PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Norfolk defective s172's - Chaos Continues
mikey748
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 11:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



My ongoing case is here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=3616

Basically Norfolk seem to be the only Scameraship not to include "for and on behalf of the Chief of Police" or something similar on their NIP/s172 requests. What I'm intending on doing at my trial as part of the defence is showing that all other Scameraships do include this and so far I've got s172s showing this under the authorised signature for the following

Norfolk
Warwickshire
Hampshire
Dorset
Northamptonshire
Wiltshire
Metropolitan
Thames Valley
Derbyshire
Humberside

I'd be really grateful if anyone with a soft copy of the others could drop them on here or alternatively PM them to me.

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 11:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mikey748
post Tue, 3 May 2005 - 13:32
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



Thanks Andy, Bob.

Shortly I need to post on here exactly what I think I need to do in court for any fine tuning advice etc - should I only do this in the members area and if so, do i need to start a new post or get my existing case post moved?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 3 May 2005 - 13:36
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,923
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Member No.: 1,341



QUOTE (mikey748)
Shortly I need to post on here exactly what I think I need to do in court for any fine tuning advice etc - should I only do this in the members area and if so, do i need to start a new post or get my existing case post moved?


Probably best to start a new thread in the members area with a link back to this thread as the first element.

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Sun, 8 May 2005 - 21:03
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



So I think this is how it goes but I’d really like some advice from those who spend more time in court than I do!

Is this the way the court case goes?

Next week I pitch up in court, wait for ages and then finally get called. The clerk asks me to confirm my name and then reads the charge and asks how I plead. I say not guilty and then the persecution begins its case. Presumably they’ll say my car was gunned at excess speed (should I be tempted to shout objection at this point as no speeding charge has been proven?), the DVLC provided keeper info, a NIP/s172 was issued requesting driver info for or on behalf of the Chief Constable and I didn’t reply. I’m guessing that’s about it from them and presumably it’s then my turn but I’m concerned by this bit from Mohindra

QUOTE
The defendant ought to have raised the point before the close of the prosecution case and the prosecution should have been given the opportunity of proving that the requirement was lawfully made.
Or does this only apply if the NIP etc isn’t in the bundle? If it does apply, at what point do I shout objection?

Bob Sprocket suggested the I try the following

QUOTE
The way to stop them steaming past your objections is to object and then state that you wish to make an application under s76 and s78 of PACE for the evidence to be excluded and formally request a voire dire to consider this. In order to force them to consider it under s76 you have to represent that the evidence may be unreliable and the reason that it is unreliable is because it cannot be proved that the s172 request was made by or on behalf of the chief constable. In a s76 voire dire the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is reliable. You use all of your cases and other counties s172 notices to highlight the doubt which must exist. At the end of this the Magistrates must make a decision on whether to exclude the evidence or not before they can go back to the main trial.

Both Brown v Stott in general terms (s172 has all of the protections against the admission of unfair or unreliable evidence) and the Government's submission to the ECHR says that s172 has all of the protections of s76 and s78 PACE.


Any views on whether this is the way to go?

If this isn’t the best route, presumably I just say “The fact is that the s172 notice which is the prosecution are trying to adduce is fatally defective. There are binding judgements which provide all of the authority that your worships require to exclude this defective document."

At this point I hand over a copy of Mohindra with this bit highlighted

QUOTE
26. In none of the many authorities relating to proof of authority of the chief officer of police has the principle being doubted that the prosecution must prove that the requirement was made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police. That principle was enunciated by Lord Parker CJ in Osgerby v Walden [1967]Crim LR 307 and cited with approval by the Divisional Court in Pamplin v Gorman 1980 RTR 54, 61K.
27. The most recent authority on the evidence required to prove the lawfulness of a requirement under section 172 is Arnold v DPP (1999) RTR 99. In that case a copy of the Notice under section 172 was annexed to a statement with a certificate of posting, disclosing the sender as “manager for the Chief Constable”.

35. ...  In future, the problem can easily be solved by ensuring that the section 9 Statement annexed a copy of the notice and requirement, with the signature and authority of the author of the signature as described in Arnold.


