Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Summons just came through for Unsigned NIP, what now?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
The Duck
Hello again folks, I thought I'd been very lucky and gotten away with not signing my NIP, sadly the CPS is not without a rather sick sense of humour and the summons was processed on my birthday (10/3/04) icon_evil.gif

I'm being prosecuted for failiure to comply with S172 (3) of the RTA 1988 and Schedule 2 of the RTOA 1988.

I've been looking for an explanation on the above two laws on the government's website but I'm not having too much luck, could someone clarify for me what exactly the above are?

I've also read through the two stickys on prosecution under S172 and sort-of understood the points raised but I'm still in the dark as to weather or not I was legaly required to sign the nip.

I've been summoned to appear in Bath Magistrates Court on the 31st of March to hear evidence against me, will I be charged or what?

I hate being in the dark and can understand most things well but all the legal speak and wording in the summons I've recieved and in the posts I've read has turned my brain to a grey squidgy mass icon_redface.gif
Would the CAB be able to advise me on any aspect of this as I cant afford a solicitor's hourly rate.

Any info greatly recieved:)
The Duck
peanuts
call a couple of solicitors firms and you may be able to get a bit of advice/explanation without shelling out any hard earned.
if you can afford it, get advice from John Josephs who is well reputed on this board.

you should explain Mika sent you icon_wink.gif (I think thats how it normally goes)

basically I believe you are being charged with failing to provide information as to the identity of the driver, or something along those lines.

there is important case law ongoing at the moment which may effectively decide the situation for us.
others on the board are far more knowledgable than I and will fill in the gaps I am sure.
best of luck
Peanuts
DW190
The Duck,

This is what your being charged with:

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac...n_8.htm#mdiv172

DW
Blackbird
QUOTE
I'm being prosecuted for failiure to comply with S172 (3) of the RTA 1988 and Schedule 2 of the RTOA 1988.


Was speeding ever an issue? Was it dropped?

And on a sureal level - why is it always Bath?

Best Regards
The Duck
Speeding was an issue but i think they are persuing this first, I'm under the impression that if the cps dosent have a signed NIP it makes for a harder case.

I've re-read the B&B letter the Avon safety cameraship sent me and found in it that it "Advises" me to sign the letter, surely if they only advise you your not actually obliged to sign it?
Also it goes on to say that the document must be signed to be used as evidence!

Cheers for the link DW190, I couldnt find it anywhere icon_redface.gif
This is the part I have violated:
QUOTE
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(B) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

But I did fill out the NIP, nowhere in the above body of writing Does it say anything about a signature, or am I missing the point?
Cheers for the help so far:)
DW190
Duck,
You are not missing the point because the law does not state any requirement to sign.
However, the law does states:
[quote](a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police
I am unsure of how this should be applied. e.g. if the original NIP/s172 you receive does not include a requirement on behalf of the COP for a signature. My opinion is that if he did not requre it in the original NIP/s172. TOUGH. Thats his fault.

Then you get a B&B insisting you must sign. My opinion, TOUGH you have already complied and given the required information on the form.

I think if your original NIP/s172 only required information its worth fighting the unsigned route. If it also required a signature, I have my doubts as the mags will say the requirement was a reasonable request.

DW190
The Duck
In the NIP i was sent, the only part which mentions the requirement for info under S172 is this bit:

QUOTE
As the last known keeper of the above specified vehicle the person to whom this document is addressed is required, under Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended), to respond to this notice in writing within 28 days of the Notice Issue Date.


Although on the following page under all the details etc it has a space for date and sig with "You must sign and date below"

The B&B letter has the following:
QUOTE
The instructions in the Notice clearly advises you to:
- Fill in your name and address at the top of the page
- Mark an 'X' in the box next to your chosen response
- Complete the driver/keeper details section (if appropriate) at the bottom of the page
- Sign at the bottom of the statement


I'm working under the assumption that as it states that it "advises me" to sign the bottom of the statement I'm under no legal obligation under S172 to actually sign the damned thing :!: icon_question.gif :!:
DW190
QUOTE
Although on the following page under all the details etc it has a space for date and sig with "You must sign and date below


Thats what I was getting at!

Does it also say somewere (you are required on behalf of the COP) to do whatever?
DW
Odd Job
QUOTE
Although on the following page under all the details etc it has a space for date and sig with "You must sign and date below"


I think your defence is blown here. There is a clear instruction on the NIP to sign it.

Someone else correct me if I'm wrong.
DW190
Thanks Odd Job
DW190
The Duck
QUOTE
I think your defence is blown here. There is a clear instruction on the NIP to sign it.
I hope not icon_cry.gif
The only mention on the NIP relating to th CoP is just one sentence;
QUOTE
This notice is issued for and on behalf of the Cheif Constable


Could I use the PACE argument to defend the non signature?
If I plead guilty to the s172 accusal could they then persue me for speeding or would they leave it at the S172 conviction?
Cheers
The Duck
Observer
QUOTE (The Duck)
QUOTE
I think your defence is blown here. There is a clear instruction on the NIP to sign it.

