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 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 11:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:53
Post #41


Member


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



Matt,

These bits seemed to do the trick.

Mohindra
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 v Walden

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.
Arnold
QUOTE
What clearly is the final analysis the Justices needed to be satisfied of was that the sender of the document was acting "on behalf of a Chief Officer of Police" within the meaning of section 172(2)(a) when he required Mr Arnold to supply the informations as to the identity of the driver concerned.

17. What Kilner Brown J said in Pamplin v Gorman at page 62 was this:
"It is quite plain from the authorities that it is not sufficient for justices, faced with a challenge as they were in this case, to rely on a presumption. They have to look at the evidence before them, and they have to say whether or not on the evidence before them they are entitled to draw an inference. The history of the decisions of this court illustrates quite plainly that this court has always been most anxious to ensure that justices do not reduce themselves to mere presumption but do apply their minds to the evidence and do see whether or not there is sufficient evidence from which the appropriate inference can be drawn."



Foster v. Farrel
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.


Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt1133
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:55
Post #42


Member


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



Hi mikey,

In regards to the costs icon_wink.gif

cheers,
matt


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 17:57
Post #43


Member


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



Can one of the Mods move this thread back to the JP forum - not certain how much longer I'll last tonight! icon_jook.gif  :partyman:

Ta

Mikey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 18:21
Post #44


Member


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



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


Done - also considering a press release but would like to know if this only helps current cases or if all old cases can be reopened (unlikely?)

QUOTE
[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...]


Added to success stories and asked the Mods to move it back to the JP forum for the good of all. Hic!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 18:27
Post #45


Member


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



QUOTE
Hi mikey,

In regards to the costs  

cheers,
matt


Sorry Matt - too many sodas!  :roll:

No case law - she just said she would put it forward for taxation as I think she was fed up arguing with me - if they turn it down I'll have a word with CJM as he seems to have papered his walls with copies of cheques from the CPS!

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 18:58
Post #46


Member


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



Hi Mike,

Congratulations and well done.

I guess that this almost makes up for the desperately bad news at the weekend for all Norwich fans. wink.gif

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chri5
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 19:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,654



Superb stuff!  8)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Mon, 16 May 2005 - 22:53
Post #48


Member


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



Congrats and well done, Mikey. biggrin.gif
As I said, keep the faith!
As to the press releases etc., I don't know about that.
Upside; the CPS guy said he's going to tell them to change the forms anyway, so this defence will close press relaease or no press release.
Downside; I think that there are ways round this (and Andy Foster & Mikey know what).
Once it hits the press, they will no doubt try that.
There are a few Pepipooers who have still to reach court; we don't want to scupper them.
QUOTE (mikey748)
He 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.

1) Did he say that? Or are you just interpolating from the first half of the sentence?
2) I would say that it applies to a speeding as well (RTOA 1988, S12.(1)(a) and Foster v Farrel)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BritishBlue
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 06:28
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 525



QUOTE (mikey748)
So this is how it went......
<snip>
I went to the Wig and Pen pub next to the courts to celebrate with friends


I am absolutely delighted for you Mikey. Well done!  :D


--------------------
BritishBlue

user posted image

Have you benefited from Pepipoo? Please make a reasonable donation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
firefly
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 06:37
Post #50


Member


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



Very well done Mikey.  :D

I've said it before, but there can be few things in life more satisfying ( icon_eek.gif ) than standing up in court and securing a 'no case to answer' verdict from a justice, and doing it without anyone's aid too.

Despite my pessimism, I'm glad you went through with it in the end.  I'm doubly heartened that this seems to be an avenue worthy of more thought than I had previously given it.  I always assumed that the CPS would try and bulldoze their way around a litigant in person on that narrow point.  It seems you had a decent prosecutor against you who was willing to put his hands up and take it on the chin.

Good work fella!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NoWayK
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 06:49
Post #51


Member
Group Icon

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



Absolutely brilliant mikey, well done.

If you could hold off changing Norfolk's goalposts until at least June 23rd it would be much appreciated!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 07:13
Post #52


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (mikey748)
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.


You’re a very naughty boy. laugh.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 07:19
Post #53


Member


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



Does anyone know what the mileage rate is?

If I win I'll have to claim 1400 miles, subsistance including two overnight hotels and of course my preparation time.

My s172 notice is even more defective than Mikeys, but I guess that I might get a less reasonable prosecutor.

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 07:28
Post #54


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,284
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Was 45ppm (pence per mile) when mb1rgw's case was discontinued (Nov 2004)


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 08:50
Post #55


Member


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



Hi Andy,

That would make sense as I believe it is the rate that the Inland Revenue allow for the use of a private car on company business.

So My costs are likely to be:

Mileage:  £630  
Subsistence: £120
Preparation:  £350
Postage and photocopying: £20

Total £1120

And if someone with a legal brain had bothered to look at my skeleton argument and the documents they could see that there is a fatal defect.

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 08:54
Post #56


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (Bob_Sprocket)
And if someone with a legal brain had bothered to look at my skeleton argument and the documents they could see that there is a fatal defect.


