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 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 11:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
firefly
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 11:45
Post #2


Member


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



PM me your email address and I'll send you a copy of Kent's.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Observer
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 12:12
Post #3


Member


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



pm me your e-mail address and I'll send you one of Surrey's.


--------------------
Have you benefited from PePiPoo?
Please make a donation or become a member
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rebrabuk
post Tue, 5 Apr 2005 - 14:22
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 363
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,593



I'll try and get a copy of mine from Northumbria Police for you.. smile.gif

Good luck in your case by the way!  :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Mon, 25 Apr 2005 - 10:30
Post #5


Member


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



Just short of the following now - the other 12 all have the right "on behalf of the CoP" on them - it looks like Norfolk is the only Scameraship not to bother!

Any help Very Much Appreciated - having a full set could be very persuasive!

Bedfordshire & Luton
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cleveland
Cumbria
Devon & Cornwall
Dyfed
Essex
Fife
Gloucestershire
Gwent
Hertfordshire
Lancashire
Leicestershire & Rutland
Lincolnshire
Lothian & Borders
Mid & South Wales
Northumbria
North East
North Wales
Nottinghamshire
Powys
South Yorkshire
Staffordshire
Strathclyde
Suffolk
Sussex
Tayside
West Mercia
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rebrabuk
post Mon, 25 Apr 2005 - 10:53
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 363
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,593



I was unable to scan my Northumbria Police NIP in as scanner is broken. sad.gif

It's now been sent back aswell so too late to get any pics/scans. Sorry. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 01:43
Post #7


Member


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



Lothian & Borders (not mine 8)).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 07:24
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE (mikey748)
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


Hi,

<edit NOTE ADDED> I had not read your original thread before posting this. I don't know why you are nervous about running this based on the authorities which are binding on a Magistrates court. There is an absolute requirement that they must prove that the person making the s172 request was a person specially authorised by the chief constable to do this</edit>

You don't need to do all of this collecting NIP/s172s all you need is a nice collection of authorities which tell Magistrates exactly how they should act in a situation like yours.

In England possibly the most importnat of these is 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.
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.


Section 172 of the RTA 1988 is a very onorus 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.

There are no guarantees but IMHO you should win your case because of Mohindra alone but the other background cases will help you in this. The realy nice thing is that if and when you do win this will cause caos in Norfolk. Make sure the local papers run the story and every one who has been wrongly convicted has an opportunity to give them at least some correspondence to deal with.

Good luck

Bob

PS I have a Dorset NIP/socalled s172 notice you can have PM me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chri5
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 07:39
Post #9


Member


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



Cheshire for you Sir.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 08:11
Post #10


Member


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



sorry chris, you don't happen to have the full NIP/172 - this just shows the signature

thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chri5
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 08:44
Post #11


Member


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



Yup, I do - that is the only part I've scanned so far.

Will do a full copy for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 10:14
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Bob_Sprocket)
[<edit NOTE ADDED> I had not read your original thread before posting this. I don't know why you are nervous about running this based on the authorities which are binding on a Magistrates court. There is an absolute requirement that they must prove that the person making the s172 request was a person specially authorised by the chief constable to do this</edit>

You don't need to do all of this collecting NIP/s172s all you need is a nice collection of authorities which tell Magistrates exactly how they should act in a situation like yours.


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.

Therefore, it would seem to be well worth compiling as much relevant evidence as possible to support the credibility of the argument and the defendant.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 12:29
Post #13


Member


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



And when I win and see this, they'll know they were right!

icon_butt.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 14:01
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster)
Therefore, it would seem to be well worth compiling as much relevant evidence as possible to support the credibility of the argument and the defendant.


And there was me thinking that senior judges and Law Lords instructions contained in appeal judgements would be enough.

I bow to your superior experience and knowledge  ;)

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 26 Apr 2005 - 14:22
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Bob,

I agree that you should be right, but I know that if I had received a summons, I would want to walk into court with as much compelling evidence as I could cram into my briefcase.

It shouldn't be overlooked that the cases you mentioned are the key to the defence argument, and the copies of other forces' S172s are merely to illustrate the point, and shouldn't be allowed to detract from the compelling nature of those judgements.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Thu, 28 Apr 2005 - 01:03
Post #16


Member


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



The prosecution may well object to their admission. This happened several times at the end of the unsigned loophole where the accused sought to use other forces' responses in their defence. I presume because there's no witness to lead them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 28 Apr 2005 - 01:12
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Mikey,

If you want a hardcopy of a TVP NIP/S172 with an s9 statement to lead it, PM me your address.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mikey748
post Tue, 3 May 2005 - 10:45
Post #18


Member


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



Thanks Andy but I've already got a copy of your TVP s172 from the members area!

Jeffery - is there any way of countering the prosecutions objection to the example s172s - I think they are highly relevant to the case and would be happy to go toe to toe to fight for their admission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 3 May 2005 - 10:56
Post #19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Mikey,

That was why I offered an s9 statement. Having the NIP/S172 copies lead by s9 witness statements from those that received them would make them admissible unless the prostitution objected to the s9 statements within 7 days of being disclosed to them.

Also, whilst this does not alter the material part of the NIP/S172 copies, most that are posted online (mine included I think), have the personal details removed. This could cause a problem if Chris' evil twin was prosecuting (unless the s9 stated that they are producing a copy of the material part, not simply a copy).


--------------------
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, 3 May 2005 - 11:11
Post #20


Member


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



QUOTE (mikey748)
Thanks Andy but I've already got a copy of your TVP s172 from the members area!

Jeffery - is there any way of countering the prosecutions objection to the example s172s - I think they are highly relevant to the case and would be happy to go toe to toe to fight for their admission.


Hi Mikey,

When do you think that you will want to adduce them?

The only time they could be of any use to you would be if you object to the admission of the defective s172 notice which does not say "for and on behalf of the Chief Constable". I would say that you would be foolish to try and get something admitted which is of dubious admissibility in order to get something else excluded. However I don't think that it really matters whether they are admitted or not. By the time the prosecution has time to object you will have made you point.

The point is that you have very good authority from binding judgements which say that they must prove the authority of the chief constable. Mohindra satets exactly what form that must take and what the details of the proof are. All you are saying with your copy s172 notices is "see every other area does it right".

If the prosecution object when you wave the bundle about I would just concede and say. "I agree it is probably not relevant that every other area does this correctly because 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 you worships require to exclude this defective document." Hand over copies of Mohindra, Osgerby, Foster etc. "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 afixed 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 is fatally defective and canot 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 sit down and wait for the prosecution to withdraw their case.

Best wishes

Bob

PS With such strong binding authority the s172 copies are just a bit of a distraction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Sunday, 18th February 2018 - 03:05
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.