I hope not icon_cry.gif
The only mention on the NIP relating to th CoP is just one sentence;
QUOTE
This notice is issued for and on behalf of the Cheif Constable
Could I use the PACE argument to defend the non signature?
If I plead guilty to the s172 accusal could they then persue me for speeding or would they leave it at the S172 conviction?
Cheers
The Duck


I agree with Odd Job. Following the ruling in Idris Francis' case, you have little chance of success (sorry) unless there is some technical defect in the evidence.
arthurdent
Hi
I'm in the same boat - Avon&Somerset, unsigned, the wording of the NIP sounds very similar (last August), more details in previous post:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1174

I have concocted the following 'defence argument':

1. The NIP/S172 paper has warnings on it that not replying or providing false info is bad and one will get a slap but no mention of signature
2. The NIP/S172 mentions only RTA1988 with regard to one's duty which as we all know does not expressly require a signature
3. Subsequent B&B letter mentions nothing but RTA1988 S172 and RTOA1988 S12 - no mention of case law, i.e. Broomfield
4. B&B letter asks for a signature but is not signed 'for and on behalf of CC'
4. Accompanying info leaflet from Avon&Somerset lists my options but says nothing about obligation to sign, neither does it mention any case law
5. Avon&Somerset website:
http://www.safecam.org.uk/questions_answer..._answered.asp#B
to this day gives the same 'guidance'
6. Defendant would like to submit that (this is crucial to the whole construction) he is within rights not to accept at face value any communication from Avon&Somerset with regard to obligation placed on him by Law and is free to seek independent corroboration. 'Information' =/ 'signed witness statement capable of being used as incrininating evidence' as there is a "conceptual gulf" between the two. Defendant intended to stay on the right side of the law by researching the subject, found nothing in the Law requiring a sig, could not have reasonably concluded that he is obliged to sign because that goes against the general principle of self-incrimination. Defendant was given defective guidance by Avon&Somerset with regard to the Law (failure to mention requirement to sign or case law).

Two obvious things will sink this:
a) if magistrates apply case law retrospectively (francis, if indeed it is applicable). This seems unjust but I have a sneaky suspicion..
B) if magistrates conclude that the words 'you must sign' on the NIP are a reasonable request by the CC and one is not entitled to be advised which law/case law supports it

Any comments? Is there any benefit in changing plea to guilty at the 11th hour?
Thanks, arthurdent
The Rookie
Lets face it, you will loose, Broomfield will prevail even if the full ruling in Francis isn't available, your best bet I think is to roll over, explain why you didn't sign but plead guilty, may lessen the impact!

Simon
Ker-ching
arthurdent wrote:

QUOTE
a) if magistrates apply case law retrospectively (francis, if indeed it is applicable). This seems unjust but I have a sneaky suspicion..


Retrospectiveness doesn't come into it. "The law" is legislation plus any judgements that interpret it. Judgements don't change the law, they only interpret it. So we are tried on the basis of the written legislation plus any case law that is deemed applicable by the magistrate/judge. If the Francis judgement is available when our S172 cases are tried, the magistrates will no doubt use it. If not, they will probably use Broomfield. icon_cry.gif
cjm99
The rookie wrote
QUOTE
Posted: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:46:35 +0000    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lets face it, you will loose, Broomfield will prevail even if the full ruling in Francis isn't available, your best bet I think is to roll over, explain why you didn't sign but plead guilty, may lessen the impact!  


I suggest that guilty with reservation is a better course of action. If in the future the PACE argument is upheld either in UK or Strasburg you will have a strong case for late appeal/compensation.

Also, to voice the PACE arguement may just get the judicial Lemmings to think for themselves icon_evil.gif

Chris
arthurdent
Thanks for the advice. If that's really how it works than this sucks. To sum up:

Regardless that I based my decisions at the time on the law and the info as provided by the Scameraship;
Regardless that the Scameraship supplied defective guidance;
Regardless that at the time when I made my decisions Francis hadn't happened;
I'm guilty, guilty, guilty..

I'm beginning to hatch a conspiracy theory :?

Cheers,
arthurdent
kickingriffin
im in a simailer boat ive read over and over and the NIP i have recived has spaces to sign but no mention to say its got to be signed
read my topic so far for a fuller update under HELP in this section!
my cercum stances are a little differnt due i was in a company van thats from a fleet company there isnt any proff that it was me using the van at time of offence un less there photographic evedence is any good that thay claim to have not sure how to obtain evedence with out puting my hands up to the offence its self!

it dose state that i am requide to provide the infomation on the reverse of this notice under the section 172 of the road traffic act 1988
what ever that means?
email me at: kickingriffin@aol.com for a copy of my NIP not sure if its a new NIP that closes the loop hole or not you lot would have a better idea than me
just want to say thanks for all your help and advice so far:-)
The Duck
Well I've got to send the form off as my time is nearly up, I've decided (against my better judgement) to go for the not guilty plea, Any help in building a defence against the S172 accusal and a counter Broomfield argument would be brilliant smile.gif
Perhaps a guide could be compiled to help all the other poor victims of scameras in preparing for the defence of an unsigned NIP 8)
arthurdent
If you haven't seen this already, look at this thread:
[forum link]

Don't know how relevant it will be in light of the expected Francis judgement

GOOD LUCK :!:
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.