Where are they going to find one of those when all the ‘crack troops’ are working on WMD intelligence?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 09:12
Post #57


Member


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



Wiltshire need to give their Communications Officer a bit of legal training!

QUOTE
“Recipients of a Notice of Intended Prosecution are required by law to give details of the person in charge of any vehicle registered in their name, at the time the alleged offence was committed. Motorists cannot escape prosecution by not complying”, said Saira Khan, Communications Officer for the Safety Camera Unit.


If the person responsible for communicating vital messages from the Wiltshire scammerbinieri doesn't know the difference between a NIP and an s172 notice what hope have employees less well endowed with communication skills got!

If Miss Khan is reading this and in the unlikely event that you are still working in as Communications Officer for Wiltshire. I strongly advise that you go away and read s172 of the RTA 1988 and s1 of the RTOA 1988. If you still don't understand let us know and one of us will explain.

Best wishes

Bob

The devil's in the detail
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 10:29
Post #58


Member


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



Thanks everyone for your good wishes - I have the hangover from hell today but the drive to work this morning was good fun since I thought I'd be on the bus!

BobSprockett wrote
QUOTE
I guess that this almost makes up for the desperately bad news at the weekend for all Norwich fans.
Thanks for the reminder!

JeffreyArcher wrote
QUOTE
mikey748 wrote:
He 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.

1) Did he say that? Or are you just interpolating from the first half of the sentence?


He did say this in not so many words - it was more that he needs to get this amended to stop others using it. He was also saying they've had loads of problems with the Norfolk Scameraship over paperwork (s9 issues etc). My impression was he'd drop any case where there was a challenge on the same basis as mine. I also think I mentioned that Norfolk were letting people off recently who said they never received the NIP/s172 - I know 3 people who used this on the same day after the first one succeeded and the CPS guy and clerk confirmed it had happened(may be related to his criptic comment about s9 though and this has been corrected)


Firefly wrote
QUOTE
I always assumed that the CPS would try and bulldoze their way around a litigant in person on that narrow point.  It seems you had a decent prosecutor against you who was willing to put his hands up and take it on the chin.
Perhaps I was lucky with the 2 clerks and 2 prosecutors or perhaps it was down to attitude etc. My advice (in Norfolk anyway) would be

1. Dress well - newly drycleaned suit, tie etc, clean shoes, flatten your spikey hair (if you have any)

2. DONT be arrogant and appear to know everything - pander to their egos. When I knew I was right on a point of law, I phrased my objection as a (leading) question rather than a challenge and then they were happy to debate the merits of the challenge rather than (as Andy Foster put it )

QUOTE
IMHO, when a litigant in person starts to tell a bench, consisting of three randomly chosen upstanding pillocks of the community, that the police have made such a fundamental balls up, they will see a deranged lunatic, wearing a tin-foil hat, quoting from the Hitler diaries, and ranting that it was the CIA who killed JFK.


3. Be humble, be polite but don't get railroaded - if you know you are right continue to question what you are being told politely and don't let them see you as some tosser who thinks he's an internet lawyer.

4. The prosecutor I had appeared to have no intention of taking on a case he had a good chance of losing - part of this opinion was probably formed by my knowledgable demeanour (he knew I was prepared to "debate") and partly by the case law.

5. Take 5 colour copies of all case law (yours, 3 for the Mags, one for the CPS  :wink: and one for the Clerk) - I downloaded mine into Word and then used the highlight function on the bits I thought were most important (neater than highlight pen). They loved this and the CPS guy pointed out to the Mags how very helpful I was being.

QUOTE
I'm doubly heartened that this seems to be an avenue worthy of more thought than I had previously given it.
I think this is very true - the CPS found Mohindra very compelling from the start - on first reading his comment was "if this is still current, I cannot see how there is any case to answer" They especially liked this bit

QUOTE
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.



Mika wrote
QUOTE
You’re a very naughty boy.  :lol:


You guys taught me well  :wink:

If anyone planning a similar defence needs help, PM me with your mail address and I'll forward on the nicely highlighted case law in Word along with my skeleton argument.

If someone is less confident and really doesn't want to attend court, I'd be tempted to get it dropped by the CPS by writing to them (outside of the 6 mths for the speeding to time out) with my skeleton argument and all of the case law. Not certain if this would work but better than pleading guilty.

Thanks again

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cjm99
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 12:22
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,109
Joined: 16 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 675



Fabulous news, There is no feeling to match it, is there?  biggrin.gif  biggrin.gif

PS the guidelines for costs litigants in person is to be found on their own website!!

'Courts and legal services'
http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/YAWS/frmcosts_2g...g/section22.htm


MODERATORS.....

You may consider putting this URL in a sticky? We do seem to be requiring it rather frequently lately!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stealthtax
post Tue, 17 May 2005 - 12:38
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Member No.: 2,726



i had a conviction from the norfolk constabulary a few months ago (thetford court), whats the chances of having it overturned? i have already appealed on it so i could add this to my appeal bumf.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Friday, 17th August 2018 - 05:53
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.