask for proof of posting? Whether or not it was posted and when has no bearing on the fact you didn't receive it.
There is no limit on your obligation to respond to the s.172 notice so you should now complete the form, identifying the driver, and return it. Then ignore CoFP, wait for summons, plead NG and go to court. You should expect to have to go on the stand to give evidence but, as long as you appear honest, the mags are almost certain to believe your uncontested testimony (the ticket office can only give evidence that the NIP was posted, not that it was delivered so your evidence to the contrary is uncontested).
Surely they can just frank the envelope, and say that the postie called / they took it to the PO. Unless there is evidence of it being given to the PO (with address etc visible on CCTV :shock
then how can they prove it has been sent?
Basically, what do they consider proof its been served.
Also, could you also mention how many thousand letters a year get lost in the post, and yours could be one of them. It is
ing rediculous how they can 'serve' it on you, when you don't get to hear about it for 2 / 3 days after.
It should be 'served' when you get it, otherwise you know jack shit.
then how can they prove it has been sent?Basically, what do they consider proof its been served.
Also, could you also mention how many thousand letters a year get lost in the post, and yours could be one of them. It is
ing rediculous how they can 'serve' it on you, when you don't get to hear about it for 2 / 3 days after.It should be 'served' when you get it, otherwise you know jack shit.
Edited by minimac on Tuesday 11th September 18:17
minimac] [ ... said:
Also, could you also mention how many thousand letters a year get lost in the post, and yours could be one of them.
Not "thousands", millions!In 2002 half an million letters were lost by the Royal Mail each week.
They pay out on some 800 claims a day, and for some 150 delayed deliveries a day.
In 2004/5 they lost some 14.6 million letters and parcels!
But, to put it in context, in 2005 the Royal Mail delivered 21 billion letters/parcels. Assuming an American billion, some 0.07% of all posted items are lost in the post; for a British billion, add three zeros after the point.
Streaky
1) For the grammar police, I know I started a sentence (indeed, a paragraph) with a conjunction. It was done for effect - S
2) Apologies for the previous error. It was not a mathematical one, rather my finger stuttered on the keyboard when entering the calculation in Excel. Further, before the purists comment, I have changed the entire sentence to remove the refernce to "probability" - S
Edited by streaky on Sunday 16th September 17:26
streaky said:
minimac][ ... said:
Also, could you also mention how many thousand letters a year get lost in the post, and yours could be one of them.
Not "thousands", millions!In 2002 half an million letters were lost by the Royal Mail each week.
They pay out on some 800 claims a day, and for some 150 delayed deliveries a day.
In 2004/5 they lost some 14.6 million letters and parcels!
But, to put it in context, in 2005 the Royal Mail delivered 21 billion letters/parcels. Assuming an American billion, that's a 0.00079 probability of one item being lost in the post; for a British billion, add three zeros after the point.
Streaky
For the grammar police, I know I started a sentence (indeed, a paragraph) with a conjunction. It was done for effect - S
goskins17 said:
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
Correct. This is one of an increasing number of areas of law where you have to prove your case despite being the being accussed. Guilty until proved innocent.It seems to be a creeping trend in state policy that everyone is deemed a potential suspects until you demostrate otherwise.
If I recall correctly the poster DeMolay here (who is a mod on pepipoo) was certain that the assumption of service on posting was a rebuttable assumption - and as such if you could persuade the magistrates that you did not receive it -- regardless of whether it was posted first class in time, then you have a defence.
I don't know how this played out in court in the end, but I recall a very acrimonious thread about it. And I think DeMolay's point held.
I haven't seen him here recently - he may post on Pepipoo still.
It might not be worth your effort to fight it all the way on a tricky legal point, as costs could be high. On the other hand, you might get away scott free and with costs awarded. It is a gamble.
I don't know how this played out in court in the end, but I recall a very acrimonious thread about it. And I think DeMolay's point held.
I haven't seen him here recently - he may post on Pepipoo still.
It might not be worth your effort to fight it all the way on a tricky legal point, as costs could be high. On the other hand, you might get away scott free and with costs awarded. It is a gamble.
OK lets do a recap on no NOIP within 14 days.
Under Sect 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for an offender committing the offence of speeding there is a requirement for a NOIP to be given and if not complied with the Act states that a person shall not be convicted.
The requirement in relation to NOIP is that a person is:
Warned at the time, or
Served a summons for the offence,or
Sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution
within 14 days of the commission of the offence.
Such a written NOIP may be served:
Personally,or
Addressed to the offender and left at his last known address,or
Sent by Registered Post,Recorded Delivery Post or First Class Post (Second Class is not allowed)to the person registered as the keeper of the vehicle. If this is complied with it matters not if further NOIP's are served down the line out of time.
The Act also states that in relation to service by post it will have been deemed to have been served if it was sent by methods of post as above, addressed to him at his last known address and was returned as undelivered or was for ANY OTHER REASON not received by him
The requirement in relation to NOIP shall deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proved. Onus on the Defendant to disprove.
Further information on service by post is contained in the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7:
"References to service by post.Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
Added to this is a High Court decision Groome v Driscoll [1969] that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.
In practice the SCP will churn out a NOIP and a copy. The original will be posted out to the offender along with Section 172 RTA 88 request to name and driver. What will be completed at the time and attached to the copy will be a Certificate of Service by Post (Form 145 under Magistrates Act 1980):
"I, XY of ........ hereby certify that I served AB with this Notice of which this is a true copy, by sending the said Notice by (type of post) to him in a prepaid letter posted by me,at the ..........Post Office situate at...........at .......o'clock in the.......noon on the ........day of...............200...............and addressed to AB at........................being his last known or usual place of abode or adress given for purpose of service.