Osgerby with this bit highlighted

QUOTE
The justices were right to hold that the prosecution must prove that the constable was acting on behalf of the chief officer, and not to rely on the inference that a constable would normally be acting be so acting.
Foster v Farrel with this bit highlighted

QUOTE
whereas the information sought to be obtained under section 232 can be required from a person only "by or on behalf of a chief officer of police". There seems to be an obvious distinction drawn in the Act between information which may be demanded of a member of the public by a police constable, i.e. by any policeman acting in the course of his duty as such, and information which may be so demanded only "by or on behalf of a chief officer of police" . The latter expression seems to me to mean that the interrogator who makes the demand for the information as to the identity of the driver must be either (in this case) the chief constable himself or someone specially authorised by him to ask for that information.

Lord MacKintosh
“an incriminating statement) may be required only by, or on behalf of, a chief officer of police. Where relatively minor powers are given they may be exercised by any police constable; but, when one comes to the much more serious matter of requiring a person to give information which may incriminate him, it is reasonable that Parliament should provide -- as I think it has -- that the information should be required only by, or on behalf of, some higher authority.”

Lord Strachan
“The latter expression seems to me to mean that the interrogator who makes the demand for the information as to the identity of the driver must be either (in this case) the chief constable himself or someone specially authorised by him to ask for that information.”


Then I inform the justices that every other Scamera partnership issues the s172 in it's correct format with the full "for and on behalf of the CoP" subscription against the signatures and would they like to see a copy of these whilst theatrically waving them. Even if the prosecution objects, at least they'll know about this rather than thinking I'm challenging the entire system and must therefore be guilty.

Then I finish by saying that  " Section 172 of the RTA 1988 is a very onerous measure. It allows the person asking the question to force you, by threat of prosecution for failure, to provide an answer which may well be self incriminating. In the judgement of the Law Lords in Brown v Stott they say that s172 properly applied is a proportionate response to a serious public need and therefore the accepted incursion into our right not to be forced to self incriminate is acceptable and according to that judgement is not a breach of article 6.1 of the ECHR. If it is not properly applied it is therefore a breach. The prosecution must prove that the person making the request was doing so with the special authority of the Chief Constable. The Mohindra judgement clearly states that a copy of the requirement must be affixed to an s9 statement, that copy must have the name of the author on it and must state their authority in words such as for and on behalf of the Chief Constable. The notice issued to me is fatally defective and cannot therefore be used to provide the proof required in s12 (a) of the Road Traffic Offenders act. Therefore no admission of identity may be made by using s12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act".

Then I sit down and wait for the prosecution to withdraw their case?

All of your views on how I need to amend this will be very gratefully received.

One final question – I’ve seen mention of the “cosy chat” many times but I’m not really certain where or when this happens or what I should say. Is there a chance of getting the case dropped without the trial if I explain to the CPS during this chat that the s172 is defective?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 9 May 2005 - 11:13
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



On a positive note, I'm intending on taking my application for costs along next week when I attend court. I'm thinking about 30 - 40 hours plus printing/photocopying. I seem to remember the max claim is about £10.50 hour and then 10p per copy or something - is this right? Anything else I should consider claiming?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Wed, 11 May 2005 - 17:07
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



Any advice - only got a few days left before my case and whilst I'm quite happy, I'd like views on the final strategy and whether to object to the prosecutuion saying "and a s172 request was issued for and on behalf of the CoP" or to wait until the proscution rests and then just to say there's no evidence that it was requested by the CoP followed up with lots of case law etc.

Any views greatly appreciated

Thanks

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Observer
post Wed, 11 May 2005 - 17:24
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Member No.: 433



Mikey,

I can't see anything to add except good luck.  As far as the timing of your objection goes, you need to do that as soon as evidence of the NIP/s.172 is presented.

When is your trial?


--------------------
Have you benefited from PePiPoo?
Please make a donation or become a member
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 10:20
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



So I just leap to my feet and shout "objection!" when the prosecution says "and a s172 request was issued for and on behalf of the CoP" or are magistarates couts different to TV programmes!?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Observer
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 10:28
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Member No.: 433



QUOTE (mikey748)
So I just leap to my feet and shout "objection!" when the prosecution says "and a s172 request was issued for and on behalf of the CoP" or are magistarates couts different to TV programmes!?


