Unsigned S172 (TVP) update 31/05/2005 case dropped Options

[andy_foster]

Details of my case (so far). Thanks to all those who've helped (including those that have disagreed with my reasoning)

I am the owner and RK of the vehicle involved. Currently no points on my licence.

***
03.11 21/08/2004 flashed by a Truevelo speed camera on the A40 High Wycombe. More than slightly surprised as I was below 40mph in what I believed to be a 40 limit.
Backtracked to check speed limit signs - found 30mph sign obscured by foliage.
{S85 (1+2) RTRA 1984 places a legal duty on the relevant authorities to maintain the speed limit signs, and (4) provides a stutary defence when
there aren't street lights, however I cannot reasonably be expected to deduce that the speed limit was 30mph due to the presence of street lighting, as the 40 limit Iwas previously in, on the same road had street lights. Trying to argue that in court could be interesting.

***
28/08/2004 Received NIP dated 26/08/2004 (1,2,3,4)
(alleged offence of (speed 36mph) Exceeding 30mph on restricted road)

***
02/09/2004 First chance to take pictures of obscured sign

***
~1100 08/09/2004 Phoned TVP SAS helpline for advice regarding the S172 form.
{At the time I thought that the higher courts had ruled that not signing a S172 was an offence. Signing the declaration on my form would be a bad thing, cos the reverse of the "two sided document" (their wording) contains a statement I believe to be untrue.
The tubby simpy stated "If you admits you was the driver, you got to sign Part 5"}

***
15/09/2004 Returned S172 (1,2) with Part 1 completed, and Part 5 left blank.
{Actually read the relevant judgements - it is reasonable for the CC to require a signature, and all reasonable requests must be complied with. As there is no request for a signature on my form, other than a clearly unreasonable requirement to sign a false declaration, I cannot have failed to comply with a reasonable request.
Was hoping that they'd drop the speeding charge in favour of S172.}

***
18/09/2005 Received SAS Workshop offer letter (1,2,3,4) dated 17/09/2004.
{Would have to pay £71 for some patronising tw*t to tell me the usual lies. To complete course, cannot be disruptive, and must show an improvement in attitude! If I was on 9 points, "I don't like buses" would be a positive attitude. Other than that, I'd rather face the beaks.}

***
27/09/2004 Posted letter to manager of TVP SAS.
{After receiving the "Speed Awareness Scheme Workshop" offer, I read the NIP properly. It clearly states "IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION THE ALLEGED OFFENCE ABOVE WILL NOT BE PROCEEDED WITH HOWEVER YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF 'FAILING TO FURNISH INFORMATION CONTRARY TO SECTION 172'"
Page 2 says "Please sign and date the form where indicated or it will not be accepted."
The SAS offer letter indicates that they have accepted the incomplete S172 form, and are proceeding with the original alleged offence. Either this was a mistake, or Mr Pritchard lied on a form that reminds me I could be fined £2000 if I lie!
The letter was designed to be polite whilst hopefully ensuring it is not ignored.}

***
12/10/2004 Got fed up waiting for a response to my letter - phoned TVP SAS helpline - eventually spoke to someone with access to my file - current status is they have received my letter (29/09/2004) and passed it to the manager for his input.
From Hawkeye's post they seem to be aware of the holes in the form they sent me, so a humiliating (for them) S172 prosecution seems unlikely. Whether Mr Pritchard will decide to risk a prosecution for perjury to prosecute me for speeding is another matter, although I don't expect an answer anytime soon.  

***
15/10/2004 Received another brown envelope from TVP today. It contained:
(i) a letter
(ii) a single-sided copy of Page 1 of the original NIP (with "Please retain this page for your records" blacked out) and
(iii) a single-sided copy of the front of an old S172 form with my details, and the date the original was issued, written in the boxes above Part 1, by hand (where they were printed in the original), and "COPY" stamped at the top right of the form.
[N.B. (ii) and (iii) are scans from the original NIP, didn't scan copies as they are the same excecpt where blanked out]

The letter seems to imply that unless I comply they will prosecute me for S172, not the original allegation (speeding).

The letter does not have anything to indicate that it has been sent on behalf of the CC (Osgerby,Mohindra).

IMHO, I have met my legal obligations regarding the original NIP/S172.

Do the new letter and the partial copies of the "original" NIP/S172 constitute a new request for information under S172, (TVP giving themselves a second bite of the cherry), or is it simply a case of them generously giving me a second chance to give them some money?
IMHO, the lack of any reference to the CC in the letter, and the fact that the partial forms bear the original date (26/08/2004),  would suggest to me that this is not a new request.

Dear Mr. Pritchard,

I refer to your latest correspondence, DocRef: 82498.

There I are two points that I am not totally clear on.

Your letter urges me to complete and return the Notice within “the next 14 days”. The NIP, dated 19/11/2004, but marked COPY, states that the form must be returned within 28 days of the date on that notice. Please can you clarify?

Your letter refers to a form showing duplicate information, but the S172 form is also dated 19/11/2004. Can you confirm whether this has been served on me as a separate request for information, under S172 RTA 1988, or whether it is in fact a reminder as implied in your letter?
 
Yours sincerely
(me)

Based on previous performance, it should take him about 2 weeks to realise that I'm taking the p*ss. He might decide that it's time to issue a summons, or he might decide to give me a 4th chance to sign the form, indicating that he has no intention of taking me to court.

***
18/12/2004
Got another letter from our friends in Banbury, today.
Apparently, I should reply to this letter within 7 days. Failure to do so may result in the matter being dealt with by a Magistrates' Court.

This is now my 4th chance to give them something they think they want, don't need, and can't use.  

***
17/01/2005
One month after being offered a further 7 days to reply, I wrote to Mr Pritchard again.

Dear Mr. Pritchard,


Thankyou for your recent letter, dated 24th December 2004, offering me a further 7 days to comply with your earlier instruction to furnish a signed S9 Witness Statement.  
I would appreciate it if you could advise me as to when I can expect to receive a summons, so I can avoid clashing with the hearing date when booking my holiday.

Yours sincerely
(me)

***
15/02/2005
Another letter from our friends in Banbury.

Mr. Pritchard[/url]]
Alleged Speed: 36 mph

Dear Sir,

I refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution form sent to you recently in relation to an alleged traffic offence detected by camera technology and supported by photographic evidence.

I have carefully considered your recent correspondence and all the circumstances of this particular case and on this occasion decided that it would be appropriate to take no further action.

This decision has not been taken lightly and any further offences that may come to light will not be dealt with so leniently.

Yours faithfully

<pp squiggle>
Bryan C Prichard
Manager

No further action by them, perhaps  

***
17/03/2005
Today I received a summons for S172.

Summons P1,P2, P3

"Bundle":
Notice to defendant - Proof by written statement
S20 Certificate and photo
Copy of front of NIP
CTO clerk's "witness" statement
DVLA response
FAQ and Flowchart

Also included was a Means Form, a Tourist's Guide to Witney Mags' Court and a slip stating that due to changes in legislation, if my plea isn't returned before the date of the hearing, I'm screwed.

***
13/04/2005
NG plea (by post) was entered yesterday morning.
Phoned the court - case has been adjourned to a PTR in Banbury on May 17th. I am required to attend.

***
17/05/2005
Trial date set for 10am 31/05/2005 at Bicester Magistrates' Court.

***
24/05/2005
Received a Court Order informing me that the case has been adjourned for trial at 12 noon at Banbury Magistrates' Court.

Phoned the listings office to confirm that it is to be held at Banbury. Also confirmed that it's due to be heard by a District Judge.

Hand delivered skeleton argument and disclosures to CPS.

***
31/05/2005
CPS guy phoned me just as I was about to leave the house, to tell me that he was dropping the case.

[Advertisement]

[jeffreyarcher]

Received another letter this morning, stating they will take No Further Action in relation to the alleged motoring offence. This is not exactly news, as it says as much on the NIP.
My mate Bryan was presumably refering to the issue of allegedly failing to furnish the driver's details, contrary to S172(3) RTA 1988.

Why didn't they prosecute you for S172? Presumably because of the flawed two-sided statement. But, if that was the reason, and they knew it, why didnt they just issue you with a new S172 request?

It is likely that they consider the matter closed. I do not  

<N.B. mods - this has not yet been concluded, and therefore should not be posted in "success stories">

Whatever else happens, surely they can hardly undo what's been done?

[andy_foster]

Why didn't they prosecute you for S172? Presumably because of the flawed two-sided statement. But, if that was the reason, and they knew it, why didnt they just issue you with a new S172 request?

The fact that they changed the wording of their S172 form shortly after I got mine would strongly suggest that they realised it was flawed. The two-sided false statement is IMHO a biggie, but another issue with my form was that the only request/space for a signature was the S9 declaration/statement of truth. In my last letter, I pointed out that I had failed to comply with his instruction to sign that.
Even if they think they are entitled to require an S9 compliant confession, they might not want to invite a legal challenge to it.

As regards not issuing a new S172 request - that raises several issues:
- having to admit they made a mistake (on my form)
- the consequences of admitting that same mistake on ~500 forms a day for the period that form was used
- I had already supplied the information requested, and in JJ's opinion persuing a subsequent S172 could constitute abuse of process
- they are probably not clever/organised enough to think of it.