Dated the.......day of ............,200
Signed XY
This document under Magistrates Courts Rules will be accepted at Court as proof of posting.
So it can be seen if one is to be succesful in a claim of non receipt of NOIP then after raising this in defence if CPS cannot produce Form 145 as proof of posting or do not call the person posting the NOIP as a witness and giving best evidence. It will also be seen that NOIP will be void if the date of posting was such that it could not be received with the 14 days in the normal course of the post.
dvd
Under Sect 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for an offender committing the offence of speeding there is a requirement for a NOIP to be given and if not complied with the Act states that a person shall not be convicted.
The requirement in relation to NOIP is that a person is:
Warned at the time, or
Served a summons for the offence,or
Sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution
within 14 days of the commission of the offence.
Such a written NOIP may be served:
Personally,or
Addressed to the offender and left at his last known address,or
Sent by Registered Post,Recorded Delivery Post or First Class Post (Second Class is not allowed)to the person registered as the keeper of the vehicle. If this is complied with it matters not if further NOIP's are served down the line out of time.
The Act also states that in relation to service by post it will have been deemed to have been served if it was sent by methods of post as above, addressed to him at his last known address and was returned as undelivered or was for ANY OTHER REASON not received by him
The requirement in relation to NOIP shall deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proved. Onus on the Defendant to disprove.
Further information on service by post is contained in the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7:
"References to service by post.Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
Added to this is a High Court decision Groome v Driscoll [1969] that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.
In practice the SCP will churn out a NOIP and a copy. The original will be posted out to the offender along with Section 172 RTA 88 request to name and driver. What will be completed at the time and attached to the copy will be a Certificate of Service by Post (Form 145 under Magistrates Act 1980):
"I, XY of ........ hereby certify that I served AB with this Notice of which this is a true copy, by sending the said Notice by (type of post) to him in a prepaid letter posted by me,at the ..........Post Office situate at...........at .......o'clock in the.......noon on the ........day of...............200...............and addressed to AB at........................being his last known or usual place of abode or adress given for purpose of service.
Dated the.......day of ............,200
Signed XY
This document under Magistrates Courts Rules will be accepted at Court as proof of posting.
So it can be seen if one is to be succesful in a claim of non receipt of NOIP then after raising this in defence if CPS cannot produce Form 145 as proof of posting or do not call the person posting the NOIP as a witness and giving best evidence. It will also be seen that NOIP will be void if the date of posting was such that it could not be received with the 14 days in the normal course of the post.
dvd
bluepolarbear said:
Correct. This is one of an increasing number of areas of law where you have to prove your case despite being the being accussed. Guilty until proved innocent.
It seems to be a creeping trend in state policy that everyone is deemed a potential suspects until you demostrate otherwise.
We need to vote these nasty fascist twunts into extinction.It seems to be a creeping trend in state policy that everyone is deemed a potential suspects until you demostrate otherwise.
We don't just need a whole new set of MPs, we need to sack all of ACPO and about half the senior civil service too.
But surely, proof of posting does not equal proof of receipt. Only a signature would prove that a NOIP has been received, so why not send out by recorded mail, or registered. Given the number of recent strikes by the post office, it would be prudent for the Courts to do something about these missing items of " post ".
FishFace said:
bluepolarbear said:
goskins17 said:
I have checked numerous legal databases. It would appear I will have to go to court and dispute this matter, I have written back asking for proof they posted the NIP in the first place and the photograph etc. Still awaiting a reply to that.
Correct. This is one of an increasing number of areas of law where you have to prove your case despite being the being accussed. Guilty until proved innocent.It seems to be a creeping trend in state policy that everyone is deemed a potential suspects until you demostrate otherwise.
FishFace said:
RIPA has made certain Police work MASSIVELY bureaucratic and hard. It's the perfect example of criminal law bending over for the human rights act.
Irrelevant to whether it is an example of guilty until "proved innocent". As a new law it also supports the claim that areas such as this is increasingFishFace said:
The 2005 drugs act (section 2 IIRC) is a perfectly sound piece of legislation. Oh no, the poor drug dealers essentially have to prove they didn't intend to supply when they had large quantities of drugs on them...
Never said it wasn't sound or right but again irrelevant - see previous comment - its another exampleFishFace said:
Reversing the burden of proof in specific areas or assuming certain Mens Rea is, amazingly(!!), not new. It does not reverse innocent until proven guility. The prosecution still has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. It has been done many times in criminal legislation throughout the last century.
I'm getting like a stuck record, Irrelevant see above. I would also add it does change the level of prove the prosecution has to show. Let's take the orginal example of the NIP if I the defendant don't do something the prosecution has assumed prove that it was served - that don't have to prove it was as the law says it ways (there is a difference). Similarly RIPA if I fail to hand over the encryption keys I am guilty, the prosecution has an assumed prove that I have the keys. Failure to act or prove something on my part supports the process. C.F a murder charge, if I do nothing, no prove is assumed by prosecution they have to positively prove something rather than rely on a piece of law.FishFace said:
NIPs and their guidelines have been around for sometime. Hardly an "increasing area of law".
You need to re-read my post - I said the reversal of guilt was an increasing area not NIPs. You asked for examples which I gave - you then ignored half of them (eg terror) and made irrelevant comments on the other half.You need to get your eyes out of your books and look at the real world.
FishFace said:
'The Government won't tackle drug dealing... the government draw up legislation to convict drug dealers' catch twenty twooooooooooo.
This has what to do with the price of apples?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff