Your not playing fair, so I'm going to tell cps on you, Young v Day |
Your not playing fair, so I'm going to tell cps on you, Young v Day |
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:10 |