This is not my specific area of expertise but I would "beg the court's pardon for interrupting but I wish to make a submission on the admissibility of this evidence and does the court wish to hear my objection now or when the prosecution has finished presenting this piece of evidence" (the 'assumptive close').  If you want to push for a voire dire, you may need to be a bit more assertive.


--------------------
Have you benefited from PePiPoo?
Please make a donation or become a member
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
firefly
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 10:29
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,705
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: ex-Scotland
Member No.: 298



QUOTE (mikey748)
So I just leap to my feet and shout "objection!" when the prosecution says "and a s172 request was issued for and on behalf of the CoP" or are magistarates couts different to TV programmes!?

biggrin.gif  :D Very good!

I'd rather go with the Rumpole of the Bailey approach, rather than any hysterical American law program (LA Law, Ally McBeal etc).  

In all seriousness, all it requires is standing up at the point you mention and objecting.  You will need to be very clear when stating why.  Have your speech rehearsed, so that you know exactly what you are saying; but more importantly, know why you are stating it, as you may have to think on your feet if further questions are put to you regarding it.  It's not that difficult an argument so it shouldn't be too problematic.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 11:50
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



Thanks for that - I'll try not to be too theatrical about it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 14:28
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,923
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Member No.: 1,341



Good luck.

When can we expect to see your blow by blow account of the result?

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Thu, 12 May 2005 - 14:41
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



Thanks to everyone for the help and support - hopefully i'll not let you down but I don't have all that much faith in British justice after reading some of the posts on here so fingers crossed.

Will post the result early next week and would still welcome any last minute advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NoWayK
post Fri, 13 May 2005 - 10:51
Post #33


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Member No.: 1,781



Apologies to mikey748 for hijacking his thread but the joint NIP/s172 issued in my case was identical to his. Sadly I completed the NIP and am now fighting on disclosure. I think Mohindra says that in my case the invalid NIP is now irrelevant but I wondered if the experts here could confirm that, perhaps on the end of my thread to avoid further disruption here.

Thanks, and all the best for next week mikey748.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Fri, 13 May 2005 - 22:52
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



Mikey, keep the faith.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:27
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 2 Dec 2004
Member No.: 1,974



So this is how it went......

I was down for a 9.45 hearing but didn't get called untill 11.30 giving me plenty of time to get nervous etc etc.

Get called in, listen to the charges, plead not guilty and the CPS numpty says she wants to adjourn - apparently this was just an adjournment hearing (whatever that might be) and she needs to call witnesses. I'm a bit pi$$ed off by this as nothing indicated to me that this was anything other than a trial so I point this out. She says she wants to call the chap who had a s9 witness statement to give evidence so I ask why as I have no problem with his statement and calling him for the point I'm arguing would just cause delay and cost and not add anything. She says she's not capable to prosecute the case and asks the magistrates if it would be OK to move this to another court with a more senior CPS prosecuter who may understand my points. They agree and I'm back to the waiting room.

Another hour passes and the new prosecuter comes to see me to tell me the case wont be long and to ask why I think I'm not guilty. Following CJMs lead I say only that one of the documents is defective and there's no case to answer. Oh says he - which one and why? I  then debate with him on what I have to gain by telling him and he suggests an adjourment would give me time to issue a defence statement with copies of case law etc that may get the case dropped due to lack of evidence. Bollox says I politely - I dont need to issue any defence statement as I'm a litigant in person. A wry smile crosses his face at this point and he asks if he can see the defective s172 and case law so he can decide whether to drop the case or proceed. I ask for time to think about it over a cigerette and he says he'll join me. Now this was an interesting chat covering all of the problems Norfolk have had with s9 statements and also covering Dwight York etc. He says he's impressed with my knowledge (thanks everyone!) and convinces me to let him scan the documents by saying he had no intention of proceeding if he was likely to lose and to be honest, he seemed like a good bloke so I agreed.  icon_eek.gif

At his point I hit him with Mohindra which he reads for a while and before he finishes I show him all of the correct s172s from PePiPoo (again thanks all!). Ummm he says "I'll need to check this is current and it would be good to find those judgements referred to in Mohindra, namely Arnold, Osgerby, etc. I have copies says I. OK he replies, we need to go through this with the clerk and I need to check Mohindra is current. It is I reply, I've checked! icon_wink.gif

So another 15 minutes and then I'm in front of the Mags again - charge, not guilty etc etc. The prosecution then informs the Mags that he requires 15 mins with me and the clerk to review case law and tells them how helpful I've been supplying copies and how it would appear I have an excellent case it is his intention to offer no evidence if the case law proves compelling  biggrin.gif so out they trudge.

