Discussion
Friend is in a big, big pickle. As now, is his Dad...
January 2007
Original speeding ticket received by reg keeper for 75 in a 50
Registered keeper requests photographic evidence
March/April 2007
2 digital stills sent to registered keeper 3 months later, with no instruction as to what to do with them or any other enclosures.
Registered keeper sits on them for a bit (not what I would have done)
A few days after (no firm dates) registered keeper nominates his son as driver, as it appears it was him, write a letter, stating this, and giving address. Doesn’t send registered or special delivery.
Considers the matter closed.
July 2007
Receives a summons in July for curiously, both s172.and the original speeding offence to appear in August.
Reg keeper Replies to summons stating he had nominated a driver and again stating his sons address so they can serve NIP. Hears no more.
August 2007:
Registered keeper receives a new summons and court date for the s172 and speeding offence which has been adjourned till September. Sends letter to CPS asking if he needs to take any further action as son and him have heard no more about it and he has already furnished them with son’s details.
Registered keeper doesn’t fill out acknowledgement on this latest summons as he has stated that it was his son driving and not him.
September 2007
Registered keeper receives a letter saying the case against him was held anyway and he has been convicted of the s172 in his absence. His fine is £250 and his licence has been endorsed.
Registered keeper rings up CPS and asks what is going on and wants a review ASAP. The appropriate lawyer is not back in the office until Monday. Reg keeper has only been convicted of the S172 offence and not the speeding, although, curiously enough the latest summons mentions both charges.
This is despite the fact that he has named his son as driver on several occasions. The daft sod didn’t send any of the stuff registered or recorded.
What’s the way forward here then people?
January 2007
Original speeding ticket received by reg keeper for 75 in a 50
Registered keeper requests photographic evidence
March/April 2007
2 digital stills sent to registered keeper 3 months later, with no instruction as to what to do with them or any other enclosures.
Registered keeper sits on them for a bit (not what I would have done)
A few days after (no firm dates) registered keeper nominates his son as driver, as it appears it was him, write a letter, stating this, and giving address. Doesn’t send registered or special delivery.
Considers the matter closed.
July 2007
Receives a summons in July for curiously, both s172.and the original speeding offence to appear in August.
Reg keeper Replies to summons stating he had nominated a driver and again stating his sons address so they can serve NIP. Hears no more.
August 2007:
Registered keeper receives a new summons and court date for the s172 and speeding offence which has been adjourned till September. Sends letter to CPS asking if he needs to take any further action as son and him have heard no more about it and he has already furnished them with son’s details.
Registered keeper doesn’t fill out acknowledgement on this latest summons as he has stated that it was his son driving and not him.
September 2007
Registered keeper receives a letter saying the case against him was held anyway and he has been convicted of the s172 in his absence. His fine is £250 and his licence has been endorsed.
Registered keeper rings up CPS and asks what is going on and wants a review ASAP. The appropriate lawyer is not back in the office until Monday. Reg keeper has only been convicted of the S172 offence and not the speeding, although, curiously enough the latest summons mentions both charges.
This is despite the fact that he has named his son as driver on several occasions. The daft sod didn’t send any of the stuff registered or recorded.
What’s the way forward here then people?
Edited by princeperch on Thursday 27th September 14:46
As I understand it, he didn't turn up in court, nor submit a plea, despite knowing about the hearing; therefore he has been convicted in his absence. He cannot therefore get thw case re-opened; if he wished to defend himself, he should have turned up to do so.
The only avenue now is to appeal to the Crown Court, but that has to be done within 21 days of the conviction.
However, there doesn't seem to be much point in that, because he did commit the s172 offence, after all.
The only avenue now is to appeal to the Crown Court, but that has to be done within 21 days of the conviction.
However, there doesn't seem to be much point in that, because he did commit the s172 offence, after all.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 15:22
princeperch said:
Yes he was informed. He could have done a lot of things differently...
What we need to do now is sort out this mess, get reg keeper off the hook for the s172 and give the points, rightfully to his son.
I just wonder about the correct approach to take with the CPS.
Ah, he should turn up for the court appearence then...whenever that was - that would definitely be the best time to discuss the issue! What we need to do now is sort out this mess, get reg keeper off the hook for the s172 and give the points, rightfully to his son.
I just wonder about the correct approach to take with the CPS.
jeffreyarcher said:
if he wished to defend himself, he should have turned up to do so.
