Unsigned NIP is it all over??
Discussion
I have just read the Mawdesley and Yorke judgement in detail. I have to apologise I have posted on this subject and sent e-mails without reading the judgement. Having read the judgement I realise that the situation has now changed for the worst. Can I suggest anybody considering or using the unsigned route read the judgement in detail.
www.safespeed.org.uk/yandm.doc
The important points are summarised in :-
www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
I apologise if I mislead anyone it only proves how important it is to keep up to date.
www.safespeed.org.uk/yandm.doc
The important points are summarised in :-
www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
I apologise if I mislead anyone it only proves how important it is to keep up to date.
GO AND READ IT AGAING M8.
its not finshed. Pluss the realy shot there self in the foot THis Time by metioning PACE.
WHy can and one read a fairly simple jugement?
if I can read and understand it and Im dislexic.
I blood shaw others can.
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 13:44
its not finshed. Pluss the realy shot there self in the foot THis Time by metioning PACE.
WHy can and one read a fairly simple jugement?
if I can read and understand it and Im dislexic.
I blood shaw others can.
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 13:44
My understanding is as follows:
1) A Section 172 notice returned, filled in by hand but WITHOUT a signature or date, is deemed NOT to be a confession by the named driver.
The reason being, that simply by printing one's name in the 'Drivers Name' section is not a 'signature' and also the intention of putting one's name in that section does not demonstrate the intention to admit the document as a statement/confession.
2)A section 172 notice filled in by the Registered Keeper by hand and stating the registered keeper as driver also, but again not signed or dated may be assumed by the court to be information provided by the registered keeper and thus used as evidence against them as though a confession.
A signature not being required in this instance.
The reason being that if the form is sent to the RK address and is returned with the RK as driver, then it is reasonable to accept the RK filled in the form.
3) If evidence is provided that a third party filled in the form then 2) MAY not apply subject to the court accepting the evidence.
To me this means:
If you recieve a NIP, do not fill it in by hand TYPE IT or provide a TYPED response and do not sign.
Although if you live alone you are pretty much buggered either way.
1) A Section 172 notice returned, filled in by hand but WITHOUT a signature or date, is deemed NOT to be a confession by the named driver.
The reason being, that simply by printing one's name in the 'Drivers Name' section is not a 'signature' and also the intention of putting one's name in that section does not demonstrate the intention to admit the document as a statement/confession.
2)A section 172 notice filled in by the Registered Keeper by hand and stating the registered keeper as driver also, but again not signed or dated may be assumed by the court to be information provided by the registered keeper and thus used as evidence against them as though a confession.
A signature not being required in this instance.
The reason being that if the form is sent to the RK address and is returned with the RK as driver, then it is reasonable to accept the RK filled in the form.
3) If evidence is provided that a third party filled in the form then 2) MAY not apply subject to the court accepting the evidence.
To me this means:
If you recieve a NIP, do not fill it in by hand TYPE IT or provide a TYPED response and do not sign.
Although if you live alone you are pretty much buggered either way.
Sorry swilley this is not what the judgement says.
Although the reasons vary a little the judgement finds that unsigned NIP to either a driver identified by a keeper, or to a keeper who was the driver is:-
1. Not “a statement in writing…purporting to be signed by the accused” within the meaning of section 12 of the RTOA 1988. Therefore it cannot sustain a conviction for speeding which is why the Mawdesley and Yorke cases where dismissed.
2. If it can be inferred from the evidence before the court that an unsigned Section 172 form was made by the Defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confessions a confession under sect 76(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
The Yorke case was dismissed as the NIP was signed by a representative without authority and could not be a confession within the meaning of s76(1). This was not the case for Mawdesley who filled the NIP in block capital. Which is why the case was remitted to the magistrates court.
It appears you can get a personal representative to complete it without authority but not sure that would not invalidate your defence if you are prosecution for failure to identify the driver under s172(3) RTA 1988.
>> Edited by tonybav on Wednesday 15th October 14:17
Although the reasons vary a little the judgement finds that unsigned NIP to either a driver identified by a keeper, or to a keeper who was the driver is:-
1. Not “a statement in writing…purporting to be signed by the accused” within the meaning of section 12 of the RTOA 1988. Therefore it cannot sustain a conviction for speeding which is why the Mawdesley and Yorke cases where dismissed.