It is likely that they consider the matter closed. I do not  

<N.B. mods - this has not yet been concluded, and therefore should not be posted in "success stories">

Whatever else happens, surely they can hardly undo what's been done?

It could be argued that their letter refers to the substantive offence (speeding), but not the S172. Whilst this would be a particularly feeble argument, it wouldn't be their weakest.

As far as I am concerned, if Mr. Pritchard has decided not to prosecute for S172, then it is likely that he does not believe that I was legally required to sign his form, and also that when he stated in several letter that I was, he was lying.
I have been accused of breaking the law (wrt S172), and I am determined to have the chance to prove my innocence in a court of law. That can either be defending an S172 allegation, or prosecuting Mr. Pritchard for Malicious Communication and/or Fraud. I intend to give him the choice.

[Mika]

Andy,

Well done and this is also a good example of how to update the thread as the case proceeds.

Now that Mr Pritchard has done you this big favour and dropped the case, he probably won’t be expecting what is going to happen next. How long do you think it will be before they realise that wilfully depriving citizens of their basic rights under PACE and then trying to mislead and intimidate them, may not be such a good idea?

Keep us informed of progress because they do so enjoy it up ‘em.

[cjm99]

Maybe the Pepipoo prophalactic to accompany the mugs was'nt such a bad idea.  :shock:  :oops:

[jimmy ferrari]

Excellent job so far Andy  I was interested in the point you made about 'abuse of process' which JJ affirmed. My friend returned the nip with the PACE letter which was confirmed delivered by the partnership and by Royal mail track and trace, they then sent a new nip with no covering letter and she is being done for not completing that form!! speeding and S172, would this fall into the same catagory as your 'abuse of process'?

[peteturbo]

Andy, when you advise him of the options available, I would offer him the option of settling with you a relevant sum of money to recompense you for your hardship and to avoid the unnecessary burden of a court case.

They wont like it up 'em.

[thamesvalley]

Andy,

After following this, I'm confused.

Your date for Witney court is 12 April 2005, This is a S172 charge.

From your "Cases in progress" thread I thought they had dropped this (TRUVELO A40)

###########################################################################

I refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution form sent to you recently in relation to an alleged
traffic offence detected by camera technology and supported by photographic evidence.
I have carefully considered your recent correspondence and all the circumstances of this particular
case and on this occasion decided that it would be appropriate to take no further action.
This decision has not been taken lightly and any further offences that may come to light will not be dealt with so leniently.
###########################################################################


(PEPIPOO > BB+G > I got my summons ) http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4940

Are you on your own April 12th .... Will come and join you if your free.

[andy_foster]

I thought that they'd dropped it too. I think they also thought that!
I was in the (drawn out) process of drafting an appropriate response to the "no further action" letter, when the summons arrived.

I won't be in court on April 12th - I have returned the form pleading not guilty by post.

I would love to have some company for the actual trial, but I don't expect the date to be set until the hearing on April 12th - assuming they don't decide they need a series of PTRs so I can explain to them what evidence is.

[zuegma]

Andy,

If you let me know when you get your court date, I will make every effort to come along to give some moral support.

One thing about this though, As Mr Pritchard has sent you a letter saying you will not be prosecuted in this matter, could you not just produce that in court and claim a malicious prosecution.

[andy_foster]

Update - trial date set for 10am Tuesday 31st May 2005 at Bicester Mags.

[andy_foster]

Update - received a Court Order (and confirmed with the listings office) that the trial is to be at 12 noon at Banbury Magistrates' Court.

[Mika]

Update - received a Court Order (and confirmed with the listings office) that the trial is to be at 12 noon at Banbury Magistrates' Court.

That shouldn’t take them long then – don’t they break for lunch at five past? .....

[thamesvalley]

Come come Mika ... This is a serious case ... Andy has been allocated a specific time ... He's not just been told to turn up 10am like all the other criminals !?!?

... and he has good company !?!?!?!

8)

[andy_foster]

Methinks it might take more than 5 minutes simply to get past "Do you understand the nature of the allegation?"

[andy_foster]

It would appear that it took the CPS guy less than 5 minutes to decide that he didn't like this game.
Got a phone call at 9.04 am from Mr Payne - CPS - was dropping my case.
That's a almost 3 hours before it was due to be heard - a vast improvement on Robin's s.23 notice, posted the following day.

[matt1133]

You can still put in a cost order, see the members forum
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=5754

well done by the way

cheers,
matt

[flashman]

Well done, Andy. The way you faced them down was inspirational! Perhaps a little too much correspondence for my tastes, but a great result!  :finga:

[Clear Skies]

congratulations andy..



bill