NIP road details: how precise?
Discussion
On a NIP how precise do the details of the place of offence have to be?
A friend received one and it gives just a road name which we can't find on any map of the area. We have a rough idea which one it is but the roads limits change half way along from 30 to NSL and there are no street name signs on the road either. Also there is no mention of the direction of the vehicle.
Advice please.
A friend received one and it gives just a road name which we can't find on any map of the area. We have a rough idea which one it is but the roads limits change half way along from 30 to NSL and there are no street name signs on the road either. Also there is no mention of the direction of the vehicle.
Advice please.
---------------------------------------------------------
Young v Day (DC) Divisional Court c.1959
(1959) 123 J.P. 317
Summary: The Divisional Court refused to set aside a decision by the justices that a notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 was insufficiently particular where it stated the place of the offence of dangerous driving as "the Hothfield to Bethersden Road," which was a minor road four miles long. (Pope v. Clarke [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1060 followed).
---------------------------------------------------------
Pope v Clarke, (DC) Divisional Court, c.1953
Abstract: There is a distinction between the construction to be placed on a statute where the provisions are mandatory and where they are merely directory; thus, the object of the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 which requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served on the defendant, is to bring to the defendant's mind while events are still fresh in his memory the fact that he is going to be prosecuted, so that inaccuracies in the notice served are immaterial if they are not such as to mislead the defendant. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 in which the time of the alleged offence with which the defendant was going to be charged was incorrectly stated. The justices considered that this mistake invalidated the notice and dismissed the charge.
Summary: Held, there was no evidence that the defendant was misled; accordingly, the justices must proceed to hear the case. (Venn v Morgan [1949] 2 All E.R. 562 applied; and dicta of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733, 746 applied).
---------------------------------------------------------
So, it appears that an inaccurate NIP, in itself,does not invalidate it; the accused has ro be misled (Pope v Clarke).
Young v Day says that 4 miles is sufficiently vague to not comply.
It strikes me (but I'm not a magistrate!) that if they don't even give the name of the town, they have not complied. If your friend is the RK, and he wishes to make further enquiries, he should wait until the 14 days are up before doing so.
Young v Day (DC) Divisional Court c.1959
(1959) 123 J.P. 317
Summary: The Divisional Court refused to set aside a decision by the justices that a notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 was insufficiently particular where it stated the place of the offence of dangerous driving as "the Hothfield to Bethersden Road," which was a minor road four miles long. (Pope v. Clarke [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1060 followed).
---------------------------------------------------------
Pope v Clarke, (DC) Divisional Court, c.1953
Abstract: There is a distinction between the construction to be placed on a statute where the provisions are mandatory and where they are merely directory; thus, the object of the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 which requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served on the defendant, is to bring to the defendant's mind while events are still fresh in his memory the fact that he is going to be prosecuted, so that inaccuracies in the notice served are immaterial if they are not such as to mislead the defendant. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 in which the time of the alleged offence with which the defendant was going to be charged was incorrectly stated. The justices considered that this mistake invalidated the notice and dismissed the charge.
Summary: Held, there was no evidence that the defendant was misled; accordingly, the justices must proceed to hear the case. (Venn v Morgan [1949] 2 All E.R. 562 applied; and dicta of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733, 746 applied).
---------------------------------------------------------
So, it appears that an inaccurate NIP, in itself,does not invalidate it; the accused has ro be misled (Pope v Clarke).
Young v Day says that 4 miles is sufficiently vague to not comply.
It strikes me (but I'm not a magistrate!) that if they don't even give the name of the town, they have not complied. If your friend is the RK, and he wishes to make further enquiries, he should wait until the 14 days are up before doing so.
Does the NIP specify the limit that was infringed? If not, and assuming that the alleged speed (if stated) infringed both, you may be able to argue that you were misled by the lack of specification.
Failing that, unless the AXX in that town is anywhere near 4 miles long, I think that you'll be toiling to make that stick.
Failing that, unless the AXX in that town is anywhere near 4 miles long, I think that you'll be toiling to make that stick.
jeffreyarcher said:
Does the NIP specify the limit that was infringed? If not, and assuming that the alleged speed (if stated) infringed both, you may be able to argue that you were misled by the lack of specification.