2. If it can be inferred from the evidence before the court that an unsigned Section 172 form was made by the Defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confessions a confession under sect 76(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
The Yorke case was dismissed as the NIP was signed by a representative without authority and could not be a confession within the meaning of s76(1). This was not the case for Mawdesley who filled the NIP in block capital. Which is why the case was remitted to the magistrates court.
It appears you can get a personal representative to complete it without authority but not sure that would not invalidate your defence if you are prosecution for failure to identify the driver under s172(3) RTA 1988.
>> Edited by tonybav on Wednesday 15th October 14:17
they have never you the PACE crap in a court yet if they did they would be 
ed.
as at no time have you been informad of you rights under PACE.
and have not been cautioned ie you have the right too silence etc.
the senil old bugger screwed up with opening his mouth about PACE in the jugment.
and dug the scammers into an even biger hole.
ed. as at no time have you been informad of you rights under PACE.
and have not been cautioned ie you have the right too silence etc.
the senil old bugger screwed up with opening his mouth about PACE in the jugment.
and dug the scammers into an even biger hole.
Ok right, worked out the NIP must be sent special delivery on I think the latest, saturday morning (making it arrive on Monday) - time up.
Read all the shiz in detail, but Quick question - if you end up in court for Failing to supply, or even the speeding, can you get more than 3 points? (speed was about 15 mph over the limit)
so... Yorke gets dismissed as someone else writing his name cannot be a confession - does this only include legal representatives?
eg if someones best mate filled in the form what would occur?
would the person who received the NIP be charged with s172 failure to supply as it clearly says "thisi form must be completed by you, the addresses, blah blah blah".
[quote]I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE]. [/quote]
so, under PACE, an unsigned NIP is worth all. (true? or am i wrong, plz correct if not!)
HOWEVER, an appeal can be made in that said persons rights were not explained in terms of PACE. which gives a whole bloody open argument as outlaw said.
tony would you like to offer your opinions on the best action to take - time is running out! perhaps an unsigned nip is not over as you can "have your time in court" and appeal against the PACE judgement...
[quote]The critical feature of that general proposition is that in whatever form a person affixes his name, he does so with the intent that it shall be treated as his signature. [/quote]
(Taken from the report) therefore, if the nip receiver fills out the form - once a name is written, it can be taken as a signiture (and therefore admittance of the offense)
leaves a few questions, im sure im geting muddled been studying it for ages and startin to get more and more confused
lol
Read all the shiz in detail, but Quick question - if you end up in court for Failing to supply, or even the speeding, can you get more than 3 points? (speed was about 15 mph over the limit)
so... Yorke gets dismissed as someone else writing his name cannot be a confession - does this only include legal representatives?
eg if someones best mate filled in the form what would occur?
would the person who received the NIP be charged with s172 failure to supply as it clearly says "thisi form must be completed by you, the addresses, blah blah blah".
[quote]I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE]. [/quote]
so, under PACE, an unsigned NIP is worth
all. (true? or am i wrong, plz correct if not!) HOWEVER, an appeal can be made in that said persons rights were not explained in terms of PACE. which gives a whole bloody open argument as outlaw said.
tony would you like to offer your opinions on the best action to take - time is running out! perhaps an unsigned nip is not over as you can "have your time in court" and appeal against the PACE judgement...
[quote]The critical feature of that general proposition is that in whatever form a person affixes his name, he does so with the intent that it shall be treated as his signature. [/quote]
(Taken from the report) therefore, if the nip receiver fills out the form - once a name is written, it can be taken as a signiture (and therefore admittance of the offense)
leaves a few questions, im sure im geting muddled been studying it for ages and startin to get more and more confused
lol
ill try againg
right fill in the NIP
if you do it with a typewriter all the better.
send it back specile delivery. THATS IMPORTAINT
dont sing IT IMPORTAINT
NOW JUST dont answer andthing from the scammers dont write too em dont answer them if they write too you.
IF THEY SEND YOU THE nnip back thats there problem
NOT YOURS
YOU HAVE DONE WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AND COMPLIED WITH THE NIP.
NOW SIT BACK AND WAIT
what they do next depends where they are diferent partnerships do diferent things.
