PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1087 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

southpaw82
Posted on: Today, 14:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Sussexgirl @ Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 14:49) *
Could I put him as a witness if he would admit it was him driving?

You could. Whether he would give any useful evidence is another matter. What would you be calling him to say?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1419250 · Replies: 18 · Views: 222

southpaw82
Posted on: Today, 13:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


A bad situation all around. Do you have any witnesses who can corroborate that you responded and sent the notice back? Even if they can corroborate parts of your story, such as completing the notice, putting it in the envelope etc it bolsters your account. It seems like you’d have no reason not to return the notice - it doesn’t seem like you’d have wanted to protect your ex from the consequences.

Your only real options here are to fight or fold. Fight and you may be (and ought to be, on your account) be acquitted. Fail and it’s six points, a fine of roughly 150% of your weekly income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30) and costs of several hundred pounds.

Fold and it’s the same as above but the fine would be reduced by 1/3 and the costs would be £85.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1419233 · Replies: 18 · Views: 222

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 18:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 16:34) *
There's a certain irony in the title of this thread, given:

QUOTE (Forum Terms of Use)
Registration

You may register one account for your exclusive personal use. You may not register additional accounts without our express agreement.


laugh.gif
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1418853 · Replies: 6 · Views: 305

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 18:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 17:47) *
Victim surcharge has to be added, some courts reduce the fine to offset it, others do not, think we’ve discussed that before.

Don’t think that was NJ’s point.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418852 · Replies: 18 · Views: 1,196

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 14:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


What do you think Google could (or would) do about it?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1418815 · Replies: 6 · Views: 305

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 10:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 00:15) *
You were stopped at the roadside, and from what you say were warned you may be prosecuted, so you won't be getting a postal NIP.

Is an NIP required for this offence at all?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418791 · Replies: 11 · Views: 863

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:25) *
The argument for prior opinion is pretty much that actively operated devices are generally only approved to corroborate the opinion of the operator, which would be "as tested". There is no stipulated requirement that the opinion *must* be prior, but if the operator is simply pinging everything in sight and then claiming that whatever the reading is is what he thought the vehicle was doing, then I would say that his "opinion" is worthless.

Is there authority that his opinion is required? Or would it, at best, render the use of s 20 impossible and the evidence would have to be led by a witness?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1418725 · Replies: 32 · Views: 961

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (seank @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:15) *
What is your interpretation, please?

My interpretation is that the opinion of a single witness cannot found a conviction in certain circumstances. The reading created by a mechanical device is not an opinion. The purpose of the rule is to protect the accused against conviction based on a single unreliable opinion (aka unreliable evidence). No such protection ought to be required from evidence produced by a mechanical device, which is presumed to be operating correctly.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1418656 · Replies: 32 · Views: 961

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (ian505050 @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 13:55) *
I thought one of the main principles of the police is Justice.

Who on earth told you that?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418655 · Replies: 44 · Views: 1,711

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Dr.E @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:50) *
Thanks for the replies folks. From what I've read, exceptions to the 14 day nip rule include situations where there's been accident (doesn't apply to me) and hire/ lease cars (does apply to me)


It being a lease car isn’t an exception.

QUOTE
Secondly this alleged offence was a result of an altercation between two drivers. The other driver obviously went to the police. Unless the other driver had a dashcam, surely it's just one drivers word against another?

People get convicted every day on such evidence.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418654 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,706

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (seank @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:02) *
If we followed the logic in your first sentence, everyone would just pay up. I reckon this is what happens in 99% of speeding, parking and similar offences.


That’s entirely a choice for the OP, nobody is forced to fight or fold.

QUOTE
He just pointed and pinged, whereas the law says he must form prior opinion and then use the LTI to corroborate that.

People keep saying that but nobody can cite the law, other than a misunderstanding of s 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1418581 · Replies: 32 · Views: 961

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Dr.E @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 09:59) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 09:01) *
What is the NIP requirement, exactly?

QUOTE
1 (1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
( c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.]

Arguably, a NIP addressed to a person by surname only is not properly "addressed to him" and, thus, not properly served on that person. That there are four possible drivers at the address with the same surname reinforces this view. After 14 days, it would be worth a call to the police asking which person they meant to serve, and asking them to re-send the NIP. Which NIP would then be late.

--Churchmouse


Thank you very much. The most useful piece of information I've received.


Its usefulness will very much depend on the circumstances.


QUOTE
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 09:54) *
As leased, there doesn't appear to be a 'late' argument.

However, the s172 process doesn't have this time requirement. But it does appear it hasn't been served on a particular person.



Surely they have to write to the registered keeper (lease company) within 14 days?

Depends on whether the offence in question requires an NIP at all. If it does, then it depends on whether an exception applies. If not, then yes - have they?

If you choose not to respond to the s 172 request then someone could end up being summonsed for the s 172 offence. Quite who that someone would be is an open question at the moment. Any defence would rely on the “not addressed to me” point.

