Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ NIP>Failing to Provide Driver>Not Guilty >Court

Posted by: Jacko123 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:17
Post #1389577

Hi
Any assistance here would be great, I will try my best to condense the summary, its my first ever post, thx for any help I get.

Augast last year a nip was sent to the registered address of the vehicle in relation to speeding, 42mph in a 30 mph zone, offence happened at 2am, myself and wife are the only people with keys to the vehicle, we were not driving, car was at home, I have no points, wifey has 3.

NIP went to the registered address, I had failed to change the address on the log book!.....I then receive the NIP at my new address on the 12th October after the concerned police force track down my address due to insurance being at current address.

In haste/stupidly I completed part B of the form wrong, I completed it from the view point of me not being the driver, after reviewing the form before I sent it off I realised my mistake and had to cross through the sections, I had to write on the form that I wasnt the driver, the reply was within the 28 days, be it some what messy.

I followed up with a letter stating that I wasnt the driver and the car was located at my address, this was sent recorded delivery, the police accept receipt, they received the letter on the 24th November, later than the 28 days. At this point I believed the issue was closed, I had returned the forms and sent off a covering letter, in my view a mistake had been made ie a misread plate and they had rectified...........

On the 28 November a cloned car form was allegedly sent, although I have never received.

On the 20th December I receive a charge sheet of speeding and failing to provide driver information, I responded not guilty to both charges, fast forward to today and i receive disclosure info from the police, seems the speeding charge has been dropped, however the failing to provide driver information still stands.

The disclosure form shows the reason for the charge is incomplete form provided and failing to return the cloned car form.

I assumed that given I had sent a covering letter that would be sufficient, the police insisting that I respond/complete NIP section with A or B of the form was clearly not fit for purpose in this scenario, I could not of returned either part correctly.

My concern is that I failed to change address on the logbook, hence the failure to provide driver information charge is dated in September, a month after the initial NIP was sent, does this mean that anything that happened after September is irrelevant?

Also, how does the cloned car form fit in, in the discloure doc its showing that it was sent on the 28th November, it doesnt actually show it being posted, ive checked all of my paperwork, (which I file before shredding in bulk) and I definately havent received. If per the disclosure form all I had to do was take a handful of photos on my phone and send over to an e mail address it would have taken 5 mins to complete.

Ive been far to complacent here as I belived the issue would resolve itself as I clearly wasnt the driver, low and behold im now off to court on Friday, any suggestions please, any assistance grealtly appreciated?

Oh btw i'm self employed so losing a days pay to boot.....

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:52
Post #1389592

Have you ever seen any photo's to confirm the clone/misread?

Posted by: Jacko123 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:01
Post #1389594

Hi,thx for quick response, they wouldnt provide a photo, I was epexcting to see a photo as part of the disclosure, they have dropped the speeding charge, so only the failing to provide identity now stands.

Posted by: andy_foster Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:03
Post #1389596

Having asserted that you were not the keeper of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, unless the police can prove otherwise your obligations under s. 172 RTA 1988 are those of "any other person" - to give any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver (if so required by or on behalf of the CHief Officer of Police), and to do so within 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice.

Whilst it would generally be up to the prosecution to prove that you had further information in your power to give, it is assumed that anybody would have some information to give even if it was simply that they had no knowledge of such a vehicle (or in your case that your vehicle was not the one involved). Providing such information after the expiration of the 28 days would generally be evidence that you had such information in your power to give (unless it can be shown that it was not reasonably practicable to provide such information any sooner).

Whilst the police can make reasonable requirements as to the manner in which the information should be provided (e.g in writing, and signed by the addressee), substantial compliance is good compliance (a covering letter providing all the relevant information is as good as the form provided (and in many cases more appropriate)).

Technically, you could well be guilty due to failing to provide any information within the original 28 days, and not providing information that was in your power to give until after the expiration of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice to your current address. The former ought not to be a major problem as the police effectively gave you a specified extension, but the latter might be more problematic.

Posted by: Jacko123 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:16
Post #1389601

Thx Andy, that makes sense, in your opinion, is the cloned car form also an issue here, or just the time element of the letter?

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 06:12
Post #1389682

The cloned car form is an irrelevance in terms of guilt or innocence, it was either your car or it was not, filling out a form some time late doesn’t change that, and it was outwith the original 28 days anyway.

Posted by: Jacko123 Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 17:47
Post #1389940

Hi Rookie, the charge is failing to provide driver info, the charge seems to have come about from the NIP being incomplete, although I was never able to complete it correctly, or A and B didn’t apply to me , the second point was that the cloned car form wasn’t returned, although i have never received.

Any suggestions on defence?

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 20:55
Post #1390003

Well what EXACTLY did you reply with? You would have to give information in your power to give, so did you do that? Did you make it clear it wasn’t your car at the time and place mentioned?

Posted by: Jacko123 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 05:45
Post #1390046

Hi, I completed and returned the form signing side B , however I completed the form from the viewpoint that I was not the driver, which basically meant I supplied my details as the driver! on completion I noticed the error and crossed through my name.

I followed up with a letter that was received after the 28 days.

Hope that helps, thx.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:53
Post #1390074

I repeat what EXACTLY did you tell them? Did you tell them your car wasn't there? Where it was at the time? Where the keys were?

The forms are all different so 'signing side B' is meaningless.

Posted by: Jacko123 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 11:18
Post #1390122

Hi, here’s what I did, update on the form and the letter.

Form :
In my case A would be comleting the form from the viewpoint of me being the driver, B would be from the viewpoint that I was not the driver. I completed side B , however I wrongly put my name in the drivers section, I subsequently crossed out my name in the driver section, signed, dated and returned.