1 some write back with mis quoted case law.
action+ignore it
2some will send a fix fine notice
action=dont pay it.
3 some will just give up
action=drink a beer your licence and xcash are safe from theers.
4 some will send a summons
now write to the CPS and demand the full disclosure of the case to be with you with in 7 days of the case
now some will play up ad say you cant have it .
legaly yes you can.
if they dont hand it over
than when you go to court say as the cps has not provided you with the discclosur/evdidence theres no case to answer.
do not go on to trail unless you have the disclosure given too you.
mostlikly there ajourn it too the cps send it too you.
if they haven by the next date kick up a fuss and say
and ask for the case to be ended as there is no evidence against you
IT IS YOUR LEGAL RIHT TO GET THIS INFORMATION
remember that
and dont enter a plea when asked too
say NO CASE TO ANSWER
dont take the wicness stand THIS IS VERY INPORTAIN
dont say you were driving THIS IS VERY INPORTAIN
if they ask you if you were driving say my legal obligatons have be forfilled via the nip
and say a nip was recived by me and retuned compleating my legal obligations
it was UNSIGED. as nowhere in law doase it say it has to be signed
now produse the specill delivery slip proving a NIP was retuned.
DO NOT SAY AT ANY TIME YOU FILLED IT IN OR WHO DID.
that should be the end of it
if at any time that say its a confetion under PACE
they start I The I was not informed OF my rigts under PACE defence.
but I very much dout they will dare to try the pace shit.
THAY have not dared to truy to use it. In any court as of yet.
Normaly The CVPS drop the case like a brick.
BEFORE THE pace STUFF COMES UP
If all gos well, its time to go home and drink a beer
you won the case
dont forget to ask the court for you expencies/costs
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 15:27
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 15:28
right fill in the NIP
if you do it with a typewriter all the better.
send it back specile delivery. THATS IMPORTAINT
dont sing IT IMPORTAINT
NOW JUST dont answer andthing from the scammers dont write too em dont answer them if they write too you.
IF THEY SEND YOU THE nnip back thats there problem
NOT YOURS
YOU HAVE DONE WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AND COMPLIED WITH THE NIP.
NOW SIT BACK AND WAIT
what they do next depends where they are diferent partnerships do diferent things.
1 some write back with mis quoted case law.
action+ignore it
2some will send a fix fine notice
action=dont pay it.
3 some will just give up
action=drink a beer your licence and xcash are safe from the
ers. 4 some will send a summons
now write to the CPS and demand the full disclosure of the case to be with you with in 7 days of the case
now some will play up ad say you cant have it .
legaly yes you can.
if they dont hand it over
than when you go to court say as the cps has not provided you with the discclosur/evdidence theres no case to answer.
do not go on to trail unless you have the disclosure given too you.
mostlikly there ajourn it too the cps send it too you.
if they haven by the next date kick up a fuss and say
and ask for the case to be ended as there is no evidence against you
IT IS YOUR LEGAL RIHT TO GET THIS INFORMATION
remember that
and dont enter a plea when asked too
say NO CASE TO ANSWER
dont take the wicness stand THIS IS VERY INPORTAIN
dont say you were driving THIS IS VERY INPORTAIN
if they ask you if you were driving say my legal obligatons have be forfilled via the nip
and say a nip was recived by me and retuned compleating my legal obligations
it was UNSIGED. as nowhere in law doase it say it has to be signed
now produse the specill delivery slip proving a NIP was retuned.
DO NOT SAY AT ANY TIME YOU FILLED IT IN OR WHO DID.
that should be the end of it
if at any time that say its a confetion under PACE
they start I The I was not informed OF my rigts under PACE defence.
but I very much dout they will dare to try the pace shit.
THAY have not dared to truy to use it. In any court as of yet.
Normaly The CVPS drop the case like a brick.
BEFORE THE pace STUFF COMES UP
If all gos well, its time to go home and drink a beer
you won the case
dont forget to ask the court for you expencies/costs
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 15:27
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 15:28
millasur said:
tony would you like to offer your opinions on the best action to take - time is running out! perhaps an unsigned nip is not over as you can "have your time in court" and appeal against the PACE judgement
Sorry millasur currently out of views. You could try typing it, get your wife or solicitor to fill it out in a hand writing which is obviously not yours. The advantage of a wife or your solicitor doing this is that they cannot be called to give evidence against you.
With regard to the requirement to caution under PACE read paragraph 31 of the judgement. Justice Owen says:-
“But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1” (of the code of practice on the application of PACE.).
So no need for caution.
I think there is fault in the judgement. It does seem strange that he argues on one hand that the unsigned can not be admissible since it was not “a statement in writing” as required by 12(1)(b) of the RTOA because “the recipient must know that serious consequences may flow from the receipt of the information that he provides”. But he allows admissibility under 82(1) of PACE without caution by relying on the argument that the s172(1) RTA 1988 admission falls under the exemption to the requirements to caution in C.10.1 on the basis that the s172(1) evidence is “…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…”. Most odd but you now need to appeal to the High Court to challenge the decision.
outlaw read your posts but sorry this was a judgement in the crown court and is binding on all magistrates courts and crown courts. So a hand written unsigned NIP is now admissible under 82(1) of PACE argument without the need for caution.
YES BUT NAME ONE CASE WHERE THEY HAVE TRYED IT.
you can because they have not.
tHE cps keeops droping the cases like the BLACK dEATH
and wont touch it.
there another problem thats comes up with the jugment for em. as i can see it but im keeping that under my hat for now.
one problem that they do have with that i will tell you about. is
they cant probe who filled in the nip
and if you dident fill it it it is not a confetion
and idf you type it as well love to see em prove who typed it.
the defendent is under no legal obligation to tell em who filled it in.
pluss no end of the unsigned nip have been bined by the cps or the scammer office.
as unsigned NIP have become an epidemic now.
my gues in there inandated with more than they know what too do with.
I recon there system is breaking as we speek.
AND I WLL REPEAT AGAING
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVITED TOO DATE AFTER NOT SIGING A NIP.
THE CPS HAVE DROPED EVERYONE SO FAR.
THEY DONT WANT THE PACE BIT TO COME UP IN A CASE.
motoris are still sending in unsigned NIPS
and getting off every day.
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 16:21
you can because they have not.
tHE cps keeops droping the cases like the BLACK dEATH
and wont touch it.
there another problem thats comes up with the jugment for em. as i can see it but im keeping that under my hat for now.
one problem that they do have with that i will tell you about. is
they cant probe who filled in the nip
and if you dident fill it it it is not a confetion
and idf you type it as well love to see em prove who typed it.
the defendent is under no legal obligation to tell em who filled it in.
pluss no end of the unsigned nip have been bined by the cps or the scammer office.
as unsigned NIP have become an epidemic now.
my gues in there inandated with more than they know what too do with.
I recon there system is breaking as we speek.
AND I WLL REPEAT AGAING
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVITED TOO DATE AFTER NOT SIGING A NIP.
THE CPS HAVE DROPED EVERYONE SO FAR.
THEY DONT WANT THE PACE BIT TO COME UP IN A CASE.
motoris are still sending in unsigned NIPS
and getting off every day.
>> Edited by outlaw on Wednesday 15th October 16:21
sorry for the length of this in advance!!!.....
Outlaw i think you are correct in what you say, they havent dared to use the PACE stuff yet, and im hoping they continue along this course. (By the way thanks for your assistance yesterday mate, ive sent the NIP back today unsigned special delivery to Sir John Stevens, will see what happens)
However there may be a stumbling block within JO's words. From note 33 in the judgement on SafeSpeed JO says that Mawdesleys legal team said they would have objected if PACE had been used to justify the unsigned form as a confession on the grounds that no caution had been administered prior to the completion of the form as such the court would have been asked to exclude the evidence under s78 of PACE.
This theoretical defence proposed by mr mawdesleys team was based around C10.1 of the code of practice which provides and i have put the possible prob area in capitals to highlight it:
(see note 34 on judgement text) "A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about it are put to him regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, if his answers or his silence (i.e failure or refusal to answer) may be given in evidence to a court in prosecution. HE THEREFORE NEED NOT BE CAUTIONED IF QUESTIONS ARE PUT FOR OTHER PURPOSES, FOR EXAMPLE SOLELY TO ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY OR HIS OWNERSHIP OF ANY VEHICLE OR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT...."
