Not signing NIP – a success story!
Discussion
Been following the numerous PH threads regarding unsigned NIPS for several months now, as part of my research for information with which to contest my particular case.
This morning I had a result – so I thought I’d summarise the sequence of events below, partly as a thank you to the various thread contributors and partly to bring hope to anyone currently in a similar situation.
Basic scenario: registered keeper (not me, but based at my address) received a NIP dated 24th February from [County withheld] Police, alleging 52 in a 40 limit on 18th February. (Won’t trouble you with any excuses, or the usual whinge about the talivan being sited in a less than obvious position).
Could have gone down the ‘don’t know who was driving’ route but, since I’m the only authorised driver, it seemed a bit disingenuous – so, waited 24 days (just to make sure we were within the 28-day limit) and sent back the form with the requested information, unsigned.
Received a second NIP dated 28th March, this time addressed to me, asking for my details. Waited another 24 days and sent back the required information, again unsigned.
Next I received a ‘Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty’ dated 25th April, and I quote:
“You have admitted that you were the driver of vehicle registration number (blah, blah) at the time of the alleged offence of exceeding 40mph (camera). [Details of speed and place]. This offence carries a maximum penalty of £1000.
THIS ALLEGATION IS SUPPORTED BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
[Some stuff about how to contest the allegation or accept the conditional offer of a fixed penalty]
YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER.
No proceedings will be instigated against you during that period but failure to respond to this notice within that period will lead to proceedings. In those circumstances you will have the opportunity to have a court hearing on the issue.
Signed (on behalf of the Chief Constable)”
It was the ‘You have admitted.’ bit that really annoyed me – as far as I was aware no one had so far admitted to anything; we’d merely complied with Section 172 of the RTA and provided the information we were legally required to. That decided it – I wanted my day in court, so I didn’t bother with any reply.
Next a letter from the Central Ticket Office of [County withheld] Police arrived, dated 30th May (34 days after the Fixed Penalty Offer giving me 28 days to pay up!), again insisting that I’d admitted being the driver and reminding me to send my licence and £60 to the Magistrates immediately, or the Conditional Offer would be withdrawn in 7 days and a summons issued. Didn’t reply to this either – I was now going all the way…
Eventually, on 25th July, the summons (sent 1st class on 23rd!) duly arrived, requesting the attendance of ‘the accused’ at the Magistrates Court on [a date at the end of] August. The summons included copies of the Police evidence, which were further detailed as being:
1. the unsigned NIP
2. photocopies of two stills from the talivan video (including the log data)
3. a witness statement by the talivan operator (title: Speed Management Officer), basically confirming the location and the fact that the LTI20/20 laser and video had been correctly synchronised
4. the Fixed Penalty ‘final demand’ of 30th May
Of these, I felt that the only piece of evidence that might possibly be admissible in court to potentially link the alleged driver to the identified vehicle was item 2, the video record. From the photocopies of the stills however, it was impossible to see whether there was even a driver in the vehicle…(The first still, the one with the speed measurement on, did however show that the car was all of 3 cars-lengths past the 40 limit sign…!)
So I sent in a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ to the Magistrates, my mitigating circumstances being that I had a concern about the admissibility of some of the evidence relating to the case.
And, after awaiting the verdict on the Dwight Yorke case, I sent the following letter to the Prosecutions Unit of the [County withheld] Police:
Dear Sirs,
Ref: URN : [Case Number]
Please find enclosed the acknowledgement for the above notice, duly completed.
A ‘Not Guilty’ plea has been entered with the Clerk to the Justices at [County withheld] Magistrates Courts, as there is a concern as to the admissibility of some of the evidence that you have indicated you are intending to use.
In itself, an unsigned NIP has already been deemed inadmissible evidence in each of the Magistrates (Flintshire: Dennis 27/02/03), Crown (Bristol: Pickford 13/12/02) and High (Manchester: Yorke 31/07/03) Courts.
