Not signing NIP - how safe / water-tight is it?
Discussion
joelk said:
What's the final word on the not signing the NIP and returning it with driver unknown?
You are confused. The two things are separate.
joelk said:
Has the "loophole" been closed or is it a definite safe thing to do?
No and no.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 2nd December 13:32
joelk said:
Yeah, thanks Jeff. Anyone got anything a little bit more insightful than that?
He's entirely correct though; no the loophole certainly hasn't been closed, there are still people winning left, right and centre; no it's not a definite safe thing to do because on the other hand we have ill-informed, biased magistrates convicting regardless.
I'd not sign simply because if you do, you'll definitely be found guilty. If you don't, then you only might be.
>> Edited by FastShow on Tuesday 2nd December 14:21
Joel,
I note that you are in West Yorkshire. Was it a West Yorkshire NIP? If so, this may be of interest.
As FastShow has said, there are still people winning; background conclusion.
However, you will have to be prepared to see it through. With one or two exceptions, the days of them just dropping it, because they are unsigned, are over.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 4th December 02:37
I note that you are in West Yorkshire. Was it a West Yorkshire NIP? If so, this may be of interest.
As FastShow has said, there are still people winning; background conclusion.
However, you will have to be prepared to see it through. With one or two exceptions, the days of them just dropping it, because they are unsigned, are over.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Thursday 4th December 02:37
In theory the loophole is open. The ruling in DPP v Yorke & Mawdesley could be read in two ways. HHJ Owen was careful to skirt round the "lacuna" in the law and ruled in a way which avoided subjecting s.172 notices in the round to the unwelcome scrutiny they deserve. However, by mentioning the lacuna and admitting that if the appellants' submission that an unsigned NIP is inadmissible by default is correct, there can be no conviction, he has opened the process to challenge later. [To the extent that Mawdesley's original conviction was set aside but remitted for rehearing. How the prosecution proceed here will be interesting as they then run the very real risk of the unresolved s. 172 issue blowing up in their face.] His ruling does open the very much smaller loophole used by Dwight Yorke but closed several other lines of argument. You may already be too late to use the Yorke defence as it relies on you having nothing to do with your original NIP.
In practice, blundering magistrates are still convicting in spite of the law. You need to go for a dismissal at your first hearing on technical grounds other than abstruse points of law (literally, looking for bone procedural mistakes by the police/prosecution/local authority/highways agency et al - and this is not at all difficult); or use the "I can't remember who was driving" and the "all reasonable efforts to establish the driver's identity" defence a la the Hamiltons; or ask for a deferral of your hearing until the law is clarified by the ECHR in the case of Idris Francis.
Recent press reports have revealed that the Police and prosecutors use a revenue model which allows for a 33% failure to achieve speeding convictions and secure fines so plainly they are expecting a fair number of challenges and dismissals as a consequence. It is down to the individual how far they are prepared to go, in the light of the chance of further penalties imposed for irritating the authorities!
A final thought: If there were two of you in the car who could drive, you could always say that you shared the driving, don't know where the camera was and can't say who was driving at the time. You are therefore equally blameworthy and both plead guilty. As you both cannot be convicted for the same offence, the police will probably ask you to nominate a driver for the purposes of conviction. At this point you play the helpful idiot card and insist that they prosecute both of you until they get tired of explaining the law to you. They will probably send you more and more threatening letters seeking a name to prosecute, but then you both play the helpful idiot card and say that you've had a family argument over it and can't decide so they'll just have to prosecute you both. You need to ensure that you don't enter into any lengthy correspondence which might open the door to an "aiding and abetting" or "obstructing the course of justice" charge against you, so keep your letters short.
So long as they cannot pin anything more than the original offence on you, the "centre of gravity" of the economics of the situation moves towards them. They have to ask whether there is any point pursuing an ostensibly helpful and honest person (who happens to be a bit dim) at a cost of thousands in order to recover £40. The longer you string it out - the costlier it gets. As we all know, this is not about road safety - it's about money.
In practice, blundering magistrates are still convicting in spite of the law. You need to go for a dismissal at your first hearing on technical grounds other than abstruse points of law (literally, looking for bone procedural mistakes by the police/prosecution/local authority/highways agency et al - and this is not at all difficult); or use the "I can't remember who was driving" and the "all reasonable efforts to establish the driver's identity" defence a la the Hamiltons; or ask for a deferral of your hearing until the law is clarified by the ECHR in the case of Idris Francis.
Recent press reports have revealed that the Police and prosecutors use a revenue model which allows for a 33% failure to achieve speeding convictions and secure fines so plainly they are expecting a fair number of challenges and dismissals as a consequence. It is down to the individual how far they are prepared to go, in the light of the chance of further penalties imposed for irritating the authorities!
A final thought: If there were two of you in the car who could drive, you could always say that you shared the driving, don't know where the camera was and can't say who was driving at the time. You are therefore equally blameworthy and both plead guilty. As you both cannot be convicted for the same offence, the police will probably ask you to nominate a driver for the purposes of conviction. At this point you play the helpful idiot card and insist that they prosecute both of you until they get tired of explaining the law to you. They will probably send you more and more threatening letters seeking a name to prosecute, but then you both play the helpful idiot card and say that you've had a family argument over it and can't decide so they'll just have to prosecute you both. You need to ensure that you don't enter into any lengthy correspondence which might open the door to an "aiding and abetting" or "obstructing the course of justice" charge against you, so keep your letters short.
So long as they cannot pin anything more than the original offence on you, the "centre of gravity" of the economics of the situation moves towards them. They have to ask whether there is any point pursuing an ostensibly helpful and honest person (who happens to be a bit dim) at a cost of thousands in order to recover £40. The longer you string it out - the costlier it gets. As we all know, this is not about road safety - it's about money.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff