PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Can an ANONYMOUS NIP be on behalf of the Chief Constable?
Hardshouldertocr...
post Sun, 3 Oct 2004 - 19:49
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Member No.: 1,704



I'm in court soon for S172 and facing a ban if convicted.

The initial NIP letter I received asking me to name the driver was not signed by anyone. In fact, it was not attributed to anyone. Just a computer generated piece of paper. It had NO NAME on it at all. NO JOB TITLE. NO DEPARTMENT. NOTHING!!! It didn't even say "ticket office" or anything. The only indication of where it originated from was that it had a "Dorset Police" crest on the top of the letter. But nowhere on the letter was there any reference to the Chief Constable.

Can I claim that this letter was not on behalf of the CC?

Or will the magistrates just say it's obviously from the CC 'cos it has the crest?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Oct 2004 - 19:49
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DW190
post Sun, 3 Oct 2004 - 20:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,433
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
From: Lancashire
Member No.: 436



Some where on the document or along the line you should have had a request to provide information as to who was the driver of the vehicle No. ??/??? on ??/??/???? at ??.?? on ?????road. either from the Chief Constable or on behalf of the Chief Constable.

The request for the information must be made or they're bolloxed


--------------------
DW190

BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES

|^^^^^^^^^^^\||
|www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____
|_________________||__ |__|____|)
|(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@)

Frequently Asked Questions
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sun, 3 Oct 2004 - 20:11
Post #3


Member


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



QUOTE (Hardshouldertocryon)
The initial NIP letter I received asking me to name the driver was not signed by anyone.

Doesn't have to be signed by them, Arnold v DPP.

QUOTE (Hardshouldertocryon)
In fact, it was not attributed to anyone. Just a computer generated piece of paper. It had NO NAME on it at all. NO JOB TITLE. NO DEPARTMENT. NOTHING!!! It didn't even say "ticket office" or anything. The only indication of where it originated from was that it had a "Dorset Police" crest on the top of the letter. But nowhere on the letter was there any reference to the Chief Constable.
Can I claim that this letter was not on behalf of the CC?
Or will the magistrates just say it's obviously from the CC 'cos it has the crest?

I would say that you had a good chance, Mohindra v DPP.
The point is not that it was not sent on behalf of the CC, but that there is no evidence that it was sent by a person authorised by the CC.
1) It lacks a name or described signature.
2) It lacks any indication of any general management authority of the sender.
3) It lacks the declaration, 'for & on behalf of the CC'.

Running this may need legal advice as to tactics because Mohindra also contains 'anti-ambush' provisions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
firefly
post Sun, 3 Oct 2004 - 20:47
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,714
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: ex-Scotland
Member No.: 298



Hi HS,

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
I would say that you had a good chance, Mohindra v DPP.
The point is not that it was not sent on behalf of the CC, but that there is no evidence that it was sent by a person authorised by the CC.
1) It lacks a name or described signature.
2) It lacks any indication of any general management authority of the sender.
3) It lacks the declaration, 'for & on behalf of the CC'.

Running this may need legal advice as to tactics because Mohindra also contains 'anti-ambush' provisions.

Read onwards from paragraph 24 in Mohindra.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Mon, 4 Oct 2004 - 07:20
Post #5


Member


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



Hi,

I have Dorset NIP and asked a similar question here a few weeks ago. On my NIP it says "Manager, Central Ticket Office, Authorised Officer For and Behalf of Chief Constable" It was unsigned and there was no indication of the name of the "Manager". The first one I received did not have the Police Crest on it but a copy sent later did have.

My question was in relation to whether a job title can be authorised or only a named person. I would contend that only a person can be authorised and not a job title.

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cjm99
post Mon, 4 Oct 2004 - 08:53
Post #6


Member


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



You will find that the authority in case law for this is in Osgerby. I do not have a copy. However, the Hon. Mr. Justice Moses in Mahindra does state that this requirement goes to 'substance' not merely 'procedure', whilst refering to and acknowledging Osgerby.

If, as you describe, nothing specifies that the request is for and on behalf of the CoP., then I think you are on a winner.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardshouldertocr...
post Wed, 6 Oct 2004 - 17:22
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Member No.: 1,704



I have searched the web for the "Osgerby" case referred to in DPP v Mohindra, but I can't find it anywhere! Can anyone help?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peteturbo
post Wed, 6 Oct 2004 - 18:38
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 876
Joined: 19 May 2004
From: London
Member No.: 1,219



Surely the matter goes to traceability and accountability. If they can show that there is only one manager and his written duties include sending out nips (and only him), then fair enough. But I seriously doubt it.

If neither he nor his underlings have the written duty within their internal procedures, with traceable authorisation, then they should be stuffed.

To follow an audit trail as above, I presume you would have to disclose before trial.

Peteturbo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob_Sprocket
post Thu, 7 Oct 2004 - 07:21
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (peteturbo)
Surely the matter goes to traceability and accountability. If they can show that there is only one manager and his written duties include sending out nips (and only him), then fair enough. But I seriously doubt it.


Hi Peter,

All of the relevant legislation talks about "authorised person".

For example RTOA 1988 s 54 (9) In this Part of this Act "authorised person" , in relation to a fixed penalty notice given at a police station, means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the area in which the police station is situated.

What really bugs me is the fact that they can require us to sign the reply because "this is the normal way to authenticate information" as I think Judge Owen said, but they do not think that it is required for someone serving a notice which may lead to someone being banned and losing their job requires the same level of authentication.

Best wishes

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Tuesday, 7th July 2020 - 15:16
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.