The crucial bit there is the circumstance under which a caution need not be given and whether or not the s172 form fits the criteria. As is see it there could be a big row over the word "solely". The way i see it the NIP is not asking for information on the driver solely to establish identity or owndership but with the implicit aim of gaining a confession, admissible under s12 of the RTOA, to an offence in a roundabout way. Its almost tantamount to entrapment. its certainly underhand tactics.
If the argument around the word "solely" is accepted then the unsigned forms questions still has a long long way till its answered, but if its not JO has created a situation in which the NIP can be distuingished from the normal requirement within PACE to have a person under caution before any evidence becomes admissible under PACE which could be one in they eye for all us in the unsigned forms brigade.
I think one thing is for sure, when the CPS do decide to go full out & test this its probably going to be expensive, and therein is our best hope, the cps need to be spending their money on stuff which much more in the public interest.
[quote=outlaw]
yes i now its binding to magistraits Iv read the full jugment and understand it.
BUT NAME ONE CASE WHERE THEY HAVE TRYED IT.
you can because they have not.
tHE cps keeops droping the cases like the BLACK dEATH
and wont touch it.
there another problem thats comes up with the jugment for em. as i can see it but im keeping that under my hat for now.
one problem that they do have with that i will tell you about. is
they cant probe who filled in the nip
and if you dident fill it it it is not a confetion
and if you type it as well, I would love to see em prove who typed it.
the defendent is under no legal obligation to tell em who filled it in.
If falls on the CPS to prove beond all resonable dout that you filled it in.
pluss no end of the unsigned nip have been bined by the cps or the scammer office.
as unsigned NIP have become an epidemic now.
my gues in there inandated with more than they know what too do with.
I recon there system is breaking as we speek.
AND I WLL REPEAT AGAING
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVITED TOO DATE AFTER NOT SIGING A NIP.
THE CPS HAVE DROPED EVERYONE SO FAR.
THEY DONT WANT THE PACE BIT TO COME UP IN A CASE.
motoris are still sending in unsigned NIPS
and getting off every day.
yes i now its binding to magistraits Iv read the full jugment and understand it.
BUT NAME ONE CASE WHERE THEY HAVE TRYED IT.
you can because they have not.
tHE cps keeops droping the cases like the BLACK dEATH
and wont touch it.
there another problem thats comes up with the jugment for em. as i can see it but im keeping that under my hat for now.
one problem that they do have with that i will tell you about. is
they cant probe who filled in the nip
and if you dident fill it it it is not a confetion
and if you type it as well, I would love to see em prove who typed it.
the defendent is under no legal obligation to tell em who filled it in.
If falls on the CPS to prove beond all resonable dout that you filled it in.
pluss no end of the unsigned nip have been bined by the cps or the scammer office.
as unsigned NIP have become an epidemic now.
my gues in there inandated with more than they know what too do with.
I recon there system is breaking as we speek.
AND I WLL REPEAT AGAING
NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVITED TOO DATE AFTER NOT SIGING A NIP.
THE CPS HAVE DROPED EVERYONE SO FAR.
THEY DONT WANT THE PACE BIT TO COME UP IN A CASE.
motoris are still sending in unsigned NIPS
and getting off every day.
tonybav said:
I think there is fault in the judgement. It does seem strange that he argues on one hand that the unsigned can not be admissible since it was not “a statement in writing” as required by 12(1)(b) of the RTOA because “the recipient must know that serious consequences may flow from the receipt of the information that he provides”.
But he allows admissibility under 82(1) of PACE without caution by relying on the argument that the s172(1) RTA 1988 admission falls under the exemption to the requirements to caution in C.10.1 on the basis that the s172(1) evidence is “…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…”.
My understanding is that he is answering different questions reagading the 172 forms.
In the first case he is declaring that if the RK fills in the form but does not sign, the act of writing his name in the NAME section is not a signature and the intention is not there for it to act as such.
In the second case, the provision of this information is deemed acceptable, even if UNSIGNED, if it is provided by the RK, after having the 172form sent to the RK address.
I think
outlaw, Im pretty much in full agreement with you mate, the potential way is there for the CPS but they havent dared to try it because it is filled with loads of pitfalls along the way.
they'll never get me to admit anything unless they figure out a way to get me on the witness stand to testify against myself, which i know they cant do.
the only worry i have is that if they do summons me on both counts (cos i had already completed my form before i found out about typing/or using an agent)then i wont be able to afford being found guilty & appealing as legal costs will balloon & legal aid isnt going to help me but i aint event close to well off either so legal fees funds are pie in the sky!
they have 1,000's to deal with, and they havent successfully prosecuted one yet. lets just hope they dont for my licences sake!!
By the way anyone know the statutue of limitations time for speeding offences - ie how long's it from the point they say they are considering prosecuting you to the point they can no longer issue a summons for that offence because they are out of time ?
>> Edited by upcreeknopaddle? on Wednesday 15th October 16:47
they'll never get me to admit anything unless they figure out a way to get me on the witness stand to testify against myself, which i know they cant do.
the only worry i have is that if they do summons me on both counts (cos i had already completed my form before i found out about typing/or using an agent)then i wont be able to afford being found guilty & appealing as legal costs will balloon & legal aid isnt going to help me but i aint event close to well off either so legal fees funds are pie in the sky!
they have 1,000's to deal with, and they havent successfully prosecuted one yet. lets just hope they dont for my licences sake!!
By the way anyone know the statutue of limitations time for speeding offences - ie how long's it from the point they say they are considering prosecuting you to the point they can no longer issue a summons for that offence because they are out of time ?
>> Edited by upcreeknopaddle? on Wednesday 15th October 16:47
outlaw/upcreeknopaddle I cannot name a case where this judgement has been used. But that is not surprising as the CPS have enough problems managing there current case load, all they need is lots of speeding offending bunging up the court system. Have you heard of any cases being dropped by the CPS, no you have not, and please do not mistake not getting a summons as the CPS dropping the case. They have 6 years, I think, to commence a prosecution, the system grinds very slowly.
What is clear is that an unsigned s172(1) is admissible if it is clear that it was provided by the driver. What makes it clear it was provided by the driver? read the judgement:-
“But I am satisfied that it would have been open to the court to infer from the fact that the Notices of Intended Prosecution was sent to the Appellants at their addresses, and were returned bearing the detailed information set out in relation to Mawdesley in Paragraph 4 above, and in relation to Yorke in paragraph 10, that in each case the entries were made by the Appellant.”
With regard to the issue on exemption to caution under the C.10.1 PACE guidelines, I agree with you upcreeknopaddle, Justice Owens arguments do not seem to make sense when you consider his judgement on admissibility under 12(1)(b) of the RTOA. But he is a Crown Court Judge his ruling is binding on all Magistrates and Crown courts. To get the issue reopened involves going to the High Court which would be very expensive.
What is clear is that an unsigned s172(1) is admissible if it is clear that it was provided by the driver. What makes it clear it was provided by the driver? read the judgement:-
“But I am satisfied that it would have been open to the court to infer from the fact that the Notices of Intended Prosecution was sent to the Appellants at their addresses, and were returned bearing the detailed information set out in relation to Mawdesley in Paragraph 4 above, and in relation to Yorke in paragraph 10, that in each case the entries were made by the Appellant.”
With regard to the issue on exemption to caution under the C.10.1 PACE guidelines, I agree with you upcreeknopaddle, Justice Owens arguments do not seem to make sense when you consider his judgement on admissibility under 12(1)(b) of the RTOA. But he is a Crown Court Judge his ruling is binding on all Magistrates and Crown courts. To get the issue reopened involves going to the High Court which would be very expensive.
[quote=tonybav]outlaw/upcreeknopaddle I cannot name a case where this judgement has been used. But that is not surprising as the CPS have enough problems managing there current case load, all they need is lots of speeding offending bunging up the court system. Have you heard of any cases being dropped by the CPS, no you have not.
i have actually although i dont know the full circumstances. JeffreyArcher alerted me to it yesterday. The guys name was Carl Prescott and he was represented by a guy called john josephs. Go to Yahoo groups and look for the Unsigned Forms group. its detailed in there starting in yesterdays threads. Entitled, "Another one bites the dust". I for one will be contacting Mr Josephs!!
heres a URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unsigned_forms/message/4639
>> Edited by upcreeknopaddle? on Wednesday 15th October 17:04
i have actually although i dont know the full circumstances. JeffreyArcher alerted me to it yesterday. The guys name was Carl Prescott and he was represented by a guy called john josephs. Go to Yahoo groups and look for the Unsigned Forms group. its detailed in there starting in yesterdays threads. Entitled, "Another one bites the dust". I for one will be contacting Mr Josephs!!
heres a URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unsigned_forms/message/4639
>> Edited by upcreeknopaddle? on Wednesday 15th October 17:04
I was in court yesterday for a speeding prosecution based on a (non-Yorke-compliant) unsigned form stemming from an offence back in February.
I won. Says it all, I think.
Speeding prosecutions based solely on unsigned forms still don't stand a chance, regardless of the Y&M verdict. S172 may stand a slightly better chance, but even so, are still very likely to fail for the CPS. Where both offences are being tried - as long as you get the cases split, you should still be virtually guaranteed victory.
Keep fighting!
EDIT - I'm the Carl Prescott in the above link, BTW!
>> Edited by FastShow on Wednesday 15th October 17:38
I won. Says it all, I think.
Speeding prosecutions based solely on unsigned forms still don't stand a chance, regardless of the Y&M verdict. S172 may stand a slightly better chance, but even so, are still very likely to fail for the CPS. Where both offences are being tried - as long as you get the cases split, you should still be virtually guaranteed victory.
Keep fighting!
EDIT - I'm the Carl Prescott in the above link, BTW!
>> Edited by FastShow on Wednesday 15th October 17:38
FastShow said:
I was in court yesterday for a speeding prosecution based on a (non-Yorke-compliant) unsigned form stemming from an offence back in February.
I won. Says it all, I think.
Speeding prosecutions based solely on unsigned forms still don't stand a chance, regardless of the Y&M verdict. S172 may stand a slightly better chance, but even so, are still very likely to fail for the CPS. Where both offences are being tried - as long as you get the cases split, you should still be virtually guaranteed victory.
Keep fighting!
EDIT - I'm the Carl Prescott in the above link, BTW!
>> Edited by FastShow on Wednesday 15th October 17:38
Nice one carl, congrats! and am glad you were on hand to confirm my assertion. Any chance you could email me through the site with JJ's contact details as im going straight to him if a summons hits my doorstep! I only sent the unsigned NIP in today so its early days yet. I have to go through the bluff & bluster stage first i guess so its maintain permanet silence with the authorities from now until any potential hearing & hope it never happens!
[quote=upcreeknopaddle?][snip] (see note 34 on judgement text) "A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about it are put to him regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, if his answers or his silence (i.e failure or refusal to answer) may be given in evidence to a court in prosecution. HE THEREFORE NEED NOT BE CAUTIONED IF QUESTIONS ARE PUT FOR OTHER PURPOSES, FOR EXAMPLE SOLELY TO ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY OR HIS OWNERSHIP OF ANY VEHICLE OR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT...."
[snip][/quote]Probably not relevant, but interesting all the same are teh words, "SOLELY TO ESTABLISH ... HIS OWNERSHIP OF ANY VEHICLE". Where would "ownership" come into a NIP. A NIP is sent to the Registered Keeper - they might not be the 'owner'. The driver might not be the owner. And vv in both instances - Streaky
[snip][/quote]Probably not relevant, but interesting all the same are teh words, "SOLELY TO ESTABLISH ... HIS OWNERSHIP OF ANY VEHICLE". Where would "ownership" come into a NIP. A NIP is sent to the Registered Keeper - they might not be the 'owner'. The driver might not be the owner. And vv in both instances - Streaky
streaky said:
[snip] (see note 34 on judgement text) "A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about it are put to him regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, if his answers or his silence (i.e failure or refusal to answer) may be given in evidence to a court in prosecution. HE THEREFORE NEED NOT BE CAUTIONED IF QUESTIONS ARE PUT FOR OTHER PURPOSES, FOR EXAMPLE SOLELY TO ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY OR HIS OWNERSHIP OF ANY VEHICLE OR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT...."
[snip]
Doesn't matter because, "OR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT."
That's exactly what S172 is, a statutory requirement.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff