Unsigned NIP success?

[ribol]

Anyone know who on here was the first (chronologically) to embark on the unsigned NIP route? What stage are they at? Anyone on here actually got away with it?

Ivan

[mybrainhurts]

Someone received this from Norfolk police a few days ago.

Just received letter from Norfolk Constabulary:
"Thank you for your letter dated xxxx
The file has been reviewed and I write to advise you that the Notice
has been cancelled. Therefore the matter is closed."

More importantly, decision on Dwight Yorke's appeal is due early July.

[ribol]

That will be a big day for the thieving B******s, would just like to see somebody beat this legalised mugging.
Maybe Iraq could come over and invade the UK and take all the cameras prisoner and overthrow our dictators - without WMD.

Ivan

[bogie]

Mine started late Jan 2003 for an offence mid Jan

Ive now had a Fixed Penaly Notice (conditional offer) even though I have signed/admitted to nothing - ignoring it so I guess I will have to wait and see if I get a court summons through

[tonybav]

mybrainhurts said:

More importantly, decision on Dwight Yorke's appeal is due early July.

Yes but this will not set a president for unsigned NIP's. Dwight York was convicted for speeding on the basis of an unsigned NIP, in this case I believe the court did not notice it was not signed. It has already been established in R V Pickford that a conviction for speeding can not be sustained on the basis of an unsigned NIP. I am sure the conviction will be overturned, but this still does not answer the question as to whether he has committed an offence under s172 by not signing the NIP.

[mybrainhurts]

tonybav said:

mybrainhurts said: More importantly, decision on Dwight Yorke's appeal is due early July. Yes but this will not set a president for unsigned NIP's. Dwight York was convicted for speeding on the basis of an unsigned NIP, in this case I believe the court did not notice it was not signed. It has already been established in R V Pickford that a conviction for speeding can not be sustained on the basis of an unsigned NIP. I am sure the conviction will be overturned, but this still does not answer the question as to whether he has committed an offence under s172 by not signing the NIP.

[mybrainhurts]

tonybav said:

mybrainhurts said: More importantly, decision on Dwight Yorke's appeal is due early July. Yes but this will not set a president for unsigned NIP's. Dwight York was convicted for speeding on the basis of an unsigned NIP, in this case I believe the court did not notice it was not signed. It has already been established in R V Pickford that a conviction for speeding can not be sustained on the basis of an unsigned NIP. I am sure the conviction will be overturned, but this still does not answer the question as to whether he has committed an offence under s172 by not signing the NIP.

All the reports I read stated that the magistrates at the original hearing refused to accept that the unsigned document was invalid.

[ribol]

Not a legal person but surely it is either one or the other. You cannot have one court accepting it and another not, would that not leave it open for appeal? Or am I just being naive in thinking we have a legal system in place to sort things like this out?

Ivan

[cortinaman]

after the dealings i have had with uxbridge,chichester,great yarmouth and beconsfield magistrates courts over the last 12 years,i would say you are naive.

one magistrate says yes to a ruling,the next says no.there is no continuity.

[tonybav]

cortinaman said:

after the dealings i have had with uxbridge,chichester,great yarmouth and beconsfield magistrates courts over the last 12 years,i would say you are naive. one magistrate says yes to a ruling,the next says no.there is no continuity.

You are correct since magistrates courts are not courts of authority they do not set presidents. So there is no requirement for magistrates courts to come to the same decision. But you do have a right of appeal to the high court which is a court of authority.

[ribol]

tonybav said:

But you do have a right of appeal to the high court which is a court of authority.

Naive, but with hope then.

Ivan