Letter:
The additional lettter was sent saying the car was located at my home address at the time, with both keys in my possession, and that I was not the driver.

Thx

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:56
Post #1390144

OK, so that letter they got within 28 days (despite what you put in your opening post) of you getting the NIP, but was that a new NIP to your new address or forwarded from your old address?

That said it will come down to proving it was either a clone or a plate misread, for that you need the Police photo's and or Video (what was the method of capture?) and comparing to your car.

Your issue here is that most people who are saying there is a clone of their car running around would be a lot more proactive in dealing with it than you were.

Posted by: Kickaha Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:04
Post #1390183

Was the location of the speeding one where you or your wife could have been at but on a different date and/or time?

It is possible that the details on the form are wrong.

Posted by: Jacko123 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:08
Post #1390186

The form arrived within 28 days, letter was received late.

The NIP received at my current address was new and received in October, the prior was sent in August to my old address, the 28 days started again basically.

Not sure how I can prove, that’s the entire point, I wasn’t driving and it wasn’t my car, although they are not providing photo evidence, according to the disclosure pack anyway.

Just to be clear charge is failing to provide driver info, it looks like the issue here is that I didn’t reply to the clone car form in time, although they had the NIP response and covering letter.

Cloned form asked for it to be returned in 14 days- as stated i have never received this form( not until I received the charge sheet anyway.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:58
Post #1390200

The clone car form isn't the s172 , so isn't relevant at all, that I am aware of
They appear to be going on it was your car therefore FtF is the correct charge. That's my guess anyway.
Presumably therefore the basis of your defence is that a) it wasn't your car therefore b) you gave all information in your possession, as you were not the keeper

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:55
Post #1390214

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:58) *
The clone car form isn't the s172 , so isn't relevant at all, that I am aware of
They appear to be going on it was your car therefore FtF is the correct charge. That's my guess anyway.
Presumably therefore the basis of your defence is that a) it wasn't your car therefore b) you gave all information in your possession, as you were not the keeper

I agree. The question will be whether he gave all information in his power to give.

Posted by: Jacko123 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:55
Post #1390215

Thank you for the clear response, that is my understanding and the basis of my defence case.

Thanks for the assistance.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:15
Post #1390236

You still haven't answered this question

Was the location of the speeding one where you or your wife could have been but on a different date and/or time?

Posted by: Jacko123 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 19:01
Post #1390250

Hi, yes potentially, at a different date, it’s not on a main route but definitely been passed it before.

What is the significance?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 20:38
Post #1390282

If the enforcement session was on a different date to that stated the ‘clone’ may be your car in the photo.

Posted by: Jacko123 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 05:45
Post #1390362

Ok, but what does that mean, is it relevant to this charge?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 07:49
Post #1390373

It might explain the reasno they are certain (or appear to be certain) it was your vehicle.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:29
Post #1390380

QUOTE (Jacko123 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:08) *
although they are not providing photo evidence, according to the disclosure pack anyway.

Once you plead not guilty you will be asked the basis of your defence, that will be that your car wasn't at the specified location at the time and date specified and you have informed the Police of this fact (all be it some information was sent late so you could still be found guilty on that technicality). the fact you were not driving is wholly irrelevant and isn't even worth mentioning, the offence you are alleged to have committed is as a keeper of the vehicle not the driver of the vehicle.

The Police will have to prove to the courts satisfaction that your car was there, for that they will need photo's and/or witness evidence but I'd be very surprised if photo's weren't used, prima facie a photo of a car matching the description of yours and bearing the correct Vehicle Registration Mark will satisfy the court, so the burden will then fall on you to show that it wasn't (or wasn't at the time/date).

Posted by: bm1957 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:10
Post #1390458

And if the date/time stamp on the photos doesn't match?

Which time/date will he be expected to prove he wasn't there at? The photo date? That would be difficult. The NIP date? The prosecution won't have any evidence that he 'was' there, if the photo is from a different day.

If the date on the photo doesnt match the date on your paperwork, I think Rookie's advice is off the mark. But I'm sure he'll correct me if I've missed something...

Posted by: Jacko123 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:58
Post #1390477

How would that apply to this case ?

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:09
Post #1390497

Let's say for example that the OP received a NIP for 12 August at 2 am when the car was at home

The photos might show that the alleged offence was at 2 pm
If they have the same date/time but show daylight, it's obvious that there's been a mistake

His answer to the S172 question that was asked was perfectly correct
He has no obligation to guess what date and time the police might have had in mind

He can't be prosecuted for any offence regarding the correct date/time because :

1 A valid NIP was never served
2 An S172 was never served and there is no evidence of the driver
3 It's more than six months and no prosecution is possible

If the mistake was the result of a clock setting, I'm surprised that the police aren't aware of it from other cases
It makes me wonder if this situation has been caused by nothing more than a typo on the original documents

Posted by: Jacko123 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 15:16
Post #1390854

Police produced today a very bad picture of a car, despite them never providing the pic to me when originally asked or in disclosure, as such an angry magistrate concludes no further action.

Thanks All, your feedback here was a great help biggrin.gif

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 15:27
Post #1390860

Good (or right) result!

Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 19:49
Post #1390938

QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 16:27) *
Good (or right) result!

And how many do we see on here ? Very few. Maybe the scandal of police non-disclosure of evidence in more serious cases has percolated down to the lower orders of the justiciary.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 07:30
Post #1391023

If the photograph was so bad, how did they read a registration number in the first place ?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)