Failing that, unless the AXX in that town is anywhere near 4 miles long, I think that you'll be toiling to make that stick.
The NIP states "excess speed 30mph camera device, recorded speed 44mph" then the date, time, and the street/town. The road we think they are referring to is 2.5 miles long and changes to NSL about half way along.
Doesn't look good does it?
JA
The only requirement IIRC on the NOIP is to state that a person is being reported for exceeding A SPEED LIMIT without going into detail as to exactly what limit. Some Forces used to elaborate by adding 30mph in BUA or class and description of vehicle. There are cases where NOIP stated only dangerous driving and held to be good when charged and convicted of due care and vice versa (Milner v Allen 1933 etc).
From what has been stated above as the offence has been outlined, road and town named, then the object of the NOIP to guard against the possibility of the driver being taken unawares some time after the offence when witnesses may be difficult to trace has been accomplished and service good.
DVD
The only requirement IIRC on the NOIP is to state that a person is being reported for exceeding A SPEED LIMIT without going into detail as to exactly what limit. Some Forces used to elaborate by adding 30mph in BUA or class and description of vehicle. There are cases where NOIP stated only dangerous driving and held to be good when charged and convicted of due care and vice versa (Milner v Allen 1933 etc).
From what has been stated above as the offence has been outlined, road and town named, then the object of the NOIP to guard against the possibility of the driver being taken unawares some time after the offence when witnesses may be difficult to trace has been accomplished and service good.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
JA
The only requirement IIRC on the NOIP is to state that a person is being reported for exceeding A SPEED LIMIT without going into detail as to exactly what limit. Some Forces used to elaborate by adding 30mph in BUA or class and description of vehicle. There are cases where NOIP stated only dangerous driving and held to be good when charged and convicted of due care and vice versa (Milner v Allen 1933 etc).
From what has been stated above as the offence has been outlined, road and town named, then the object of the NOIP to guard against the possibility of the driver being taken unawares some time after the offence when witnesses may be difficult to trace has been accomplished and service good.
DVD
You missed the whole point DVD... we can't find the road.... not on a map.... not on a web site about maps..... not even in the bleedin village!
blueyes said:
You missed the whole point DVD... we can't find the road.... not on a map.... not on a web site about maps..... not even in the bleedin village!
I tend to agree with DVD on this one.
Just because you can't find it does not necessarily mean it does not exist.
If however it is wrong, then you will no doubt have grounds for attending court and having your say!
hertsbiker said:
blueyes said:
Sorry, I forgot to mention that they did state the street name AND the town. The problem is it's not listed on any map or on any street signs in the area. All it has on a map is a road number.
Would this be ESSEX Police by any chance?
Nope, Gwents finest!
Just to update you I've written to them for clarification. They've replied stating that "the contents of my letter are receiving attention"
>> Edited by blueyes on Saturday 8th May 10:25
Just had a reply!
They said, " The location of the offence is as the N.I.P., the location details are correct and will not be altered. However, I am able to inform you that N***** Road is situated on the A*** and runs between the centre of Y****** and N******.
I enclose photo prints taken fromthe video for your assistance, which in my opinion clearly identify the driver"
Well that's a first!
Problem is:
1. The road mentioned changes from 30 to NSL half way along so I've asked them to clarify the exact position and kindly re-issue the N.I.P.
2. The photos are VERY good... BUT the only one which shows a speed has TIMEOUT on the bottom so I've told them this is not acceptable as evidence and requested some stills without an error code but with a speed.
Sent the letter Special Delivery and I'll update you in the future.
Any comments are welcome.
They said, " The location of the offence is as the N.I.P., the location details are correct and will not be altered. However, I am able to inform you that N***** Road is situated on the A*** and runs between the centre of Y****** and N******.
I enclose photo prints taken fromthe video for your assistance, which in my opinion clearly identify the driver"
Well that's a first!
Problem is:
1. The road mentioned changes from 30 to NSL half way along so I've asked them to clarify the exact position and kindly re-issue the N.I.P.
2. The photos are VERY good... BUT the only one which shows a speed has TIMEOUT on the bottom so I've told them this is not acceptable as evidence and requested some stills without an error code but with a speed.
Sent the letter Special Delivery and I'll update you in the future.
Any comments are welcome.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff