PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Time limits and identification
coffee pot
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 11:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 8 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,421



I passed a camera van on 10 Sept 2017. I received an NIP within a couple of days and replied to that with a letter of explanation clearly identifying myself as the driver. I heard nothing more until I received a letter dated 26 March 2018 with a summons for exceeding the speed limit and a contravention of S172 - not identifying the driver. Unfortunately I was away over Easter and only opened it on my return. They also enclosed a copy of my letter, so I know it was received. There are several questions arising from this, but the first one I would appreciate thoughts on are the period of time that has elapsed is it is over 6 months from the alleged offence to the letter being sent to me - and thus presumably before notifying a Court. Is this still valid?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 11:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 13:49
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,076
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:09) *
IMO the OP is right not to detail the letter. It is irrelevant to a plea bargain unless the letter is so incendiary the prosecutor decides to prove a point and pursue the S172.

We have seen plenty of times that police trawl these forums if only to imply that by asking for advice it somehow discredits the poster. Why give them that information simply to satisfy the idle curiosity of those on here.

Ignoring that if the letter is completely satisfactory as an S172 reply it leaves the possibility (not certainty) open to a successful defence to both charges?


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
coffee pot
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:09
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 8 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,421



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:35) *
You have the answer to the timing issue (Posts #4 and #5). If you want advice regarding what to do next (i.e. whether to try to defend the S172 allegation, or the speeding, or both or try to do the deal outlined) then I would suggest the contents of the letter are very relevant. Your response was clearly received (non-receipt being very often the cause of situations such as you find yourself in). What you wrote may well hold the key to why the police have proceeded directly to court action for S172 and it may also have an impact on whether the deal mentioned is likely to succeed.

If you really want advice to be given privately then it looks like you've gone as far as you can here.



No, the letter was not at all incendiary - just the opposite as I try to be a polite and controlled person (and driver) but mentioned specific circumstances that are not relevant to the question I have asked for help with. The steer here appears to be that I need to talk to a solicitor with expertise in this field. Can I thank everyone who has responded for the speed and variety of responses - I do appreciate that, and that the advice is free and has been sensible and helpful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:13
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 781
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Incendiary in this instance is something like "I'm not sure the time is correct but I was driving an hour later so that's who I've named" rather than "You're all a bunch of ****ing ****s and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes".

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
coffee pot
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:22
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 8 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,421



I don't think so, but even so, even if the letter is disparaging to the Police or whomever, it hardly counts as a reason to issue and even more pertinently secure a prosecution under this S172? I think most people would consider that a remarkable miscarriage of justice. I was driving, I said I was driving and given details that identify me.

This post has been edited by coffee pot: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:31
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 781
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The thing is that, as has been said, it is not enough to give details of the driver. You need to unequivocally name the driver, which is is why it is usually advisable to use their form.

Anything you said in the rest of your letter which implied you were unsure leaves you open to S172. The normal procedure, as you have possibly found out, is that the police leave it to the courts to decide whether it was a compliant S172 nomination.

There is no miscarriage of justice because you have not been convicted of anything yet, and it seems incredibly unlikely that it was a malicious prosecution as, by your own admission, you sent in a non-standard response the the S172.

As I have already said the option is there very easily to revert to only the speeding offence if you wish. Indeed that is the only sensible course of action unless the speeding offence is definitely out of time, which hasn't been established but again is unlikely.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:37
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,456
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Was the letter (nomination) returned within the 28 days?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:37


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
coffee pot
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:41
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 8 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,421



Yes; I replied 5 days later. I give the relevant dates in the original post, and the time course is more than 6 months; 197 days, or more than 28 weeks. It is clear from my letter I was driving.

This post has been edited by coffee pot: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:44
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,943
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:05) *
There is a reason solicitors often advise no comment.


Unlikely in these circumstances though.

QUOTE (coffee pot @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:41) *
Yes; I replied 5 days later. I give the relevant dates in the original post, and the time course is more than 6 months; 197 days, or more than 28 weeks. It is clear from my letter I was driving.

So, if you believe you have a defence to both charges plead not guilty to both.


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 14:46
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,030
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (coffee pot @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:41) *
Yes; I replied 5 days later.


In which case the issue lies with what else you chose to add (that was not asked for nor required) in your letter or a massive mess up.

Do come back with the outcome.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:11
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 792
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



Is it certain that the speeding is out of time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:12
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,456
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (TonyS @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:11) *
Is it certain that the speeding is out of time?

No.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:40
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,827
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (coffee pot @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:09) *
No, the letter was not at all incendiary - just the opposite as I try to be a polite and controlled person (and driver) but mentioned specific circumstances that are not relevant to the question I have asked for help with. The steer here appears to be that I need to talk to a solicitor with expertise in this field. Can I thank everyone who has responded for the speed and variety of responses - I do appreciate that, and that the advice is free and has been sensible and helpful.

If you post a copy on here (with personal details redacted), we can probably give you some more meaningful advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
coffee pot
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:42
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 8 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,421



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:12) *
QUOTE (TonyS @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:11) *
Is it certain that the speeding is out of time?

No.

May I ask why you say that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 15:52
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,076
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Because it isn’t certain, while there is a legal opinion it I could be, the courts in cases we are aware of having taken an alternative reading of the statute and say they are not.

On that basis it can’t be said to be certain it is out of time.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 20:41
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,307
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (coffee pot @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:42) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:12) *
QUOTE (TonyS @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:11) *
Is it certain that the speeding is out of time?

No.

May I ask why you say that?


Under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP - which seems likely to have been used in your case) a written charge and SJP notice must be with the court within six months. The SJP legislation is silent on when those documents have to be with the accused. There is some legal argument going on which seeks to clarify this but at present it is not resolved. You only know when you received the notification of the proceedings. You do not know (or at least have not said that you know) when the relevant court received that notification. Only if the court received them beyond 10th March may you have a case for the speeding matter to be "out of time". I hope I haven't missed it but you have not said the what the issue date is on the SJP notice. That might be a good place to start.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 20:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 20:48
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,076
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



With the court within six months? I thought the statute only mentions issuing which is clearly not with the court?


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 21:58
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,827
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 21:48) *
With the court within six months? I thought the statute only mentions issuing which is clearly not with the court?

Without looking at authority and on a fairly standard statutory construction, reading section 30(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:" any reference (however expressed) which is or includes a reference to an information within the meaning of section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (or to the laying of such an information) is to be read as including a reference to a written charge (or to the issue of a written charge),"; and section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980: "Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.", the only sensible interpretation I can see is that the written charge must be issued within six months from the time when the offence was committed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 04:24
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,076
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Were talking charge certificates though not information being laid?


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 08:20
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,307
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Surely whatever method is being used, the court must be informed of the proposed action within six months mustn't it? If not, a SJPN and written charge can be "issued" (i.e. produced or printed or whatever) within six months, left in a drawer for a few more months and then sent to the court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 08:59
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,456
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



See this live thread.

Also see here. (Particularly the Wirral Magistrates' Court)

And finally, this case, it's the one I referred to earlier where the OP lost at court.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 23rd April 2018 - 03:42
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.