Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Police want to see me
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
MDR
Hi Folks

Just wanted to get some advise. I live in Scotland

I have failed to respond back to two NIP's (offence happened at the beggining of April). I have now received a letter from my local police in which they have requested I attend at the station to fill our documentation sent to them regarding the speeding offence (it relates to a mobile speed detection van).

I have undergone this before and am asked for insurance etc... as well as confirmation that I was the driver of the vechile. I am not asked to sign anything reagrding this.

Can you advise:

1) Do they need to caution me before questioning me?

2) Do I have to reply to their question as to whether I was the driver of the vechile or not?

3) Because I am attenidng outwith office hours it will be the duty officer who will be dealing with the paperwork - does this make any difference?

Any help or other advice is very much appriciated. I should say that I have had a total of three NIP's that have lapsed as they went outwith the six month time period.

Any help is very much appreciated.

MDR
crystal
Hi

I think inscotland you have to avoid the BIB as you have to answer them. So dont rush down there yet, trya few of the other scottish threads and hope someone usefule posts back

Regards
Crystal
firefly
QUOTE (MDR @ Sat, 5 Aug 2006 - 04:58) *
1) Do they need to caution me before questioning me?

2) Do I have to reply to their question as to whether I was the driver of the vechile or not?

3) Because I am attenidng outwith office hours it will be the duty officer who will be dealing with the paperwork - does this make any difference?
1) It depends on what they're asking you. A request for information as to the driver's identity does not require a caution - though you're likely to get one anyhow.

2) No, but you'll be charged (probably there and then) with s.172

3) It depends on whether or not the duty officer has sufficient authority from the Chief Constable to make a s.172 request.

Why did you ignore the NIPs?
MDR
This is always my stratergy and it has never failed so far in Scotland.

Don't answer NIP's - usually 2 are sent (3-4 months pass).

Then either police make a visit to verify identity or I never hear back (has worked for me so far).

Where police make a visit, report back and new NIP is issued usually takes about 2-4 weeks (new NIP is always issued after police visit).

Once NIP is recieved after policie visit, usually I send a letter requesting further info (letter usually sent on day 25/26 day after receipt) i.e. calibration cert, photo etc...

Hey bingo, time passs by, and yes I'm scot free again.....

Works for me every time (three so far).
MDR
I have read in a previous post:

"If you can get them to caution you before the request is made, that may be a defence because there is case law to the effect that the recipient must realise that it is an offence not to respond before there can be a successful S172 prosecution, however, it is untested".

Any comments on this as well as the above post?
MDR
Hi Folks

Have spoken to a solicitor (Nick Freeman who is a specialist in road traffic offenses) who advised me to inform the police (when questioned) that I will need to look in the matter to confirm as to whether I was the driver on the specific date. He stated that it is not an arrestable offense to be unable to identifying the driver of a vehicle when questioned by the police.

Any other comments would be very much appriciated.
jeffreyarcher
You have not told us where the offence was, only where you live. It is the location of the alleged offence which counts (except in relation to verbal S172 requests, where it is the location of the verbal S172 that counts).
The rest of this answer assumes that the offence was also in Scotland.
QUOTE (MDR)
I have read in a previous post:
"If you can get them to caution you before the request is made, that may be a defence because there is case law to the effect that the recipient must realise that it is an offence not to respond before there can be a successful S172 prosecution, however, it is untested".
Any comments on this as well as the above post?

You are selectively quoting me out of context. icon_mad.gif
Personally, I wouldn't risk that.
a) It is untested.
b) If they caution you, then make the S172 request, you then remain silent, then they warn you that failure to supply the requested information is an offence, IMO they have satisfied the legal requirement; i.e. they have clarified that you cannot remain silent in respect of the statutorily required information (the driver).

QUOTE (MDR)
Have spoken to a solicitor (Nick Freeman who is a specialist in road traffic offenses) who advised me to inform the police (when questioned) that I will need to look in the matter to confirm as to whether I was the driver on the specific date.

Did you inform him that you live in Scotland? He is a renowned expert par excellence on technicalities, but he is a specialist in English law.
His advice may work in Scotland, I wouldn't like to comment. However, if the police have a photo, and it identifies you, there is Scottish case law to the effect that if you don't 'fess up, you are likely to be found guilty of S172. Although, in that case, the accused launched into a tirade of, 'why don't you chase real criminals etc.'.
QUOTE (MDR)
He stated that it is not an arrestable offense to be unable to identifying the driver of a vehicle when questioned by the police.

I am surprised he said that. Last year (perhaps '04), the law was changed, and any offence is now 'arrestable', in Engalnd at least; AFAIK, that legislation also applies in Scotland, but I may be wrong.
QUOTE (MDR)
I have now received a letter from my local police in which they have requested I attend at the station to fill our documentation sent to them regarding the speeding offence <...> .

This is most odd.
A S172 notice sent to them has not been served on you.
Whilst they can certainly make a verbal S172 request, can they make you fill in a written notice not served by post?
QUOTE (Road Traffic Act 1988 @ Section 172.)
(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—

And even if they can serve you a written notice personally, can you satisfy that requestby taking it away, completing it, and returning it within 28 days (thus getting you another 28 days towards time-out)?
QUOTE (Road Traffic Act 1988 @ Section 172.)
(7)(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and

Probably difficult to argue that you have not been legally served, easier to argue that you are entitled to 28 days in the case of a written notice; still not a foregone conclusion though.
They have only 'requested' that you attend the local station. What would happen if you didn't bother?
Presumably all that would happen is that they would visit you and make a verbal S172 requirement.
jeffreyarcher
Since the offence was at the beginning of April, it will time-out at the beginning of October.
So, assuming that it was a fixed penalty speed, if you can get another 28 days, and if they issue a cOFP (fixed penalty) it will be too late for them to summons you.
gas man
that seems strange that they want you to go and visit the poilce station.

could it be possible that you were going rather fast??

i would avoid all correspondance with them, because they may try and lean on you to see how you react, it is easy to self-incriminate yourself in this situation, especially when the custody and other rooms are all wired for video AND sound.
patdavies
Either take a solicitor with you to the interview or refuse any interview without the duty solicitor present.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.