TVP > 36 in a 30 > PACE > s.172 Summons > Dropped |
TVP > 36 in a 30 > PACE > s.172 Summons > Dropped |
Wed, 17 Nov 2004 - 10:42
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
Well, It was bound to happen ... !?
Double Flashed : 17 Oct 2004 late o' clock at night Speed : 36 in a 30 (1mph outside 10% + 2mph) ... Criminal behaviour I tell you ... NIP Rec'd : 29 Oct 2004 (Within 14 days / First class post). Wording EXACTLY as this. : http://www.andyfoster.com/TVP/NIP_1.jpg : http://www.andyfoster.com/TVP/NIP_3.jpg Waited : 17 Nov 2004 (21 Days) ... Just to string things out a little !! Posted these : PACE Witness statement :: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2846 signed with all relevant NIP info requested : NIP / S172 stapled to it, NOT signed with "PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER" across it : Recorded Delivery (A few quid) to Cheif C'ble ... again ... Just to upset the Scamera process ! Just thought I would post this as reference and update in detail when I get lots of threatening letters through my front door !?!? Ha ha hah ?? This post has been edited by andy_foster: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 - 22:52 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 17 Nov 2004 - 10:42
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 10:23
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,109 Joined: 16 Dec 2003 From: Manchester Member No.: 675 |
Phone the court, ask if it is listed for 'TRIAL' tomorrow or PTR.
If trial, then attend and insist on a hearing. These new disclosures are inadmissible this late. -------------------- Chris
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Bush Acoustic Music Club Acoustic Folk at the Nursery Inn Tameside folk concerts |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 10:29
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
I will do .... Im a little confused though ....
It said on the summons ... If you plead NG, A new date will be set ... and you dont have to attend !?!? |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 11:03
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,923 Joined: 24 Jun 2004 Member No.: 1,341 |
Hi TV,
It sounds like this is just an adjournment hearing unless you plead guilty. You have pleaded NG therefore it sounds like tommorrow will just be used to set date of trial or PTR. Unfortunately therefore the new disclosures will be admissible at the trial. Fortunately they have summonsed you for s172 failure and speeding has timed out. You did reply with a letter providing all of the details required and you signed it, therefore Jones applies and you win. Bob |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 11:26
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
QUOTE (thamesvalley) A quick update :
NG Plea sent and signed (First Class) Trial Date is 7th June (Tomorrow) Had this in the post yesterday morning Sheet 1 ======== Side 1 = Orig NIP Side 2 = Denise Helm saying no information has been rec'd ... Sheet 2 ======== S9 Statement saying this has been served Sheet 3 ======== http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/coverletter.jpg (We love bluetooth mobile camera phones !!) So what happens next, Will my NG plea will be given in court 2moro (In my absence) and a new date be set !?!? How does sheet 1 differ from what you have already received? Was the notice overleaf (NIP page 1) on the back of the original s.9? Sheet 2 - by this do you mean the bundle that you have just received? Your NG plea will be entered tomorrow morning and a new date will be set. When you phone the listings office tomorrow afternoon, ask them what time & date your case has been adjounred to, the nature of that hearing (trial/PTR) and if PTR whether you attendance is required. They will be able to search by name, but your case number is the number beginning 05xxxxxxx after CT 742 (or somesuch) at the bottom of your summons. It would seem that TVP/TV CPS have become (slightly) more diligent since last week. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 11:44
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
How does sheet 1 differ from what you have already received? Was the notice overleaf (NIP page 1) on the back of the original s.9?
~ The orig sheet written by Denise Helm was blank on the other side. This is the one where I said "This statement could be part of a summons for Tony Blair" ... I now have a new sheet with NIP/S172 on 1 side and a S9 statement saying "Info has not been provided according to our crap StarTraq program" Sheet 2 - by this do you mean the bundle that you have just received? ~ Yes ... Is here ... Â : http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/S...9Photo-0001.jpg Your NG plea will be entered tomorrow morning and a new date will be set. ~ Thanks When you phone the listings office tomorrow afternoon, ask them what time & date your case has been adjounred to, the nature of that hearing (trial/PTR) and if PTR whether you attendance is required. They will be able to search by name, but your case number is the number beginning 05xxxxxxx after CT 742 (or somesuch) at the bottom of your summons. It would seem that TVP/TV CPS have become (slightly) more diligent since last week. ~ I would say they are on the ball a bit more yes ... Andy ... Nice signature !?!? |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 - 12:06
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
QUOTE (thamesvalley) Sheet 2 - by this do you mean the bundle that you have just received?
~ Yes ... Is here ... Â : http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/S9Photo-0001.jpg That's not actually an s.9 statement. You might think I'm being picky, but minor details like this can be important. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 09:39
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
All
Trial Date set for 10 Aug 2004 http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/b..._Photo-0017.jpg Has anyone ever rec'd one of these !?!? http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/b..._Photo-0018.jpg Is now a good time to tell them about my holiday in Aug and send the defence statement! |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 09:59
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,410 Joined: 14 Nov 2004 From: Inside somewhere ;-) Member No.: 1,871 |
Read's like,
Please please tell us why, so we can work out whether it's worth proceeding with, or whether those nasty people at 'That Website on the Interweb' have been playing again and are going to cost us an absolute fortune in costs :lol: -------------------- Regards, Insider
Forum Moderator Your Help & Assistance Required Please sign the SafeSpeed online petition against Speed Cameras and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE Please sign the online petition against road pricing/tolls and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 10:08
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
Thats EXACTLY the way I read it !?!?
And what also annoyed me is .... "It also avoids the risk of costs being awarded"!!! Seems like this is a letter of defeat !!! |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 10:10
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,749 Joined: 18 Mar 2004 From: Strasbourg (soon) Member No.: 1,017 |
If the CPS discontinue the case you can still claim for costs
-------------------- Help Fund The Fight:
Click Here To Join The Member's Forum Via PayPal! or Click Here To Donate As Every Little Helps |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 10:13
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
... Are you sure !?!?
What can I claim for then. If they drop it before the 10 Aug, I wont claiun travel/time off work ... So what else is left !?!? Im sure I read something about £8.40 p/h prep work !?!? But how many hours !?!?!? 8) |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 10:15
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,749 Joined: 18 Mar 2004 From: Strasbourg (soon) Member No.: 1,017 |
QUOTE R v SOUTH WEST SURREY MAGISTRATES' COURT, EX PARTE WAYNE JAMES (2000)
Quote: The magistrates had not been entitled to refuse to make a defendant's costs order under s.16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 following a notice of discontinuance served by the Crown Prosecutor. Application for judicial review of a decision of the magistrates refusing to make a defendant's costs order. On 31 May 1997, the applicant was arrested and interviewed and then charged with common assault, contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. On 25 June 1997 the applicant's solicitors requested a copy of the tape of interview from the police or CPS. They were informed that there would be no advance information in the matter. On 4 August 1997 the CPS served on the clerk to the magistrates a notice of discontinuance pursuant to s.23(3) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 on the basis that there was "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". The applicant applied for a defendant's costs order. The CPS read the magistrates a summary of the taped interview, which neither the applicant not his solicitor had seen. The applicant disputed the contents of the summary. The magistrates refused the application concluding that the applicant had undoubtedly brought the case upon himself by his own behaviour. After the hearing, the applicant's solicitors made attempts to obtain the tape but without success. The applicant sought judicial review of the magistrates' decision contending that the magistrates had misdirected themselves and taken into account the alleged misconduct that had been the subject of the charge, which had been discontinued by the CPS, rather than looking at whether the applicant had misled the prosecution. HELD: (1) The question was whether the magistrates on the facts could properly deny the applicant a defendant's costs order because his own conduct had brought suspicion on himself and thus misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him was stronger than it really was. (2) A defendant was prima facie entitled to a costs order where proceedings were brought against him and then dropped. The circumstances where a defendant's costs order would not be made were narrowly drawn to reflect the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. If a defendant misled the State into taking proceedings against him, then he was not entitled to be reimbursed when the proceedings against him collapsed. (3) The magistrates had no ground for concluding that the applicant's case fell within that category. The proceedings might have been issued on the basis of some partial admissions by the applicant in interview, but he had never retracted them and nor had it been suggested in any way that they were false or misleading. The proceedings had collapsed because the complainant had withdrawn her complaints and it was as a result of that withdrawal that the proceedings had discontinued. (4) Therefore the defendant was entitled to a defendant's costs order and the magistrates' decision was to be quashed. Application allowed. -------------------- Help Fund The Fight:
Click Here To Join The Member's Forum Via PayPal! or Click Here To Donate As Every Little Helps |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 14:05
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
QUOTE (thamesvalley) Has anyone ever rec'd one of these !?!?
http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/blank..._Photo-0018.jpg I did. I didn't respond to it directly, as it arrived just before I left to hand-deliver my skeletong argument and disclosures to the CPS. Like skeleton arguments, it's a double-edged sword - you might prompt them to drop your case, but you also fore-warn them of your arguments. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 - 16:28
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
As long as the speeding has timed out I see no reason why he can't just send a simple letter.
The prostitution allegess "failure to notify driver details". Driver details were notified in a letter dated ??/??/?? -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Sun, 19 Jun 2005 - 12:16
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 466 Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Member No.: 353 |
Has anyone ever rec'd one of these !?!?
http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/blank..._Photo-0018.jpg I was helping my brother in law defend a Sec 172 charge when we got one of these from the exact same office. We completed the form explaining that pillock Mr Brian Pritchard had falsely instigated proceedings even though the information had been supplied - within weeks he got a letter confirming his case had been dropped unless further information came to light!! Certainly saved me a day out :wink: -------------------- Safe driving is no accident
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Jun 2005 - 09:12
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
Thank you all ....
Defense statement has been sent ... along with a copy of Jones, A nice crisp PACE Statement, A Royal Mail SD receipt, 2 letters confirming they had rec'd my statement and a S172/NIP statement that asked me to sign a 2 sided declaration ... I phoned the court last week and explained that the 10th Aug was slightly inconvenient for me .... As I am away on holiday ... I have been issued another date (September 6th) Same time ... Same court ... Will keep you all posted !?!? |
|
|
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 - 09:43
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
Just called the listings office to clarify the new date as I have had no other paperwork. New paperwork will be issued after the 10 Aug.
I assume this is the norm :shock: |
|
|
Fri, 2 Sep 2005 - 12:54
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz Posts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
After being away for several weeks ... I was greeted with these letters ...
Case Dismissed !!?!? Seems like they crapped it before the actual date !!?? (4 Aug) http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/P.../PHOTO-0001.jpg http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/P.../PHOTO-0002.jpg http://www.geocities.com/scamera2004/TVP/P.../PHOTO-0003.jpg Can someone now help me claim costs as the PEPIPOO pot needs topping up :lol: |
|
|
Fri, 2 Sep 2005 - 13:18
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
Have sent you a PM, TV :D
|
|
|
Fri, 2 Sep 2005 - 15:52
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
Well done, BTW :D :D :D
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:53 |