For the same reason, the presumption of an admission by the alleged driver, expressed in paragraph 1 of the letter sent by the Central Ticket Office on 30th April 2003, is incorrect – information was provided as required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, but this constitutes neither a ‘witness statement’ nor an admission.
The photographic/video record is therefore potentially the sole piece of admissible evidence that might possibly link the alleged driver to the vehicle in question.
If it remains your intention to proceed with this case on that evidence alone, then please consider this as the formal request that you require to disclose to the undersigned, and his representatives, a first-generation copy of any video recording and prints from the original negatives of any photographic evidence which will form part of the prosecution case. The same request is made, by copy of this letter, to the CPS.
The video copy and photographic prints should be sent to the above address no later than 7 days prior to the hearing, scheduled for [a date at the end of] August 2003; any invitation to view this evidence elsewhere will be treated as non-disclosure, leading to a submission that there is no case to answer.
Yours faithfully,
Enc.
Copy: [Identified Person], Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS [County withheld]
The bit about requesting the video, and insisting on a copy being sent rather than being invited to a viewing, was taken from Pepipoo (as was some very interesting backup evidence about the accuracy of the LTI20/20 – a case in California was thrown out when the defence demonstrated the court wall moving at 4mph, according to the laser gun!).
That site, along with PH and Safespeed, have all been great sources of information and inspiration over the last six months.
And finally, I received the following this morning;
Dear ………
Ref URN [Case Number]
Thank you for your letter dated [early] August 2003
Having checked the paperwork on your file it has been agreed by my manager and myself that the case will be withdrawn on [the date at the end of] August.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.
Yours faithfully
Clerk to the Prosecutions Unit
So, a successful result! And don’t you just love that last sentence?!
Sorry for the length – I hope it was worth it
This morning I had a result – so I thought I’d summarise the sequence of events below, partly as a thank you to the various thread contributors and partly to bring hope to anyone currently in a similar situation.
Basic scenario: registered keeper (not me, but based at my address) received a NIP dated 24th February from [County withheld] Police, alleging 52 in a 40 limit on 18th February. (Won’t trouble you with any excuses, or the usual whinge about the talivan being sited in a less than obvious position).
Could have gone down the ‘don’t know who was driving’ route but, since I’m the only authorised driver, it seemed a bit disingenuous – so, waited 24 days (just to make sure we were within the 28-day limit) and sent back the form with the requested information, unsigned.
Received a second NIP dated 28th March, this time addressed to me, asking for my details. Waited another 24 days and sent back the required information, again unsigned.
Next I received a ‘Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty’ dated 25th April, and I quote:
“You have admitted that you were the driver of vehicle registration number (blah, blah) at the time of the alleged offence of exceeding 40mph (camera). [Details of speed and place]. This offence carries a maximum penalty of £1000.
THIS ALLEGATION IS SUPPORTED BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
[Some stuff about how to contest the allegation or accept the conditional offer of a fixed penalty]
YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER.
No proceedings will be instigated against you during that period but failure to respond to this notice within that period will lead to proceedings. In those circumstances you will have the opportunity to have a court hearing on the issue.
Signed (on behalf of the Chief Constable)”
It was the ‘You have admitted.’ bit that really annoyed me – as far as I was aware no one had so far admitted to anything; we’d merely complied with Section 172 of the RTA and provided the information we were legally required to. That decided it – I wanted my day in court, so I didn’t bother with any reply.
