[NIP Wizard] Charged with failure to identify driver scotland |
[NIP Wizard] Charged with failure to identify driver scotland |
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:
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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 59 Joined: 13 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,719 |
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:25
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 1 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,720 |
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:32
Post
#4
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
I'm sure you are. If you've got nothing helpful to say then just keep it to yourself. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 17:33
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 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
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:10
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 1 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,720 |
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? |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:14
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 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 |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 18:19
Post
#8
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 1 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,720 |
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? |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 19:09
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Jan 2020 - 20:28
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 761 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.
-------------------- PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.
You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 11:23
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 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. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 12:41
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jan 2020 - 20:51
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 00:52
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 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
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 11:02
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
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. 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. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 11:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 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. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 12:46
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 - 17:31
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:06 |