Offence 6 months ago today |
Offence 6 months ago today |
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 - 13:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 4 Jul 2021 Member No.: 113,255 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - March 2021 Date of the NIP: - 119 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 121 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A167 Stamfordham rd, between A1 and Silver Lonnen junction, Newcastle Upon Tyne Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Company Van 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 - Came back into Newcastle from A1 north around 15.00hrs, heavy traffic, busy watching other vehicles and looking for the correct lane as it's 4 lanes into 3 with left and right filters, but going with the flow of other vehicles, spotted the camera van about 1/2 mile further down the road, partially obscured by trees and road-signs, checked speed and was doing about 33-34. Had no idea what the speed limit was along that particular piece of road, first time driving it. 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)? - No Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you 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? - England - England - England NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered: Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 13:25:45 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 4 Jul 2021 - 13:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 16:52
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Well they can no longer prosecute you for speeding, but they could get you sent to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice and they may just have time to start a prosecution under S172 for failing to identify the driver in the 28 days provided for by law.
As such I’d accept the CoFP and hope they treat that as the end of 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 |
|
|
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 - 21:01
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well they can no longer prosecute you for speeding, but they could get you sent to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice and they may just have time to start a prosecution under S172 for failing to identify the driver in the 28 days provided for by law. As such I’d accept the CoFP and hope they treat that as the end of it. +1, if you have to weigh up the choice of a fixed penalty vs the very real risk of going to prison (with all the consequences that could have for future employment opportunities, insurance premiums etc) it's a real no-brainer. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 10:41
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 499 Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,087 |
While agree it is cleaner to put this to bed and pay the COFP...
…having invited the keeper to rethink his submission and then accepted his nomination as to being the driver, I'm struggling to see how they can then bring a prosecution for an offence of FTF? I'm also not sure how any more serious charges can be considered, based upon them accepting his nomination and sending him a COFP in these circumstances? Lets face it, if they were on the ball with this they would be aware of the timeline and gone straight to SJP. Either for speeding after the nomination or FTF seeing as they sent him 2 previous requests to name the driver. I'm not sure how they can hold the OP to trying to evade justice when the opportunity to prevent him doing so was in their own hands. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 11:09
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
…having invited the keeper to rethink his submission and then accepted his nomination as to being the driver, I'm struggling to see how they can then bring a prosecution for an offence of FTF? SNIP Lets face it, if they were on the ball with this they would be aware of the timeline and gone straight to SJP. Either for speeding after the nomination or FTF seeing as they sent him 2 previous requests to name the driver. Because the driver nomination was not made within the 28 days specified by law you could be found guilty on that basis (making the nomination later doesn't change that) unless you could convince them it wasn't reasonably practicable (I think you'll struggle!). The S172 offence occurred 28 days after the request was served on you (so around the start of August), so the 6 month timeout for that is a long way off (February 2022), no need for them to be 'on the ball' yet! An S172 conviction would be painful enough but the much bigger issue is the potential for a Perverting the Course of Justice charge which could see you in prison for up to about 12 months if found guilty because of the lie told in the first reply, that would really screw with your life. Did you read the thread linked to in post #16? You should before deciding on your further action. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 11:16 -------------------- 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, 15 Sep 2021 - 11:50
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 499 Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,087 |
I doubt we have ever seen an instance where the Police have gone back and prosecuted for a FTF after a COFP that has been issued has timed out. Yes I know we are relying on that being reported here, or becoming knowledge to those that have access to such game changing decisions, but on that basis I would not be so sure as to suggest that it could happen.
Edit: A google search reveals we have been here before. http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/...hp/t118340.html This post has been edited by BertB: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 13:59 |
|
|
Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 14:36
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,781 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
This is an interesting point (albeit possibly "Flame Pit" territory).
However late it was, and whatever shenanigans went before it, the OP's response has now been accepted as adequate. If they wanted to prosecute him under s172, now (or earlier) is the time to do it. Leaving aside PCoJ for a moment, his response has been used to identify him as the driver and, in the normal course of events, if he didn't accept the FP, it would be used as evidence against him to prove speeding in court. What is under suggestion here is that the police will not follow up the s172 prosecution providing he pays a fixed penalty for another offence (for which, by the by, he can no longer be prosecuted). I would view such a course of action as unjust. Speeding and s172 are separate (but linked) offences. The first (usually) relies on no offence being committed under the second before it can succeed in court. Let's stretch it a bit: supposing the circumstances were similar (i.e. a late but accepted s172 response) but a speeding prosecution was still possible within time. The defendant pleads not guilty and is acquitted for some reason. Would it be right for the police to revert to a s172 charge even though they had used the evidence it provides? Although PCoJ is somewhat different, I suggest the principle is similar. The OP was given the opportunity to "reconsider" and in effect corrected his "mischief". The time to consider a PCoJ charge was when that correction was made. If the police believe he was trying to evade justice, then they should say so. They should not wait until the disposal of the original offence is completed and, if it is unsuccessful, effectively say "well we were not successful with the speeding matter, so we'll try something else instead." I'm thinking out loud so please shoot me down if necessary! This post has been edited by NewJudge: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 14:37 |
|
|
Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 15:15
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If the correct reply to the S172 had arrived in time to allow a prosecution for speeding I would agree, however because the shenanigans involved can be seen as a ploy yo remove that possibility then I can see a court accepting both offences as being committed and prosecutable.
As the alternative here would be the police going straight to a more onerous prosecution of S172 or PCoJ, I can see a court deciding that it is unreasonable to then penalise the crownby preventing any prosecution by allowing the defendant to get off all offences clearly committed after it had attempted to help the defendant resolve it less onerously. Will the police attempt either course? I don't know. If I were the OP would I risk the CoFP for potentially 9 months in prison, no I don't think I would to be honest, the odds on no further action have to be very much in your favour for that gamble (with the massive disparity in outcome) to be attractive IMO. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 15:16 -------------------- 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, 15 Sep 2021 - 17:57
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 499 Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,087 |
The police had time to prosecute for the speeding. They choose to issue a COFP instead. I can see someone arguing that they failed in their responsibility to ensure the OP was prosecuted for the speeding charge and as such he shouldn't be facing more serious charges because of their failings.
It also does not meet the criteria for PCOJ IMO. Just how exactly would they convict on that? This thread? Nowhere near strong enough as evidence that he willfully intended to try and evade justice. They had two options to deal with the OP. Decide his 'don't know' nomination was enough to trigger a FTF charge, or ask him to think again. They chose the latter, accepted his nomination and didn't process the next steps correctly. The OP should decide what to do carefully and weigh up the risk. However random suggestions of what could await him are probably best summed up by the reply in the linked thread. Do you actually have any evidence to support your doom-and-gloom opinion of the OP's chances of being prosecuted for an s172 offence in these circumstances? I'd be more convinced that you're providing sound advice if you could point to other cases where the police had prosecuted an s172 offence despite having received and accepted a nomination.
|
|
|
Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 14:33
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,217 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
I suppose if the police were feeling arsey they could prosecute the S172 offence even if the fixed penalty was taken up. If I understand correctly paying the fixed penalty bars them from prosecuting the speeding offence, but not any other.
|
|
|
Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 16:27
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
They could, they could also go with PCOJ.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 00:08 |