Next a letter from the Central Ticket Office of [County withheld] Police arrived, dated 30th May (34 days after the Fixed Penalty Offer giving me 28 days to pay up!), again insisting that I’d admitted being the driver and reminding me to send my licence and £60 to the Magistrates immediately, or the Conditional Offer would be withdrawn in 7 days and a summons issued. Didn’t reply to this either – I was now going all the way…
Eventually, on 25th July, the summons (sent 1st class on 23rd!) duly arrived, requesting the attendance of ‘the accused’ at the Magistrates Court on [a date at the end of] August. The summons included copies of the Police evidence, which were further detailed as being:
1. the unsigned NIP
2. photocopies of two stills from the talivan video (including the log data)
3. a witness statement by the talivan operator (title: Speed Management Officer), basically confirming the location and the fact that the LTI20/20 laser and video had been correctly synchronised
4. the Fixed Penalty ‘final demand’ of 30th May
Of these, I felt that the only piece of evidence that might possibly be admissible in court to potentially link the alleged driver to the identified vehicle was item 2, the video record. From the photocopies of the stills however, it was impossible to see whether there was even a driver in the vehicle…(The first still, the one with the speed measurement on, did however show that the car was all of 3 cars-lengths past the 40 limit sign…!)
So I sent in a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ to the Magistrates, my mitigating circumstances being that I had a concern about the admissibility of some of the evidence relating to the case.
And, after awaiting the verdict on the Dwight Yorke case, I sent the following letter to the Prosecutions Unit of the [County withheld] Police:
Dear Sirs,
Ref: URN : [Case Number]
Please find enclosed the acknowledgement for the above notice, duly completed.
A ‘Not Guilty’ plea has been entered with the Clerk to the Justices at [County withheld] Magistrates Courts, as there is a concern as to the admissibility of some of the evidence that you have indicated you are intending to use.
In itself, an unsigned NIP has already been deemed inadmissible evidence in each of the Magistrates (Flintshire: Dennis 27/02/03), Crown (Bristol: Pickford 13/12/02) and High (Manchester: Yorke 31/07/03) Courts.
For the same reason, the presumption of an admission by the alleged driver, expressed in paragraph 1 of the letter sent by the Central Ticket Office on 30th April 2003, is incorrect – information was provided as required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, but this constitutes neither a ‘witness statement’ nor an admission.
The photographic/video record is therefore potentially the sole piece of admissible evidence that might possibly link the alleged driver to the vehicle in question.
If it remains your intention to proceed with this case on that evidence alone, then please consider this as the formal request that you require to disclose to the undersigned, and his representatives, a first-generation copy of any video recording and prints from the original negatives of any photographic evidence which will form part of the prosecution case. The same request is made, by copy of this letter, to the CPS.
The video copy and photographic prints should be sent to the above address no later than 7 days prior to the hearing, scheduled for [a date at the end of] August 2003; any invitation to view this evidence elsewhere will be treated as non-disclosure, leading to a submission that there is no case to answer.
Yours faithfully,
Enc.
Copy: [Identified Person], Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS [County withheld]
The bit about requesting the video, and insisting on a copy being sent rather than being invited to a viewing, was taken from Pepipoo (as was some very interesting backup evidence about the accuracy of the LTI20/20 – a case in California was thrown out when the defence demonstrated the court wall moving at 4mph, according to the laser gun!).
That site, along with PH and Safespeed, have all been great sources of information and inspiration over the last six months.
And finally, I received the following this morning;
Dear ………
Ref URN [Case Number]
Thank you for your letter dated [early] August 2003
Having checked the paperwork on your file it has been agreed by my manager and myself that the case will be withdrawn on [the date at the end of] August.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.
Yours faithfully
Clerk to the Prosecutions Unit
So, a successful result! And don’t you just love that last sentence?!
Sorry for the length – I hope it was worth it
Well done, especially for having the balls to keep going to the very end on this.
I hope you have some form of admissable evidence to support that allegation 206xsi
or I would hate to see the letter you get sent
206xsi said:
Yes - there is no way that we can condone speeding! Bad boy!
I hope you have some form of admissable evidence to support that allegation 206xsi
or I would hate to see the letter you get sent 
Well I think that's going to be difficult for them to substansiate now - the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper, who provided the required information (albeit unsigned) about the alleged driver. All subsequent correspondence was with that named person, so I don't think they can turn round now and say there was any failure to provide.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff