PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Your not playing fair, so I'm going to tell cps on you, Young v Day
andypandy
post Tue, 3 Feb 2004 - 18:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,046
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Member No.: 699



Well I have received a letter from the police saying that they are to proceed with a summons because the information is unsufficient because I cannot/ will not tell them who was driving at the time the car was clocked, and therfore are going prosecute me under sec 172 for failing to notify.

my case history is

I was sent nip early Dec 03 for speeding at 38 mph .
Phoned up after finding info on this site and asked for photographs.
Sent letter requesting photos and received them two weeks later.
Sent back unable to identify letter by recorded delivery.
Received final demand letter and filled in the unable to identify section, signed and returned recorded delivery.


I thought that by giving them two possible drivers at the time of the alleged offence that they might do some good old fashioned investigating. The photos I received, do not give clear images, they have only a silhouette with no facial details.

Are they serious, or is this just another bluff to see if I crumble. I will not give a guilty plea until I have clear photo or video evidence to the contrary.

Is there anything I might be able to do, to put them off a summons


AndyPandy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
jeffreyarcher
post Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 15:21
Post #2


Member


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



QUOTE (andypandy)
It say that the offence at location ***** ST between junction A and junction B.  Between points A and B there is a change in the speed limit.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young v Day (DC) Divisional Court c.1959

(1959) 123 J.P. 317

Summary: The Divisional Court refused to set aside a decision by the justices that a notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 was insufficiently particular where it stated the place of the offence of dangerous driving as "the Hothfield to Bethersden Road," which was a minor road four miles long. (Pope v. Clarke [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1060 followed).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pope v Clarke, (DC) Divisional Court, c.1953

Abstract: There is a distinction between the construction to be placed on a statute where the provisions are mandatory and where they are merely directory; thus, the object of the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 which requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served on the defendant, is to bring to the defendant's mind while events are still fresh in his memory the fact that he is going to be prosecuted, so that inaccuracies in the notice served are immaterial if they are not such as to mislead the defendant. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 in which the time of the alleged offence with which the defendant was going to be charged was incorrectly stated. The justices considered that this mistake invalidated the notice and dismissed the charge.
Summary: Held, there was no evidence that the defendant was misled; accordingly, the justices must proceed to hear the case. (Venn v Morgan [1949] 2 All E.R. 562 applied; and dicta of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733, 746 applied).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the point being that in imprecise NIP in itself does not make it invalid; the accused has to be misled.
I would say that you have been misled as the speed limit changes between the junctions.
That said, if there is more than 4 miles between the junctions, it appears that Young v Day has already decided that that is sufficient to mislead, whether or not the limit changed.

QUOTE (andypandy)
Would it be worth while to get the police to say precisely where the alleged offence took place or should I keep quiet on this point.

