TVP / Speeding / PACE / Summons / Trial / Case Dismissed |
TVP / Speeding / PACE / Summons / Trial / Case Dismissed |
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 - 19:06
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
HI all,
New to the site under unfortunate circumstances but have been reading through the forums over the last couple of days and I would really appreciate some advice. I was scamera'd on the A34 at 81 recently (LTI20-20). The vehicle is company registered. A NIP was received at the office after 10 days. One of my jobs is fleet adminstrator. I filled in the relevant sections of the NIP saying the addressee was not the driver and filled in my details in section 5. Stupidly and prematurely, I signed the NIP and not my boss. Have I completely bolloxed up by self signing the NIP addressed to the company ?? A new NIP was received addressed to me a few days ago. After reading through countless threads detailing PACE defences, I had intended to have a go down this route but I don't want to waste a whole heap of time fighting a pointless case if I have already tied the noose around my own neck. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 - 19:06
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Feb 2005 - 22:36
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
QUOTE (andy_foster) Getting Mr Pritchard to issue a summons for S172 isn't as easy as you might think
If we assume that the PACE statement was completed correctly and contained all of the S172 required info, then it follows that Mr Pritchard is not following a consistent approach to PACE respondents. Are you suggesting, Andy, that Mr Pritchard is easily confused ? :lol: |
|
|
Fri, 18 Feb 2005 - 09:02
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (nemo) QUOTE (andy_foster) Getting Mr Pritchard to issue a summons for S172 isn't as easy as you might think
If we assume that the PACE statement was completed correctly and contained all of the S172 required info, then it follows that Mr Pritchard is not following a consistent approach to PACE respondents. Are you suggesting, Andy, that Mr Pritchard is easily confused ? I think Andy is trying to say that Mr P doesn't know if it's his hand or his head that's penetrating his rs. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Fri, 18 Feb 2005 - 09:32
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 326 Joined: 15 Nov 2004 From: South Bucks Member No.: 1,878 |
QUOTE (nemo) If you supplied all the driver details on the PACE letter, under what circumstances are they sticking an S172 offence on you ?
If they proceed with an S172 summons which is flawed and have not summonsed you for the speeding offence, isn't that a result ?? I am quite looking forward to be summons for a S172 offence, whether or not it actually happens is an entirely different matter. They have all but threatened me with this charge and there exact words were: QUOTE A summons will be issued against the registered keeper or nominated driver of the vehicle. The offence for which the summons will be issued is detailed at the foot of the notice of intended prosecution form.
As you said it is very inconsistent approach TVP take towards PACE statements, so it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. If I do get to court on a S172 charge, I would love to call Mr Pritchard to the stand and ask him why my PACE statement did not comply with the S172 request but "Mr X's" PACE statement did, and watch him wriggle :twisted: -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 - 18:48
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
Another update:
As stated above, I received a COFP along with a letter from TVP's Pritchard stating that PACE did not apply as Section 10.1 of Code C provides an exemption. I ignored the COFP and the 28 day time period of the offer elapsed. My question is, has anyone else had similar experiences with Thames Valley Police (namely Banbury) ? Is this just bluff & bluster or am I drawing ever nearer to a day in court ? I read mcderyl's thread and was concerned that the Mags in his case found him guilty regardless of PACE etc. Is this a first ? |
|
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 - 20:05
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,212 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
QUOTE (nemo) My question is, has anyone else had similar experiences with Thames Valley Police (namely Banbury) ? Is this just bluff & bluster or am I drawing ever nearer to a day in court ?
Yes. Myself, ThamesValley and Zuegma (to name but a few) have each had pretty much every conceivable B&B letter from Mr Pritchard. None of us has received a summons yet, athough I was promised one shortly before being told that they had decided to take no further action. It is very hard to determine what TVP intend to do, based solely on what they say they are going to do in their letters -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 18:14
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
edit to remove specifics
|
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 19:26
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
You have a copy of the s172 you failed to complete but you signed.
I cannot remember of my head what TVP forms are like but did the part you signed have written at the top of the box or anywhere else in the box "I was the driver". If it did you may be stuffed. Edited I have now seen a TVP s172 form. Are any of the boxex ticked at the top Were you the driver Yes [] No [] -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 19:45
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
No, neither box was ticked.
The NIP was just dated, signed and endorsed with 'Please see attached witness statement...' Nothing more. |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 19:54
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (nemo) No, neither box was ticked.
The NIP was just dated, signed and endorsed with 'Please see attached witness statement...' Nothing more. In that case they have no identification of the driver without disclosure of the witness statement. This is one for cjm99. I'm sure he will say "NON DISCLOSURE = NOT ADMISSIBLE" You should not enter the witness box under any circumstances. Otherwise they could then ask you the question "Were you the driver"? -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 19:59
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
QUOTE (DW190) In that case they have no identification of the driver without disclosure of the witness statement.
This is one for cjm99. I'm sure he will say "NON DISCLOSURE = NOT ADMISSIBLE" You should not enter the witness box under any circumstances. Otherwise they could then ask you the question "Were you the driver"? Thanks for the info DW190. |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 21:25
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 22 May 2005 Member No.: 3,002 |
Surely this is a non starter as today is 6 months and 1 day after the offence or am i missing something? :?
|
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 21:34
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
QUOTE (smstextaddict) Surely this is a non starter as today is 6 months and 1 day after the offence or am i missing something? :?
Court summons within time. |
|
|
Wed, 25 May 2005 - 21:50
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 244 Joined: 22 May 2005 Member No.: 3,002 |
ah right <walks off in shame>
|
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 07:59
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
Had a night to sleep on this and there's one thing I am still not sure of regarding legal procedures, never having been in this situation before.
The summons has arrived with 'A Notice to Defendant - Proof by Documentary Evidence' summary. This lists the evidence that has been presented to the court by TVP (see previous post). This list does not include my PACE statement, without which I cannot see that they have any evidence against me. When I plead not guilty by post and a new court date is set, will this current list of evidence be used or is it possible for TVP to make amendments with the inclusion of my PACE statement ? Thanks all for your help so far. Nearly there !! |
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 08:30
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (nemo) Had a night to sleep on this and there's one thing I am still not sure of regarding legal procedures, never having been in this situation before.
The summons has arrived with 'A Notice to Defendant - Proof by Documentary Evidence' summary. This lists the evidence that has been presented to the court by TVP (see previous post). This list does not include my PACE statement, without which I cannot see that they have any evidence against me. When I plead not guilty by post and a new court date is set, will this current list of evidence be used or is it possible for TVP to make amendments with the inclusion of my PACE statement ? Thanks all for your help so far. Nearly there !! If you just enter a Not Guilty plea and nothing else the file will probably not be seen again until the morning of the hearing. A new date will then be set. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 08:48
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
QUOTE (DW190) If you just enter a Not Guilty plea and nothing else the file will probably not be seen again until the morning of the hearing. A new date will then be set.
At which point they will probably realise the error and make sure it is amended before the new hearing ? |
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 12:07
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (nemo) QUOTE (DW190) If you just enter a Not Guilty plea and nothing else the file will probably not be seen again until the morning of the hearing. A new date will then be set.
At which point they will probably realise the error and make sure it is amended before the new hearing ? My guess is they wont notice. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 13:04
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,109 Joined: 16 Dec 2003 From: Manchester Member No.: 675 |
There is in effect nothing for them to notice.
The CPS will take possesion of the file. The file will contain all originals of the documents. As they will see it, the file looks and is complete. However, yours is fatally flawed and your 'bundle' is identical to the 'bundle' the Court Clerk has.. -------------------- Chris
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Bush Acoustic Music Club Acoustic Folk at the Nursery Inn Tameside folk concerts |
|
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 - 13:17
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
QUOTE (cjm99) There is in effect nothing for them to notice.
The CPS will take possesion of the file. The file will contain all originals of the documents. As they will see it, the file looks and is complete. However, yours is fatally flawed and your 'bundle' is identical to the 'bundle' the Court Clerk has.. :D :D Fingers crossed. Updates to follow.... |
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2005 - 10:47
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 21 Dec 2004 From: ------------- Member No.: 2,073 |
Bu66er
In response to the title of this post - yup, I think I did shoot myself in the foot. removed some specifics I think I may have to take this one on the chin and put it down to experience. The summons has not yet been sent back but I'm thinking of just pleading guilty and get it over and done with. I don't know if I have the fight in me to ask for full disclosure of the video evidence and run the risk of an even bigger fine than the one I am likely to get. I am seriously pi55ed off now... |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:25 |