The only avenue now is to appeal to the Crown Court, but that has to be done within 21 days of the conviction.
However, there doesn't seem to be much point in that, because he did commit the s172 offence, after all.
But thats the crux. He nominated his son on several times, but they were all ignored, or , not received...The only avenue now is to appeal to the Crown Court, but that has to be done within 21 days of the conviction.
However, there doesn't seem to be much point in that, because he did commit the s172 offence, after all.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 15:22
princeperch said:
He nominated his son on several times, but they were all ignored, or , not received...
Well then, he should have gone to court and told them that under oath. In any case, it probably wouldn't have mattered, because he didn't tell them anything for about three months. Therefore, he committed the S172 offence.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 15:31
jeffreyarcher said:
princeperch said:
He nominated his son on several times, but they were all ignored, or , not received...
Well then, he should have gone to court and told them that. So it appears our only option now is to apply to the crown court to quash this conviction then..
jeffreyarcher said:
princeperch said:
So it appears our only option now is to apply to the crown court to quash this conviction then..
Forget it; AIUI he din't supply any information for about three months, therefore he has committed the S172 offence.What has irked the registered keeper here is that he wrote a letter to the camera unit after receiving the snaps from the Kojack with the Kodak nominating the boy.
He received a court summons around July time,, again he wrote to the court this time, naming the boy.
He received a notice of adjournment and court date. He then spoke and wrote to the CPS in August, again naming the boy stating the court action has been unnecessarily instigated.
The next he heard was this week when the conviction letter came through.
The crucial point is, what had he told them by day 28 after receipt of the notice?
If, AIUI, the answer to that point is 'nothing', he is probably stuffed.
Depending upon the actual wording of the notice, he may succeed in an appeal, but it is a technical point, and I doubt that a litigant in person could carry it off.
If, AIUI, the answer to that point is 'nothing', he is probably stuffed.
Depending upon the actual wording of the notice, he may succeed in an appeal, but it is a technical point, and I doubt that a litigant in person could carry it off.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 15:52
jeffreyarcher said:
The crucial point is, what had he told them by day 28 after receipt of the notice?
If, AIUI, the answer to that point is 'nothing', he is stuffed.
He might be lucky, but IMO it isn't worth the risk of the extra costs if he isn't (lucky).
aha.If, AIUI, the answer to that point is 'nothing', he is stuffed.
He might be lucky, but IMO it isn't worth the risk of the extra costs if he isn't (lucky).
The NIP was received 30/01/2007
Registered keeper writes back in a matter of days requesting snaps.
Camera office writes to him 15/02/2007 saying they will send shortly.
Now – he claims 2 odd months later, not weeks later, he received the photos.
He then sits on it for a bit, then writes in an names and shames the lad, with his address.
July time, the first court summons appears for the reg keeper.
The reg keeper writes in again, and speaks to CPS bod on 21st August 2007 who assures the Reg keeper that if they needed him or needed to speak to him they would contact him, as they were looking into things.
Next thing he know, the conviction drops through the door in September….
Edited by princeperch on Thursday 27th September 15:51
Following the day of the flash Reg keeper would receive NOIP accompanied by Form under S 172 to name driver.
F 172 has a 28 day deadline and if not responded to in that length of time SCP can go into prosecution mode for failing to name and arrange summons and Court date.
In requesting photo whilst SCP can extend the 28 days there is no obligation on them to do so.
It would seem in such cases SCP charge the original speeding offence with fail to name as there have been cases when hands held up to the speeding so they get two whacks.
Court case cannot go ahead until such time as the Bench are satisfied that a summons has been properly served. In the acknowledgement and letter they know summons has been served.
So, on second occasion when case adjourned they know a summons was served so despite no plea they can go ahead and have done so.
Having received no plea I presume they have treated it as a NG plea and found guilty 172 offence only on the evidence of CPS.
So as previously stated the only avenue left is an appeal against conviction and sentence within 21 days of the conviction.
Legal respresentation on this matter adviseable.
Because procrastination has been allowed to preside I doubt not much success likely.
dvd
F 172 has a 28 day deadline and if not responded to in that length of time SCP can go into prosecution mode for failing to name and arrange summons and Court date.
In requesting photo whilst SCP can extend the 28 days there is no obligation on them to do so.
It would seem in such cases SCP charge the original speeding offence with fail to name as there have been cases when hands held up to the speeding so they get two whacks.