So much scanning of documents by the clerk and CPS follows during which the clerk tells me how impressed she is with my preparation and "did you get all of this from the interweb"  laugh.gif - it is Norfolk after all!

This also gave me the opportunity to show the clerk the correct s172s again at which point she suggests to the CPS guy that I've got them bang to rights! "Not so fast" he says "what about Arnold" and reads this

QUOTE
20. Looking at the document as a whole, having regard to the form in which Mr Romaine's name appears on it as "Manager, for the Chief Constable", and bearing in mind that it emanates from the Central Ticket Office of the Thames Valley Police, I entertain no doubt that the Justices here well entitled on the evidence to reach the factual conclusion they did.
Ha Ha shouts me what about Mohindra

QUOTE
27. The most recent authority on the evidence required to prove the lawfulness of a requirement under section 172 is Arnold v DPP (1999) RTR 99. In that case a copy of the Notice under section 172 was annexed to a statement with a certificate of posting, disclosing the sender as “manager for the Chief Constable”.

35. ...  In future, the problem can easily be solved by ensuring that the section 9 Statement annexed a copy of the notice and requirement, with the signature and authority of the author of the signature as described in Arnold.


At which point the Clerk says there's no chance of him winning this and it should be dropped - he agrees and she agrees to enter no case to answer as the result biggrin.gif

The Clerk then asks if I want apply for costs and I say yes here's the statement. She tells me I cant claim the prep time and then we argue the toss for a few minutes before she says "I think we know more about the law than you do" at which I wave a hand at the pile of case law scattered around the desks and say "I dont think so!" rolleyes.gif  So shes taken my £480 claim away to be taxed.

The CPS has said he'll be contacting the CTO to get them to amend their forms but in the meantime the loophole's there for anyone sitting on a s172. Is there any chance of getting old convictions overturned because of this??

Finally I really need to thank everyone on here but especially Bob Sprocket, Andy Foster, Jeffrey, CJM, Firefly and hopefully I haven't missed anyone

Funny aside to all of this - I went to the Wig and Pen pub next to the courts to celebrate with friends and was giving an embelished version of events when i notice the CPS guy sitting at the next table - he grinned at what he'd heard. As I said - good bloke really!

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt1133
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:33
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,749
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
From: Strasbourg (soon)
Member No.: 1,017



Congratulations  :partyman:

Maybe this should be sent to the press and cause another 'folly bottom'

cheers,
matt


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:37
Post #37


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,256
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Congrats Mike!

QUOTE (mikey738)
... she says "I think we know more about the law than you do" at which I wave a hand at the pile of case law scattered around the desks and say "I dont think so!"  


Priceless!

wav.gif

[edit: Mike, as regards Matt's suggestion, Paul Smith at SafeSpeed might be able to help spread the word.]

[edit2: There are quite a few people with Norfolk NIP/S172s who might benefit from your post above being added to your thread in the JP forum, and you might also want to add a quick note and link in the "Success Stories" thread in the Cases In Progress forum, while you can still see only one keyboard...]


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt1133
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:40
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,749
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
From: Strasbourg (soon)
Member No.: 1,017



QUOTE
I ask for time to think about it over a cigerette and he says he'll join me


And watch the prosecutions arguments go up in smoke  rolleyes.gif  laugh.gif

As a matter of interest what case law did you use to wipe the smile off the clerks face regarding costs? maybe it could be added to the useful legislation sticky.


cheers,
matt


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Observer
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:44
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Member No.: 433



Well done, mikey.


--------------------
Have you benefited from PePiPoo?
Please make a donation or become a member
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:49
Post #40


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,869
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



QUOTE
In the meantime the loophole's there for anyone sitting on a s172. Is there any chance of getting old convictions overturned because of this??


congratulations.. & very well done..   laugh.gif  

rgds
Bill


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 05:16
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.