PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Charged with failure to identify driver scotland
EspritSE
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:17
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,720



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - October 2019
Date of the NIP: - 3 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A823 QUEENSFERRY ROAD, DUNFERMLINE, BETWEEN CARNEGIE AVENUE AND GRANGE DRIVE
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Second
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Northbound on 40mph limit dual carriageway speed recorded was 63mph.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - Scotland

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to consider completing the form, but returning it unsigned. By doing so there is a risk that you will be convicted under s172, which would attract 6 penalty points and a fine; in most cases this is likely to exceed the penalty for the speeding offence itself.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 17:10:49 +0000

Hello all,

I returned nip unsigned within 28 days by recorded delivery. Police have called round on a few occasions and managed to speak to me today.

I refused to identify the driver and stated I had already fulfilled my obligation under section 172 of the road traffic act by completing the nip and returning it unsigned.
I was then charged with failing to identify the driver.

I am now having second thoughts about this course of action, any advice gratefully received.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Juan Carr
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 13 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,719



QUOTE (EspritSE @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:17) *
I am now having second thoughts about this course of action, any advice gratefully received.


I'm sure you are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EspritSE
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:25
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,720



QUOTE (Juan Carr @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:21) *
QUOTE (EspritSE @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:17) *
I am now having second thoughts about this course of action, any advice gratefully received.


I'm sure you are.



Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:32
Post #4


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (Juan Carr @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:21) *
I'm sure you are.

If you've got nothing helpful to say then just keep it to yourself.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:33
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,832
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



So far, the PF has often played a game of brinkmanship only backing down when the accused turns up on the day of the trial and maintains his not guilty plea. They haven't been brave enough so far to actual risk a trial (whilst they would most likely win, losing would potentially be fatal for Scottish speed cameras), but they will do everything short of risking a trial to d*ck you around in the hope that you will give in before they do.

If you were expecting them to simply hold their hands up after you first return an unsigned form and say "fair play mate, you beat us", you were either spectacularly optimistic, or badly advised.


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EspritSE
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:10
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,720



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:33) *
So far, the PF has often played a game of brinkmanship only backing down when the accused turns up on the day of the trial and maintains his not guilty plea. They haven't been brave enough so far to actual risk a trial (whilst they would most likely win, losing would potentially be fatal for Scottish speed cameras), but they will do everything short of risking a trial to d*ck you around in the hope that you will give in before they do.

If you were expecting them to simply hold their hands up after you first return an unsigned form and say "fair play mate, you beat us", you were either spectacularly optimistic, or badly advised.


Thanks,

A couple of questions

So to date, no one (that has made a not guilty plea) has been convicted of 'failure to identify driver' in Scotland?

I don't understand the significance of the unsigned nip and the part it would play in any defence I may have?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44,047
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



No one, as far as we are aware on this forum has even been convicted following an unsigned response.

To convict you of speeding they need evidence you were the driver, an unsigned response is not adequate evidence, it has to be signed, no evidence, no conviction.

I’m amazed you embarked on this course without at least finding out about it!


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EspritSE
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:19
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,720



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:14) *
No one, as far as we are aware on this forum has even been convicted following an unsigned response.

To convict you of speeding they need evidence you were the driver, an unsigned response is not adequate evidence, it has to be signed, no evidence, no conviction.

I’m amazed you embarked on this course without at least finding out about it!



I did some searching on this forum before I took any action.

I maybe didn't word my question correctly, I was asking if anyone has been convicted of 'failure to identify driver' in Scotland when entering a not guilty plea?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 19:09
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,475
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (EspritSE @ Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:19) *
I maybe didn't word my question correctly, I was asking if anyone has been convicted of 'failure to identify driver' in Scotland when entering a not guilty plea?

As I understand it no one who's returned an unsigned form has ever got to the point of entering a plea, because the PF has always dropped the case before it got that far.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 20:28
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 447
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



There is a great deal of knowledge here, but it has its limits - there have been no reported cases on this forum, nor to the best of this collectives knowledge that anyone who ‘plays the right cards’ has been convicted of failing to provide the identity of the driver following an unsigned reply. However it’s not to say that such a charge could not succeed if the PF decided to make your case a ‘test’ case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23
Post #11


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,447
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



This appears to be a different slant on the scottish going unsigned route.

Its the first post I have read, whereby someone has actually been questioned by the police in person following an unsigned NIP. Normally we have advised not allowing police into our homes and here we have the predicament that the OP has actually done that.

When I spoke to the police in my home it was after the 6 month dead line and I admitted to being the driver of the vehicle. I was then sent a COFP which went to my non recycle bin.
Is it likely that the failure you to furnish information to the police will hold up in a scottish court this time.




--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 12:41
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,694
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23) *
Is it likely that the failure you to furnish information to the police will hold up in a scottish court this time.

Really? I thought there was precedent in Scots law that said that there is only one s 172 request, so the purported request made by the police verbally would be of no effect.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 20:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,475
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23) *
Is it likely that the failure you to furnish information to the police will hold up in a scottish court this time.

Why "this time"? Are you really suggesting that the only reason why nobody has been prosecuted before is because Police Scotland (and its predecessors) has never managed to make a verbal request to anyone, ever?

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 20:51


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EspritSE
post Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 23:33
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 1 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,720



Thanks for all the comments and advice.

I am hoping the worst case scenario is that I could be convicted of failure to identify but not the speeding offence as well? I try to cheer myself up by thinking that 63 in a 40 is a fair chunk over the limit and I may have received more than 3 points for that in any case.

I'm looking out my best suit from my wardrobe ready for my day in court along with some legal representation. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 00:52
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,832
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Representation would (IMHO) be a waste of money.

Logically, either the PF will throw in the cards at the start of the trial, as he has with every other unsigned Scottish case we've ever heard of where the accused didn't blink first, or he will proceed with the trial - in which case you will almost certainly lose, with or without representation. And being Scotland, you can't claim the cost of your representation if you win.


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 11:02
Post #16


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,447
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 21:51) *
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23) *
Is it likely that the failure you to furnish information to the police will hold up in a scottish court this time.

Why "this time"? Are you really suggesting that the only reason why nobody has been prosecuted before is because Police Scotland (and its predecessors) has never managed to make a verbal request to anyone, ever?

I was hoping to provoke a response by someone who had first hand experience. smile.gif


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 13:41) *
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23) *
Is it likely that the failure you to furnish information to the police will hold up in a scottish court this time.

Really? I thought there was precedent in Scots law that said that there is only one s 172 request, so the purported request made by the police verbally would be of no effect.

I would love to read that case file, might also help the OP if you have a link


--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 11:31
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,694
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I don’t have it to hand - I’m sure someone will.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 12:46
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44,047
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2000/14.html


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 17:31
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,445
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 12:46) *


I read all through that without finding anything about a second s.172 request, in fact it seemed to be entirely about the right not to self-incriminate in relation to s.172 which, as it was decided prior to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in O'Halloran and Francis v. the UK, now has little relevance. If a second s.172 is mentioned I should be grateful if someone would point out where.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Wednesday, 19th February 2020 - 16:31
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.