Advice on defending myself against s172 |
Advice on defending myself against s172 |
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 20:16
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,061 |
Hello everyone,
I am inviting any advice or experiences of defending an alleged s172 at Magistrates Court. I recently received a Single Justice Proceedure Notice (SJPN) alleging two offences - Speeding 80 in a 70 (Motorway) and failing to provide driver details section 172(3). I did not receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) prior to the SJPN. I pleaded not guilty to both offences because I had not received a NIP. I have received my court date which is in a few weeks and have been charged with s172 - the alleged speeding offence does not appear on the court papers. My main defence is that I did not received the NIP within the 14 days required. It appears that the authorities do not seem to use any tracking or signed for mail options, so cannot prove I received it. I will also try question the way the NIPs are generated - they appear to be computer generated and I wonder if there are controls in place where details/posting are completed/checked by a human operator. The witness statement by the administrator includes a hefty disclaimer 'I cannot be reasonably expected to have any recollection of the matter dealt with in this statement due to the length of time that has passed'. In the next sentence the administrator endorses the statement several months after statement actions were made. I wonder if this renders the statement unreliable. On the SJPN two dates (one date had not come around at the time the SJPN was written!) were cited as me not having provided details leading to the s172 charge. In the court summons this has been amended to one. I believe the papers can be altered by 'slippage' for minor details. A date of an alleged offence does not seem to be a minor detail. Thanks for reading through my post. I would be grateful for any advice or sharing of experiences on the above points and observations, and any other observations you may have. If you require any clarification or further details please let me know here. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 20:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 18:05
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 15 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,183 |
If the appellant still doesn't agree with the process, the directions, the resulting sentence, he can take his appeal higher. Only by way of case stated under s 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which is confined to cases where the Crown Court was wrong in law (not fact) or acted in excess of jurisdiction. If the appeal is based solely on the defendant not liking a finding of fact made by the Crown Court then no appeal is possible. In such a case the Crown Court would likely (rightly) refuse to state a case. It's all here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal The thread seems to have meandered into the verdict being decided on the credibility of the OP. May I remind the members that one David Beckham wasn't even required to attend his recent hearing? All that was required was for compelling evidence to be presented on his behalf. In this case, The RM postal service is a shambles. Vast numbers of letters are lost or stolen, usually by RM employees (see the links I posted). The SCPs choose to use unrecorded mail, either first or second class (for reasons of cost-saving) They cannot prove that an NIP was delivered at all, or in the legally-mandated time period. Having seen exactly what an excellent solicitor can do with facts such as these, I'd advise the OP to stand his ground. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 18:17
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 324 Joined: 13 Nov 2013 From: UK Member No.: 66,671 |
They cannot prove that an NIP was delivered at all, or in the legally-mandated time period. They don't have to. -------------------- "Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 18:29
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Having seen exactly what an excellent solicitor can do with facts such as these, I'd advise the OP to stand his ground. DB's defence presented credible evidence to rebutt the presumption of delivery. In my own case, i had my postman as a witness to late delivery. What evidence does the OP have? This post has been edited by peterguk: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 18:37 -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 19:28
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
Indeed it is: Leave to Appeal Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required in all cases in relation to conviction or sentence The thread seems to have meandered into the verdict being decided on the credibility of the OP. May I remind the members that one David Beckham wasn't even required to attend his recent hearing? All that was required was for compelling evidence to be presented on his behalf. In this case, The RM postal service is a shambles. Vast numbers of letters are lost or stolen, usually by RM employees (see the links I posted). The SCPs choose to use unrecorded mail, either first or second class (for reasons of cost-saving) They cannot prove that an NIP was delivered at all, or in the legally-mandated time period. Having seen exactly what an excellent solicitor can do with facts such as these, I'd advise the OP to stand his ground. You should not conflate this case with that of Mr Beckham. Mr Beckham's case did not centre around the timeliness of the NIP being delivered to him but around the first NIP being delivered to the Registered Keeper. As such DB had no evidence to give. His case was decided on the credibility of the recipients of the first NIP (Bentley Motors) whose staff were called to court. Showing that the postal service is (in your words) a shambles only shows that some items are delivered late or not at all. The OP has to show that his item was delivered late or not at all. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 19:35
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
No, that deals with appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Crown Court following a trial on indictment. An appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court is not a trial on indictment. The Court of Appeal is not involved - any appeal from the Crown Court would lie to the Divisional Court by way of case stated and from there, exceptionally, to the Supreme Court. Again, questions of law, not fact. QUOTE The thread seems to have meandered into the verdict being decided on the credibility of the OP. That’s because it very much does so. He has to rebut a presumption of service and the only way he seems to be able to do so is by giving evidence and having the court believe him. QUOTE May I remind the members that one David Beckham wasn't even required to attend his recent hearing? Perhaps because he could give no direct evidence, since the NIP wasn’t even addressed to him? QUOTE All that was required was for compelling evidence to be presented on his behalf. By witnesses employed by the addressee? A bit like the OP is now the addressee. QUOTE The SCPs choose to use unrecorded mail, either first or second class (for reasons of cost-saving) Second class would not be a lawful means of service. QUOTE They cannot prove that an NIP was delivered at all, or in the legally-mandated time period. Nor do they have to. What time limit? There is no time limit in relation to a s 172 notice. Are you confused again? This post has been edited by southpaw82: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 20:06 -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 19:39
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,963 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
Defending a s172 ticket is a very expensive process, fines staring at £600 and 6 points. cheaper to pay up and get a cheaper deal.
|
|
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 19:43
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Defending a s172 ticket is a very expensive process, fines staring at £600 and 6 points. cheaper to pay up and get a cheaper deal. If he was the driver but decides the fight isn’t worth it he should try to do s deal by pleading to the speeding. If he wasn’t the driver then not so good. Otherwise he fights the s 172. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 10:55
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Second class would not be a lawful means of service. Of the NIP, yes, AIUI the S172 notice can be sent second class, as they don't have proof of the drivers ID that would seem the more critical charge. QUOTE A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; And the late NIP defence is also not relevant as, again, its only of use to the driver in defending the Speeding, its not a defence (of itself) to the S172 charge which is why I'm bemused at Seank labouring that point. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 10:55 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 15:53
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Second class would not be a lawful means of service. Of the NIP, yes, AIUI the S172 notice can be sent second class, as they don't have proof of the drivers ID that would seem the more critical charge. QUOTE A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; Indeed but the conversation was about NIPs, for some reason. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 16:57
Post
#50
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,061 |
If I was found not guilty of the alleged speeding charge - why would the court be able to prosecute s172 charge that occurred from it?
|
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 17:01
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
Because it is an entirely separate offence which occurred at a different time. The validity of the NIP has no bearing on the validity of the s172 request.
|
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 17:19
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If I was found not guilty of the alleged speeding charge - why would the court be able to prosecute s172 charge that occurred from it? Because they have no proof you were driving, it 1/ doesn’t mean whoever was driving wasn’t braking the speed limit 2/ as the original offence can only be defended by the (at that point unknown) driver the S172 only requires that the offence is alleged, a non reply is still an offence whether the original offence occurred or not or whether the S172 recipient was during or not. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 17:40
Post
#53
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,061 |
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 19:46
Post
#54
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,061 |
To update I contacted the Prosecutor prior to the court hearing - via 101 then email and had the speeding offence reinstated. I received 3 points and £100 fine. Thanks for everyone contributions.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:48 |