How long have they got to resond?

[ianfirmstone]

HI all I had a NIP a while back I admitted being teh driver, Was sent a conditional fxed penalty on 6th June 07. I wrote back asking for the evidence on the 11th June also saying I don't belive I was speeding and nothing has come back, no contact at all. So that's now 3 Months since they issued the COFP

Does anyone know how long do they have before they can't pursue it?

I find it weird they've just ignored it for this long
cheers guys!

[SS2.]

ianfirmstone said:

Does anyone know how long do they have before they can't pursue it?

They have 6 months from the date of the alleged offence to commence proceedings. In England & Wales, this is achieved by the laying of an information (an application for summons) at the Magistrates' Court.

The summons itself can be served on the defendant several weeks later (ie could be outside of the 6 month window).

[JustinP1]

ianfirmstone said:

HI all I had a NIP a while back I admitted being teh driver, Was sent a conditional fxed penalty on 6th June 07. I wrote back asking for the evidence on the 11th June also saying I don't belive I was speeding and nothing has come back, no contact at all. So that's now 3 Months since they issued the COFP

Does anyone know how long do they have before they can't pursue it?

I find it weird they've just ignored it for this long
cheers guys!

In mass industry although it may seem wasteful it is actually cheaper to make a new item than it is to repair a broken one.

The SCP is a mass industry. You may be in the clear - if its 3 months I would say that it may be 'forgotten', it may be before the courts waiting for a summons to arrive.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Possible:

1. They looked at your request, checked the evidence and discovered this was a no no. Binned but haven't told your. Naughty.

2. They have sent what you requested (not obliged to do so) and has been lost in post.

3. Having heard nothing more they have sent file for Court process for failing to name driver/speeding. They have up to December to lay information for summons which can be served after this date.

Sweat on?

dvd

[ianfirmstone]

original NIP was 23 may 2007 so if its 6 months from NIP it would be nov 23rd 07

but as I admitted driving and got a COFP on 6/july/07 then 6 months on it would be 6th jan 08

when my missus got done we wrote requesting evidence and within 2 days it was there 2 photos and test cert from the LTI20/20 but that was surrey. this is Herts.

I can't belive there is no resonse... if they do go to court its going to look bad on them for ignoring my letter. I got proof of posting.

only got 3 at moment so hardly a major deal but i know I wasn't speeding. It was so fishy 40 MPH exactly in a 30. every other time there has been a decimal point something on a 20/20 capture.

nice suspiciously round number 40....

[SS2.]

ianfirmstone said:

original NIP was 23 may 2007 so if its 6 months from NIP it would be nov 23rd 07

but as I admitted driving and got a COFP on 6/july/07 then 6 months on it would be 6th jan 08

Its strictly 6 months from the date of the alleged offence. The date you received / returned / ignored / binned the CoFP (whatever) has absolutely no bearing on when the alleged speeding offence will 'timeout'.

ianfirmstone said:

I can't belive there is no resonse...

Nothing out of the ordinary, I'm afraid.

ianfirmstone said:

if they do go to court its going to look bad on them for ignoring my letter.

Why ? A Conditional Offer is exactly that - an offer - and you are not obliged to accept it. No offence is committed if you decline to accept.

Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

[ianfirmstone]

thanks for your help with this. i guess I'll just sit it out. not much else I can actually do.
Anyone else got any experience of Herts scammers? Surrey were far more on the ball.

[JustinP1]

SS2. said:

...Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Is this worth relying on?

Of note is the point where it states 'prior to plea before venue being considered'.

CPS Website. said:

Disclosure of video recorded evidence

The video film, on which evidence is recorded of an incident, is a document for the purposes of the Magistrates Court (Advance Information) Rules 1985. The Divisional Court in the case of R v Calderdale Magistrates Court ex parte Donahue and Cutler 2001 Crim L.R. 141 has held that there is a duty on the Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered.

The Defence must always be informed of the existence of video recorded evidence, subject to any matters that relate to Public Interest Immunity, e.g. where the premises from which the video recording was filmed have been used as an observation post. See Covert Surveillance, elsewhere in this guidance.

Similar considerations apply where the video recording is not part of the prosecution case and the video recording is treated as unused material under the procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. See Disclosure of Unused Material, elsewhere in this guidance.

[SS2.]

JustinP1 said:

SS2. said:

...Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Is this worth relying on?

In what respect, Justin ?

The OP hasn't been charged with any offence as yet. All he has done is admitted to driving a vehicle at a particular time and place.

[JustinP1]

SS2. said:

JustinP1 said:

SS2. said:

...Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Is this worth relying on?

In what respect, Justin ?

The OP hasn't been charged with any offence as yet. All he has done is admitted to driving a vehicle at a particular time and place.

Agreed,

I was thinking more if/when a summons arrives.

It does seem strange to me that this case law seems obvious on the CPS website, so really the CPS should comply with it! Similarly, in the professionally defended cases of this nature, I have not heard of solicitors relying on this either...

The reason I bought it up is that it seems a very simple way of defendant to defend themselves and demand to see the evidence against them without being forced into pleading not-guilty. All they should need to do is request the video and reference the case law.

I thought you may have some more insight than me! Am I missing something!?

[catso]

SS2. said:

Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Are you sure that you need to enter a not guilty plea?

I got 'done' for speeding a few years back and was able to get hold of the 'evidence' before going to court, even though I pleaded guilty at court and hadn't indicated to the court what my intended plea was to be.

However my case was slightly different in that I was not given an 'offer' but rather summoned to court but I would think that one could refuse the 'offer' & request the 'evidence' on the basis that one wasn't certain of one's guilt, or otherwise and simply wanted to be sure prior to 'fessing or otherwise?

[SS2.]

catso said:

SS2. said:

Also, not until you have received a summons and entered a plea of not guilty are you entitled to receive any evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Are you sure that you need to enter a not guilty plea?

Until a summons has been served, the accused is not entitled to receive any 'evidence' upon which a case against them might be based.

The prosecution may issue some evidential material in conjunction with the summons (they did in my case) but, generally, its a not guilty plea which is the precursor for disclosure of everything on which the Crown proposes to rely.

catso said:

I got 'done' for speeding a few years back and was able to get hold of the 'evidence' before going to court, even though I pleaded guilty at court and hadn't indicated to the court what my intended plea was to be.

The key to your case was that you were summoned, though.

In the instant case, the OP has not yet been summoned and, as such, is not obliged to receive any of the 'evidence' which may be used against him.

catso said:

..but I would think that one could refuse the 'offer' & request the 'evidence' on the basis that one wasn't certain of one's guilt,

In an ideal world, yes. Sadly, the current system of conveyor belt justice meted out by the SCPs is anything but ideal.

Its a sorry state of affairs that a driver must risk incurring additional costs and higher penalties (and threats of 'come and have a go...' from the ACPO 'Dream Team') before they can form a reasoned decision of which way to proceed.

Its hardly surprising that many motorists, despite being convinced of their innocence, simply roll over and accept their fate without a whimper..

[catso]

SS2. said:

Its a sorry state of affairs that a driver must risk incurring additional costs and higher penalties (and threats of 'come and have a go...' from the ACPO 'Dream Team') before they can form a reasoned decision of which way to proceed.

Understood but surely one could request the evidence (accepting that a court appearance will then be neccessary) yet not actually be pleading 'not guilty' rather wanting to ascertain that the evidence was 'kosher'? at which point a Guilty plea could be given, allbeit that the 'offer' is withdrawn and the hearing is at a court?

Probably makes no difference to the outcome by taking it to court and pleading guilty rather than pleading not guilty and then being found guilty in this case, but in my case I was treated more 'leniently' for pleading guilty at the first opportunity despite having requested the evidence (evidence that was not given up easily or quickly, I might add) but I suppose if one dares to question the legitimacy of the scammers then harsh treatment is applied - bastids

[SS2.]

catso said:

SS2. said:

Its a sorry state of affairs that a driver must risk incurring additional costs and higher penalties (and threats of 'come and have a go...' from the ACPO 'Dream Team') before they can form a reasoned decision of which way to proceed.

Understood but surely one could request the evidence (accepting that a court appearance will then be neccessary) yet not actually be pleading 'not guilty' rather wanting to ascertain that the evidence was 'kosher'? at which point a Guilty plea could be given, allbeit that the 'offer' is withdrawn and the hearing is at a court?

There is a minor difference in sentence reduction between pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (recommended 1/3 off) and changing a guilty plea to NG before a trial date is set (recommended 1/4 off). If a plea is changed at the 'door of the court', the recommended reduction drops to 1/10.

That's all well and good for defendants, like yourself, who have been summoned - whether they receive a 1/3 off or a 1/4 off is probably of little consequence once matters have proceeded that far.

But what about the recipient of a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty who believes they are innocent and wishes to view the evidence on which a case would be based ?

They would have to weigh up the £60 and 3 points on offer against ignoring the CoFP and accepting that the matter would proceed to court - and with this course of action comes the risk of more than 3 points, higher fine, at least £43 court costs, £15 Victim Support Surcharge - even allowing for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity..

[OldSpanners]

Hey, this is interesting news, was not aware of 6 month limit here, is it fully binding?

Briefly, my car was caught by a GATSO in Derbyshire doing 36 in a 30 around 2 years ago, for reasons I won't go into I was genuinely unable to say who the driver was, sent long and detailed explanation in response to NIP etc. Heard nothing for almost 12 months, then got summons. Pleaded not guilty, then due to father-in-law being in hospital dying of lung cancer at time of hearing changed to guilty with another explanatory letter couple of weeks before hearing (f-in-law died day before hearing). Result was £180 fine, £30 costs and 3 points.

In view of comments above is this correct, if not anything I can do about it now?

[SS2.]

OldSpanners said:

In view of comments above is this correct, if not anything I can do about it now?

Section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 allows courts to rectify mistakes and set aside cases if it appears in the interests of justice to do so.

The first thing to do would be to check when the information was laid - it will be printed on the summons. If this was more than 6 months from the date of your speeding offence, then its possible that the case should never have been brought.

Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 9th October 15:12

[JustinP1]

catso said:

...Understood but surely one could request the evidence (accepting that a court appearance will then be neccessary) yet not actually be pleading 'not guilty' rather wanting to ascertain that the evidence was 'kosher'? at which point a Guilty plea could be given, allbeit that the 'offer' is withdrawn and the hearing is at a court?

Thats exactly how I read the case law I quoted earlier.

I would say it is entirely possible. I would also say if you were to dig your heels in *at that stage* and refuse to give a plea until the evidence was provided in full then the CPS would have a very difficult time getting around the case law.

I can hardly see them trying to convince the magistrates that they did not know about the case or it does not apply when it appears in their own guidance notes for themselves for the proper 'disclosure' rules!

I feel once you have entered a plea, this changes the game slightly where the CPS can lead you on a merry dance for a few months a la Peter Ward.

If I were in that situation (god forbid) I would certainly be standing my ground *before plea* and fight to see the full and unabridged evidence before I go further. I think this would also give the CPS a quick and face-saving exit strategy to drop the case before too much time and money is invested in it.

[SS2.]

JustinP1 said:

I would say it is entirely possible. I would also say if you were to dig your heels in *at that stage* and refuse to give a plea until the evidence was provided in full then the CPS would have a very difficult time getting around the case law.

Yebbut..

By the time the CPS are involved, a summons would have been served and, unless they decide to drop the case, it will end up in court.

If it gets to summons stage, it matters little (1/3 v 1/4 reduction) whether an early guilty plea is entered or a change of plea to guilty is entered at a later stage - upon conviction, the defendant is likely to be liable for increased penalties, costs, surcharges etc (over and above a CoFP, if one had been offered)..

This is different to the situation presented by the original poster who suggested that he wished to view the evidence before deciding whether to accept a CoFP or not. The point remains that until he is summoned, he is not entitled this.

[JustinP1]

SS2. said:

JustinP1 said:

I would say it is entirely possible. I would also say if you were to dig your heels in *at that stage* and refuse to give a plea until the evidence was provided in full then the CPS would have a very difficult time getting around the case law.

Yebbut..

By the time the CPS are involved, a summons would have been served and, unless they decide to drop the case, it will end up in court.

If it gets to summons stage, it matters little (1/3 v 1/4 reduction) whether an early guilty plea is entered or a change of plea to guilty is entered at a later stage - upon conviction, the defendant is likely to be liable for increased penalties, costs, surcharges etc (over and above a CoFP, if one had been offered)..

This is different to the situation presented by the original poster who suggested that he wished to view the evidence before deciding whether to accept a CoFP or not. The point remains that until he is summoned, he is not entitled this.

Forgive me if I have read this wrong... or indeed the CPS are just choosing to ignore it, but the case law suggests disclosure must be made:

'...prior to plea before venue being considered.'

If you are summoned to court somewhere, then of course the venue has already been considered?

[SS2.]

JustinP1 said:

Forgive me if I have read this wrong... or indeed the CPS are just choosing to ignore it, but the case law suggests disclosure must be made:

'...prior to plea before venue being considered.'

'Prior to plea', maybe - but AFTER a summons has been served ie too late for a defendant to accept a CoFP.

This link explains what a plea before venue actually is..