Wife is Registered Keeper, will name me as driver Options

[MickeyP]

Briefly my question is this:

My wife has received a NIP, must be sent off tomorrow. I have no wish to embroil her in controversial "unsigned NIP" procedure, and B&B letters ( yes I have been reading the forums extensively!).

So she will name me and sign.

Elsewhere in the forums it seems that I will be then getting my own NIP in due course. It also says authorities are unlikely to use signed wife's NIP as evidence ( why not?) and anyway can't call her to testify against her own spouse.

Is this procedure ( second NIP to nominated driver) universal, or does it vary from force to force ?

My force is London, and I was a little worried to see in one forum that London have "combined 172a and 172b" in one document. What does this mean ?

Any comments/advice most appreciated: I don't want to accidentally let out any evidence into authorities' hands!

[Advertisement]

[jeffreyarcher]

Elsewhere in the forums it seems that I will be then getting my own NIP in due course. It also says authorities are unlikely to use signed wife's NIP as evidence ( why not?)

Two reasons:
1) Generally, she wasn't there. Even if she was there, unless there are unusual circumstances, the scammers will be unaware of this fact.
2) Her form is not evidence.
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 12.
12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and
(B) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,
the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

Is this procedure ( second NIP to nominated driver) universal, or does it vary from force to force ?

It's not just 'procedure', it's the law.

My force is London, and I was a little worried to see in one forum that London have "combined 172a and 172b" in one document. What does this mean ?

Merely that they haven't differentiated between a S172 notice to a RK and one to a non RK. Unless you're using the 'reasonable diligence' (Christine Hamilton) route, it's irrelevent.

[MickeyP]

OK now got my own NIP. Thought Francis case was this week; will keep an eye open for results on this before deciding what to do.

Ever hopeful

[jeffreyarcher]

OK now got my own NIP. Thought Francis case was this week; will keep an eye open for results on this before deciding what to do.

16/3/03.

[MickeyP]

Well, I'm now trying to understand PACE.

May I ask those who know :

1) What is the difference between: a) a signed witness statement

B) a signed witness statement invoking PACE

c) a signed S172 reply ?


Would it not be more direct and harder for the authorities to deal with to fill in the S172, and type on a rider to the effect:

"It is believed the CPS may wish to use this statement in court, however it should be noted thatit has been completed without the addressee having been informed of his/her rights under PACE"

Sign it. Photocopy it and post it registered.

It complies with Idris, Broomfield Pickford and the LAW.

I don't believe there is anywhere on the form where it says you can't add information.

I presume the outcome will be a conviction for speeding or a conviction for S172 both of which may be appealable, subject to outcome of 2nd April.

Another question:

Somewhere else in the forums it says if you are going to use PACE, do it soon, and before returning the NIP. Why ?

Finally:

Maybe the Idris reasons when published will allow genuine Yorke compliant unsigned NIPs, i.e. if you were really abroad etc, had broken arm etc.

Is it worth waiting to see ? My NIP has to be returned 31st March ( when I will be genuinely abroad ).


Thanks for some comments, it really is quite complex. I thought I was a logical thinker, but this has me confused ....

[MickeyP]

OK a month's gone by....

I returned my NIP signed, and endorsed "information provided without the benefit of Pace Code C para 10.1 and on the understanding (FAQ no 3) that I am not being asked to incriminate myself".

My slight hope that this would put the Met off has been dashed: I came back from abroad to find Fixed Penalty offer in the post. Have to decide tomorrow whether to accept or not.

They say I was doing 42 in a 30. Don't believe it, but can't prove otherwise. It was a static Gatso.

I can either accept the FPO, or go to court and argue the NIP is not admissible, on the basis of PACE, and what the Met say in their FAQs. If the Clerk of the court is worth his salt, he will pull out all the recent UK case law saying PACE is not necessary in motoring offences. Conviction in Mag's court is as I see it certain. And also in appeal court, as Mika says this cannot be sorted out except in European Court.

Problem is, the whole PACE thing could take years ( European Court ) to sort out. As I see it, if I plead not guilty, I will just have to pay a whopping fine and costs ( yep, I have a more than decent income) ; so have lots to lose.

Presumably if the European Court overturns all the self-incriminated convictions, this would only apply to convictions in court, not to accepted FPO's ?

I'm inclined to just pay up; it will also get my wife off my back ( "be a man, not a whinger !").

Leaving my wife to one side for the moment, can anyone see anything wrong with my thinking ?

Would really appreciate some thoughts by tomorrow evening. I am prepared to have my day in court "for the cause" but only if there is good reason, i.e. if I have a chance to achieve something beyond being cannon fodder to the system.

Best greetings to all

[Talion]

static GATSO's normally have secondary check lines, you need both photo's and to measure the distance between the white lines, you can then check if you really was doing 42.

[Mika]

Mickey,

One point of clarification:

Recent UK case law does not say “PACE is not necessary in motoring offences”, but rather it says:

PACE applies to the RTA & RTOA 1988 and specifically to S 172 [no one had thought that it did before the ruling in Y&M], but that an explanation of your rights is not required before you are required to provide the signed witness statement – S 12 RTOA 1988.

In my experience, any Clerk of the court that is “worth his salt”, is very uncomfortable with the above argument.

Furthermore, the appeal to the ECHR is already underway, and don’t forget that PACE has always applied to Section 172 of the RTA.

Were I in your position, I would very carefully ‘vertically file’ the FPN because, if there is one Constabulary in this country that understand PACE, that is the Met.

[mb1rgw]

Recent UK case law does not say “PACE is not necessary in motoring offences”, but rather it says:

PACE applies to the RTA & RTOA 1988 and specifically to S 172 [no one had thought that it did before the ruling in Y&M], but that an explanation of your rights is not required before you are required to provide the signed witness statement – S 12 RTOA 1988.

Is it not more accurate to say that the explanation of rights is not required as long as the purpose of the request falls within the description "to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement"?

Thus, if the information can be provided in a form which satisfies the statutory requirement but without providing a (usable) witness statement, a caution does now become required, since the basis of the exemption from the requirement for a caution has been removed.

Robin

[Mika]

Robin,

PACE was considered in dpp v Francis:

“18. That leaves only the argument that a caution was required. Mr Laprell submitted that the exemption spelt out in Code C: 10.1 cannot be relied upon because it only applies "if questions are for other (his emphasis) necessary purposes e.g. to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement." Here the question was not for another purpose. It was to provide the evidence which the prosecution required to complete its case. Mr Parker submitted and I accept, that read in context the word "other" does not have to be given a narrow meaning for which Mr Laprell contends. It can mean "further" or "additional" and that is how it should be interpreted so as not to give rise to the sort of unhappy self-contradiction now apparent on the face of forms used in Cambridgeshire and apparently in Essex. Paragraph 10.9 of the Code is simply not applicable to the sort of situation with which we are concerned in this case. Accordingly, in my judgment, Owen J was right to decide as he did in Mawdesley and Yorke as to the need for a caution.”

However, we may be looking at the same question from two different angles, and if I understand you correctly, your scenario may ensure that failure to provide the caution could prove fatal to the prosecution’s case, as they may have an unusable witness statement.

My scenario may be the question that the ECHR will have to answer – can one be ‘forced’ [by inducement and threat of a greater punishment] to provide a signed witness statement [section 12 RTOA 1988], without having first received an explanation of my rights under PACE?

Is the requirement for the purpose as interpreted by Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Mackay, or rather for the purpose that would appear to be written in law

RTOA 12.1:

“(B) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,”

[MickeyP]

Is it not more accurate to say that the explanation of rights is not required as long as the purpose of the request falls within the description "to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement"?

Thus, if the information can be provided in a form which satisfies the statutory requirement but without providing a (usable) witness statement, a caution does now become required, since the basis of the exemption from the requirement for a caution has been removed.

Robin

Is what you say basically not the hub of the "unsigned NIP" defence strategy, which has now been torpedoed ? i.e the "statutory requirement" has now been interpreted twice (Y&M and Idris) as meaning you have to provide the information in a way that it is usable against you in a prosecution, and what's more, you are not entitled to a caution, unless a higher court ( ECHR or ECJ) says otherwise ?

Does anyone know from general experience how many points 12mph over limit is recommended, and likely fine & costs at mags ? I know it is not hard and fast, but I can afford to invest a point or 2, and maybe £100 to see their hand; wouldn't want to go £500 or £1000 though. Marital credibility would take sharp knock !

Is it a fact that you pay less if you plead guilty after summons but without going to court ?

[MickeyP]

I'm out of time now and haven't accepted the FPN. I feel swayed by Mika's advice to "file it vertically". Let's see what happens .......

Thanks for all your comments. Will take up thread again when news happens, which I suppose will be shortly. The Met have been pretty efficient so far.

[MickeyP]

Just to update you all, still waiting for summons. Must be 6 months or so from date of the offence. I think they have another month ?

Tension mounts !

[MickeyP]

Well last week-end was 6 months + one month. How long will it be realistically before I can be sure no summons has been issued ? Anybody know ?

[Talion]

I think once the 6 months +28 is up, you can give the court a call and check if the papers have been layed

[MickeyP]

Thanks Talion; is it likely to be a local court or the nearest court to where the alleged offence took place ? I'm talking about a large police force with many coourts in it .

Thanks for any info. Mind you another week's gone by; I'm getting more confident though not claiming victory just yet !

[Talion]

ok we know you can call the courts to check once time has expired if papera have been laid,
what stops people callling the poilce force/TO in question and asking the status ?

[DW190]

Thanks Talion; is it likely to be a local court or the nearest court to where the alleged offence took place ? I'm talking about a large police force with many coourts in it .

Thanks for any info. Mind you another week's gone by; I'm getting more confident though not claiming victory just yet !

Stop worrying man. Phone the court or the ticket office and ask them weres the summons that you was promised. They wont bite and will just say its in the bin.

Write and ask for confirmation it has been filed in the bin with the big
Rubish on it.

[MickeyP]

Dear all,

Well I think it's just about a year now;  I know they're definitely out of time.  I am convinced the "PACE" modified form I returned caused them not to go ahead after I ignored the conditional offer.

It's all thanks to the advice in these forums, most especially Mika for stiffening my backbone when the crunch came.

I'll private mail Mika the exact form as I returned it when I can work out how to work the scanner.   It may be of help to others.

Another result for Pepipoo !

Thanks to all who gave me helpful advice.


best regards


Mickey  :D

[Mika]

Hi Mickey,

Well done.

I am sooooooo looking forward to Matt’s Judicial Review:

“But we had no intention of using ‘it’ as evidence in a criminal prosecution – honest”.

They may need to wheel in their top ‘wordsmith’ for this one.