NIP received 17 days after alleged ofence Options

[annonHudd]

Ok today i received a NIP for doing 37 in a 30 zone, im little annoyed anyway as i simply do not believe that i was doing that speed as i am so careful how i drive and have held my license for 22 years with no points. I am also annoyed that it has taken them 17 days to notify me of this as i am the registered keeper and have had the car for a year now with all details correct with the DVLA. Please is there anything that i can do with this? even if this goes the distance will i have the offer of a speed awareness course? as i am due to start a new job which is predominantly driving as an engineer.

[Advertisement]

[peterguk]

i simply want to see the calibration certificate

Rather pointless. An out of date calibration cert. would not be a bar to a successful prosecution, so what you going to do with it IF you get it?

[AntonyMMM]

its just very annoying how our law system works, essentially you are incriminating yourself

Then complain to your MP - the law on the requirement to name a driver has been in place for many years, and tested to the highest courts. You are not pleading guilty to anything by doing so.

i will be fighting this as i simply want to see the calibration certificate, reading through various cases i have found that this does not happen.....and the police will try and fob you off with generic calibrations.

Lack of (or failure to show you) a calibration certificate isn't going to constitute a workable defence - and by the time you get to that point the speed awareness course (which you mentioned wanting in your first post) will be long gone.

If you want to fight - the late NIP is the best angle you have, but a very big risk to take.

[Jlc]

essentially you are incriminating yourself and you are pressured into doing so even though they provide no evidence.

Naming the driver is not incriminating yourself. It's simply stating you were the driver at the material time. As I said earlier it does not prejudice any defence to the allegation (speeding).

...as i simply want to see the calibration certificate, reading through various cases i have found that this does not happen.....and the police will try and fob you off with generic calibrations.

If you ask them for it then they may supply it now. But they don't have to.

Be careful of some Internet sites that will claim things like that if they can't provide a certificate they won't prosecute etc.

Do you know what sort of camera it was?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 11:56

[NewJudge]

... essentially you are incriminating yourself and you are pressured into doing so even though they provide no evidence.

You are not incriminating yourself. The issue of whether a driver should be compelled to provide his details when asked was settled over ten years ago when two drivers took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that they had a "right to silence". The court ruled against them.

...and i will be fighting this as i simply want to see the calibration certificate, reading through various cases i have found that this does not happen.....and the police will try and fob you off with generic calibrations.

As mentioned, there is no requirement to provide a calibration certificate to secure a successful prosecution. There has to be doubt (which you have to introduce as a defence) that the equipment is functioning correctly and lack of a certificate alone does not provide that doubt.

The offers that may be made (course or fixed penalty) after you have named yourself as driver are not dependent on the niceties of the criminal process being adhered to. They are methods of dealing with the matter (at a greatly reduced cost to you) which require you to accept the allegation as it stands. You always have the opportunity to take the matter to court where the normal criminal procedure applies. Only then will you be provided with the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on before you enter your plea.

Your best avenue to avoid a conviction is the "late NIP" aspect. But this will not be easy. If you plead not guilty on the basis that no calibration certificate was provided you will be convicted and it may cost you up to £1,000 in fines and costs.

[peterguk]

Your best avenue to avoid a conviction is the "late NIP" aspect. But this will not be easy.

OP, you might want to click the link in my sig. I also received my NIP late, during a postal strike, and had my postman in court as a witness to late delivery. I lost my case in both the lower courts before final succeeding.

[Fredd]

Naming the driver is not incriminating yourself.

You are not incriminating yourself. The issue of whether a driver should be compelled to provide his details when asked was settled over ten years ago when two drivers took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that they had a "right to silence". The court ruled against them.

Of course you are incriminating yourself. In virtually no other circumstances where the police have evidence of a crime being committed is a suspect compelled to say that they were the person doing it. It's the law, and there are significant penalties if you don't comply, but the premise on which it's based is simply a legal fiction adopted for the convenience of the authorities. I don't know why intelligent people with no skin in the game insist on parroting this line, rather than just advise on what the law is.

[Jlc]

Your premise of intelligence is misguided.

It’s a fair point - not to go OT too much, the driver nomination doesn’t mean the underlying charge will be successful, I could have been clearer. (Some people think that providing the driver means admission to the underlying charge too)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 12:50

[Ocelot]

Naming the driver is not incriminating yourself.

You are not incriminating yourself. The issue of whether a driver should be compelled to provide his details when asked was settled over ten years ago when two drivers took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that they had a "right to silence". The court ruled against them.

Of course you are incriminating yourself. In virtually no other circumstances where the police have evidence of a crime being committed is a suspect compelled to say that they were the person doing it. It's the law, and there are significant penalties if you don't comply, but the premise on which it's based is simply a legal fiction adopted for the convenience of the authorities. I don't know why intelligent people with no skin in the game insist on parroting this line, rather than just advise on what the law is.

I Agree. Although the ECHR case was lost, and the recipient of the S172 request is still required to name themselves, I would suggest the principle of the PACE witness statement we used to espouse - that you are required to effectively incriminate yourself under threat of criminal sanction - still applies.

[NewJudge]

Yes I have to agree and it's a bad choice of words. The driver's nomination is providing one leg of the two requirements to support the prosecution (the other being the speed alleged vs the prevailing limit). Perhaps better to say that you are providing evidence of the driver's identity which you are required to do by law and it's up to the prosecution to do the rest.