It's irrelevent for the purposes of determining the driver; you can't change drivers between junctions on a motorway.
So to use this defence, you'll have to name a driver and that person can use it as a defence to the speeding charge. I wouldn't warn them before court, there's lots of case law on the subject and they may find a counter if you forewarn them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- andypandy   Your not playing fair, so I'm going to tell cps on you   Tue, 3 Feb 2004 - 18:03
- - firefly   Hi AndyPandy QUOTE (AndyPandy)I will not give a g...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 09:49
- - The Rookie   With FF, the police are obliged, although the CPS ...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 12:13
- - Lance   I agree with ff that the police can only enforce t...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 12:55
- - andypandy   Hi guys Thanks for your replies. It gives me con...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 13:24
- - The Rookie   I don't believe that is the case, they have to sho...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 13:26
- - jeffreyarcher   QUOTE (andypandy)It say that the offence at locati...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 15:21
- - andypandy   Hi Jeffreyarcher Lets see if i get this right ...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 16:07
- - firefly   Hi all, QUOTE (Lance)If you weren't the RK, then ...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 16:44
- - The Rookie   With FF on this one, para 4 can be used by anyone,...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 17:07
- - cjm99   Surely, you must be wrong here. If the the keeper...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 17:13
- - firefly   Hi cjm99, QUOTE (cjm99)If the the keeper on that ...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 18:01
- - cjm99   Firefly. I will answer your second question later...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 18:37
- - jeffreyarcher   Sorry, andypandy, I misread your original post. I ...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 21:37
- - Lance   ff et al, Interesting points raised! Surely there...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 22:46
- - firefly   Hi cjm99, I assume that you are following the log...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 22:53
- - firefly   Hi Lance, I believe you may have grasped the wron...   Wed, 4 Feb 2004 - 23:25
- - cjm99   Firefly sec172 para 1. says :- must be allegedly...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 09:19
- - firefly   Hi cjm99 Let us break down the specific legislati...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 10:25
- - The Rookie   With FF, it says Keeper, not RK, the very fact tha...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 11:41
- - Lance   QUOTE Tell me why the legislation makes reference ...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 12:27
- - firefly   Hi Lance, QUOTE (Lance)E.g. Your grandmother ceas...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 13:43
- - cjm99   OK.. Granny sends back NIP unsigned. You get NIP...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 14:10
- - firefly   Hi Chris QUOTE (cjm99)How does the prosecution ev...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 15:01
- - Lance   ff, The difference between our understandings seem...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 15:19
- - firefly   QUOTE (Lance)ff, The difference between our unders...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 15:47
- - Lance   ff, I didn't say that the law was sensible! I jus...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 16:05
- - cjm99   FF There are times, when a non registered keeper ...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 16:07
- - cjm99   FF Just have a read at this post under 'speedin...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 16:49
- - jeffreyarcher   QUOTE (cjm99)What do you think? There were three t...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 17:19
- - firefly   I think we will just have to differ on this chaps....   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 17:54
- - Observer   FWIW, I agree with Lance and think FF's interpreta...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 21:06
- - firefly   Hi all, QUOTE (Observer)However, there is some (c...   Thu, 5 Feb 2004 - 21:50
- - firefly   Observer, The plot thickens somewhat........ Bel...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 09:40
- - cjm99   Hi.. The point I have tried to make, is does the ...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 10:09
- - Observer   FF, I don't think you can or should treat the wor...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 10:17
- - firefly   Observer, QUOTE (Observer)Whatever is contained i...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 10:58
- - Observer   QUOTE (firefly)Quite why subsection 4 omits subsec...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 11:16
- - r11co   Part of the reason I was worried about passing on ...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 11:30
- - Lance   The reason I think that subsection 4 omits subsect...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 11:57
- - firefly   Hi Lance, QUOTE (Lance)Para (a) says that the kee...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 15:32
- - Lance   ff, QUOTE But the difference here is that in para ...   Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 19:53
- - cjm99   but you were at the scene and did witness the inci...   Sat, 7 Feb 2004 - 15:27
- - firefly   Hi Lance, QUOTE (Lance)I think that supplying a n...   Sat, 7 Feb 2004 - 15:52
- - Odd Job   Perhaps the following will help to settle the argu...   Sun, 8 Feb 2004 - 15:12
- - firefly   Lance, Observer et al What are we to make of Loth...   Wed, 11 Feb 2004 - 11:13
- - Observer   QUOTE (firefly)Lance, Observer et al What are we ...   Wed, 11 Feb 2004 - 14:33
- - firefly   Hi all, Am beginning to have doubts that the regi...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 10:50
- - Observer   ff, I think you're trying to construct 'angels on...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 11:15
- - Lance   I think that some worthwhile issues have come out ...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 11:20
- - firefly   Observer, QUOTE (Observer)I think you're trying t...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 11:42
- - Mika   Chaps, In my opinion, the legislation may be deli...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 11:57
- - I've had enough   QUOTE (Mika)And could this be the reason that the ...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 12:28
- - DW190   Why does Palace change the way its spelt when copi...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 12:55
- - Mika   DW, It doesn’t: I made a cock-up and have edit...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 13:00
- - g_attrill   Not as bad as John Redwood's description of an ame...   Wed, 18 Feb 2004 - 22:50
- - jeffreyarcher   QUOTE (firefly)The legislation is, in my opinion, ...   Thu, 19 Feb 2004 - 00:37
- - firefly   Thanks jeffrey, It would appear indeed that this ...   Thu, 19 Feb 2004 - 14:55
- - Lance   One thing that I missed initially in the "any othe...   Thu, 19 Feb 2004 - 16:00
- - firefly   Hi Lance, QUOTE (Lance)Therefore passengers could...   Thu, 19 Feb 2004 - 16:21
- - firefly   Hi Lance, As a further point of interest, I spoke...   Tue, 24 Feb 2004 - 11:42
- - Lance   Just gone to have another read of the relevant sub...   Tue, 24 Feb 2004 - 15:47
- - Lance   Just been reading the Mohindra v. DPP case from th...   Tue, 27 Apr 2004 - 15:34
- - firefly   Hi again Lance, A volunteer maybe! Have you read...   Tue, 27 Apr 2004 - 21:37


Reply to this 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, 29th March 2024 - 14:10
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here