If you (or someone with your surname at your address) replies and names themselves as the driver (if that is indeed the case) and are subsequently prosecuted for an offence then the same argument can be run concerning the identity of the driver - though if they’re in the witness box they can simply be asked who was driving.

If someone replies naming someone else then that latter someone may get a s 172 request in their own (full) name and the process proceeds as normal.

There may be other permutations but those seem the most relevant. The best defence appears to be in relation to the first option, which relies on the court finding that no s 172 requirement was actually served on the defendant (and, preferably, anyone else).
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418576 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,706

southpaw82
Posted on: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


The court is well able to concentrate on what you’re saying for more than 60 seconds. If what you want to say takes 5 minutes to say then so be it. However, don’t repeat yourself or include irrelevancies. Nobody expects you to be able to make a plea like a lawyer, so don’t try.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418572 · Replies: 66 · Views: 2,848

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


That would be the wording I’ve just quoted.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418464 · Replies: 92 · Views: 11,580

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (monkeybrains74 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:46) *
The below comes from the end of case letter I got from my Solicitor

"The 3 penalty points imposed for this offence meant you had accumulated a total of 12 points for offences committed within a 3 year period and therefore you were at serious risk of a minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification.

However, after considering the mitigation that I advanced on your behalf and looking very closely at the wording of section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Judge VERY unusually agreed to not impose the minimum 6 month Totting Up disqualification despite you not having exceptional hardship grounds. The Judge agreed to impose a 3 month totting up disqualification on the basis you had only been caught by the totting up provisions by 6 days."

That’s not little known at all, that’s the legislation exceptional hardship pleas are made under. It makes no mention of the closeness of the offence to points ceasing to count for totting purposes, though clearly this was a matter the court saw fit to take into account. “Exceptional hardship” is simply shorthand for “that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified” so clearly the court found there were such grounds.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418454 · Replies: 92 · Views: 11,580

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (henrik777 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:00) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:37) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:26) *
Are Scottish JP's restricted in what fines/ points they can hand out compared to Sheriffs.

I believe so.


They may have extra powers with regards disqualifications in some motoring matters but speeding isn't one of them, i believe.

Indeed but I provided a general answer, not confined to speeding. It’s a petty offence so all courts should be able to deal with it.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1418443 · Replies: 9 · Views: 198

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (monkeybrains74 @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:17) *
I actually got a 3 month ban instead of 6 due to my solicitor informing the judge of little known legislation with regards to the most recent offence being so near to the time the first points were to come off


What legislation is that?

QUOTE
along with defenses we gave including the Community Support officer who came to court and defended hadn't brought proof he'd measured between the lampposts.

If it was a defence you wouldn’t have been convicted. It would (should) have no bearing on sentence.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418441 · Replies: 92 · Views: 11,580

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (StuartBu @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:26) *
Are Scottish JP's restricted in what fines/ points they can hand out compared to Sheriffs.

I believe so.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1418416 · Replies: 9 · Views: 198

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


It’s some minor thing about doing justice.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418415 · Replies: 33 · Views: 1,257

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 14:31) *
Perhaps the driver isn't liable for this offence. (Clue the registered keeper is)

The offence is uses or keeps.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418414 · Replies: 6 · Views: 336

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 21:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


I think it would be a bold statement to say that pleading guilty to an offence that one knows one did not commit (and that someone else did) could never be PCOJ.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1418179 · Replies: 19 · Views: 738

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 14:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 14:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 14:46) *
It would be in the UK, in Russia (according to their videos) there is a minimum value for CD which sticking on a sticker doesn’t transgress. Watched the channel for a long time.

But my reply ( and presumably Southpaws) related to OPs former colleague and working on the basis that colleague was in this country.

Indeed.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1417695 · Replies: 13 · Views: 418

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 14:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Paragraphs 14 and 16 should be omitted. They are arguments that ought to be made to the court by the party or their advocate, not a witness (even if all three of those happen to be the same person).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1417677 · Replies: 74 · Views: 4,109

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 13:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (seank @ Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 14:55) *
A stat dec will reset the £350 back to the original £100 and 3 points

A statutory declaration will set aside the conviction and sentence. The matter will not revert back to the fixed penalty. If the OP is convicted or pleads guilty then it would be open to him to ask to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level if the reason for not taking up the fixed penalty was unconnected with the offence. However, if he simply ignored the offer of a fixed penalty I don’t see a court having much sympathy with him.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1417673 · Replies: 14 · Views: 422

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,578
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (passingthru @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 23:22) *
A former colleague of mine owns a machine which can print and cut to shape adhesive stickers that are REALLY REALLY HARD to remove from glass. They are meant for "permanent" fixing. They laugh off soap and boiling water. One needs a debonding agent (?) to get them off properly. Trying to scrape them off more likely to scratch the windscreen.

Straight criminal damage.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1417600 · Replies: 13 · Views: 418

1087 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 24th September 2018 - 18:24
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.