Court case cannot go ahead until such time as the Bench are satisfied that a summons has been properly served. In the acknowledgement and letter they know summons has been served.
So, on second occasion when case adjourned they know a summons was served so despite no plea they can go ahead and have done so.
Having received no plea I presume they have treated it as a NG plea and found guilty 172 offence only on the evidence of CPS.
So as previously stated the only avenue left is an appeal against conviction and sentence within 21 days of the conviction.
Legal respresentation on this matter adviseable.
Because procrastination has been allowed to preside I doubt not much success likely.
dvd
princeperch said:
The NIP was received 30/01/2007
Registered keeper writes back in a matter of days requesting snaps.
Camera office writes to him 15/02/2007 saying they will send shortly.
Asking for the photos in not providing any information.Registered keeper writes back in a matter of days requesting snaps.
Camera office writes to him 15/02/2007 saying they will send shortly.
The problem is that about 19 months ago, the High Court legislated fron the bench, and effectively added another hurdle to S172.
Now, of course, that case turned on the unusual wording of Flegg's notice. But, courts are now accepting that as an authority that you must set out your stall by day 28.
If your notice doesn't have such specific wording, a lawyer wil probably be able to distinguish it, but a LIP will have an uphill struggle.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 16:03
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 16:03
jeffreyarcher said:
princeperch said:
The NIP was received 30/01/2007
Registered keeper writes back in a matter of days requesting snaps.
Camera office writes to him 15/02/2007 saying they will send shortly.
Asking for the photos in not providing any information.Registered keeper writes back in a matter of days requesting snaps.
Camera office writes to him 15/02/2007 saying they will send shortly.
The problem is that about 19 months ago, the High Court legislated fron the bench, and effectively added another hurdle to S172.
Now, of course, that case turned on the unusual wording of Flegg's notice. But, courts are now accepting that as an authority that you must set out your stall by day 28.
If your notice doesn't have such specific wording, a lawyer wil probably be able to distinguish it, but a LIP will have an uphill struggle.
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 16:03
Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 27th September 16:03
how could the stall be set with out being furnished with the photographs, given the camera unit had undertaken to deliver them to the reg keeper?
princeperch said:
would it not be good mitigation in the crown court that the reg keeper asked for the snaps within the 28 day period, the camera unit replied in the 28 day period saying well sort you out with the snaps - BUT the pictures wernt delivered until months later, now outside the 28 day period to set out his stall.
Mitigation is not a defence; the penalty, assuming that it included costs, is not out of line for s172. So even if mitigation was accepted, it wouldn't knock much off it.princeperch said:
how could the stall be set with out being furnished with the photographs, given the camera unit had undertaken to deliver them to the reg keeper?
He could give the details of the possible drivers.jeffreyarcher said:
princeperch said:
would it not be good mitigation in the crown court that the reg keeper asked for the snaps within the 28 day period, the camera unit replied in the 28 day period saying well sort you out with the snaps - BUT the pictures wernt delivered until months later, now outside the 28 day period to set out his stall.
Mitigation is not a defence; the penalty, assuming that it included costs, is not out of line for s172. So even if mitigation was accepted, it wouldn't knock much off it.princeperch said:
how could the stall be set with out being furnished with the photographs, given the camera unit had undertaken to deliver them to the reg keeper?
He could give the details of the possible drivers.jeffreyarcher said:
princeperch said:
would it not be good mitigation in the crown court that the reg keeper asked for the snaps within the 28 day period, the camera unit replied in the 28 day period saying well sort you out with the snaps - BUT the pictures wernt delivered until months later, now outside the 28 day period to set out his stall.
Mitigation is not a defence; the penalty, assuming that it included costs, is not out of line for s172. So even if mitigation was accepted, it wouldn't knock much off it.princeperch said:
how could the stall be set with out being furnished with the photographs, given the camera unit had undertaken to deliver them to the reg keeper?
He could give the details of the possible drivers.WTF??? Our legal system is well-and-truly f'd up!!!
I would have expected that if I'd said to the SCP "I don't know who was driving it, can you send me some photos to help", and they'd said "yes, we'll sort it out", then you sit and wait for them! Not that I'd need to know there was a 28-day limit for me to put even 20 random names down on a form.
(We need a 'ohfortheloveofgod' smiley -
isn't sufficient here!)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff