Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dilemma in Cambridge
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
MikeMac
In Sept' my Co' rec'd NIP, they duly sent it back naming me as driver. I rec'd NIP, sent mine back naming another employee who was using the car at the time. He rec'd his NIP, he complied, put his hand up, surrendered and got the expected swift kick in the gonads (3 pts and £60).

It transpires that this particular employee was not using the vehicle at the time and it could well have been myself. We phoned the Cambridge Scam unit and explained the situation and asked how we could rectify the situation i.e. get him a refund and the points removed from his licence.
'No problem' they said, just come in and view the video, establish who was the driver. Once done, we would then send a fax to the court to the effect that the employee was not the culprit and request that a refund was in order and the points removed. We would then issue a new FPN to the new culprit.

We made an appointment to view the video and subsequently went along.
I had already established from my initial phone conversation with them, that the video evidence did not cleary identify who was the driver, but was told 'you will know who it is when you see it'. The female civilian who greeted us (she obviously had the gist of the problem) immediately said to us 'well I know who it is', (although she did not say who) when asked to qualify this statement she replied ' from experience of looking at lots of videos'.

We then viewed the footage, now although I knew it was not my friend and because of the timing circumstances knew it was me, you could not tell if it was me, or a monkey or even Lord Lucan!

Nevertheless, this woman was convinced it was'nt my mate and moreorless suggested it was me. I did not want my mate to take the rap and agreed that it may have been me. My main concern was to get reversed the fine and the points.

Another female( someone in charge) said she would email her 'friend' at the court and explain the situation and ask for a solution. In no time at all a reply was received instructing my mate to go to the courthouse and ask for this person and it would be resolved. Result he got his money back and the points were written off his licence.

The woman who showed us the video then wrote out my 'confession' which I was asked to sign and a new FPN would then be sent out to me.
I rec'd the FPN a few days ago. Okay' what do I do now. This place was overrun with plod and no-one suggested or even hinted at a 'caution'. I really would appreciate some honest and valid arguement as to why I should not comply ( I know, you can call me a prat for signing the 'confession') but notwithstanding that forpar, are there any 'legal' avenues I can pursue?

Commiserations to Idris, the outcome may also effect me as I am up in court 31/03/04 on speeding and s.172.

Many Thanks to all who profer their advice.

MikeMac
cjm99
Do you have a copy of whatever you or she wrote as a 'CONFESSION'

If so, post it on here. especially any header information.

Chris
FastShow
If it's speeding only and there's a video, wait for the summons, plead not guilty and go for full disclosure of the traffic video. Chances of case getting dropped: very, very high.
MikeMac
Sorry, no, I was not given one nor indeed asked for one.
MikeMac
DW190
Mikemac

QUOTE
Sorry, no, I was not given one nor indeed asked for one.  
MikeMac


I'm sure the very nice people would post you a copy if you requested it.

DW
cjm99
MikeMac

Write to them or go in and get a copy. Don't engage in any discussion of any kind, especially why you want a copy. (most sensible people would quite accept that you are entitled to a copy without explanation).

The usual arguement in regard to sec172 signatures/witness statement/ PACE, Revolve around 'requests for statutory information' by the CoP. In your case, it does appear to be a direct request by a Police Officer to give a voluntary confession. A PACE code C caution surely must apply to this icon_eek.gif

Chris
MickeyP
Mikemac

Can you honestly stand up and say you didn't understand you were trading quashing your mate's points for a confession on your part ?

Surely plod wouldn't just give in and let someone off, without something solid in exchange ? and you wouldn't expect them to, would you ?

Mikemac, I'm being Devil's Advocate, and putting myself in the shoes of the magistrate. That's the sort of line CPS would take if you attempted to say you were not cautioned.
MikeMac
Hi Chris
Can you expand on this


The usual arguement in regard to sec172 signatures/witness statement/ PACE, Revolve around 'requests for statutory information' by the CoP. In your case, it does appear to be a direct request by a Police Officer to give a voluntary confession. A PACE code C caution surely must apply to this icon_eek.gif

Chris[/quote]
cjm99
Mikemak

read section 10 of the PACE code of practice 'C'

You will also note, that sec172 RTOA 1988 gets a specific mention.

Then read Yorke Mawdesley -v- chief constable His Hon Mr. Justice Owen


Chris
Blackbird
Hi cmj99

Just found that the Home Office site is being 'updated' found PACE code C
at the following address;

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/pacecodec.pdf

Best Regards
MikeMac
Hi Chris

I have read and printed out the lot! Am I missing something here? You state a PACE code C caution must apply. How? or am I misreading or being just plain thick! 10.1 says a person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes i.e. relevant statutory purposes. see 10.9. RTA 1988 etc.
However, 10.5(B) states 'on all other occasions before a person is charged or informed they may be prosecuted, see sec 16. (note 16B) I hope you have it to hand! Refers to Annex C, but would not something in Annex D be more pertinent in my case. i.e. see (B). I am really confused now.
MikeMac


QUOTE ("cjm99")
Mikemak

read section 10 of the PACE code of practice 'C'

You will also note, that sec172 RTOA 1988 gets a specific mention.

Then read Yorke Mawdesley -v- chief constable His Hon Mr. Justice Owen


Chris
dave99
QUOTE (MikeMac)
Hi Chris

I have read and printed out the lot! Am I missing something here? You state a PACE code C caution must apply. How? or am I misreading or being just plain thick! 10.1 says a person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes i.e. relevant statutory purposes. see 10.9. RTA 1988 etc.


You have done what Justice Owen did and selectively quoted 10.1!
10.1 actually says:
QUOTE
A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, see Note 10A,must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. A person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes, e.g.:...(B) to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement,
see paragraph 10.9;


I take that to read if the answers or silence are to be used for reasons other than for use as evidence in court, such as statutory requirements, then no caution is needed - however if they are to be used as evidence (which is what they want to do with the filled in S172 form to prove who the driver was) then a caution must be given.
nigeldunne64
Mike, As an ex-cop I think I know what Chris et al are saying. Basically THEY have decided that they want more than jsu tthe answer to a statutory request. There is no need for a caution IF it is only to obtain information ie S172 allows an Officer to request name and address of the driver of a motor car. So if you are stopped driving, whether you have committed an offence or not, you must give the Officer your name and address.
However in your case, and in speeding ticket cases, they have now decided that they want more than just INFORMATION. They now want you to sign your form so it can be used as a confession. They also write back to you demanding a signature if you send in an unsigned form. Now on first request, the fact that the form will be used in evidence against you means you should receive a caution and explanation of your rights. If they write back demanding a signature, then that failure to sign is now deemed to be an offence, therefore the Police should warn you that it is an offence and should caution you.
PACE was set up expecting that id a PC stopped you driving and you refused your details, he should caution you and point out your offence. However when PACE was written they weren't expecting to be sending out over 2,000,000 tickets a year which if you read PACE means 2,000,000 a year need an explanation of their rights. Hence the phrase "They can't have their cake and eat it" from one of Mikas solicitor friends.
cjm99
Agreed, But in this case

QUOTE
The woman who showed us the video then wrote out my 'confession' which I was asked to sign and a new FPN would then be sent out to me.  


This is a police representitive filling in a CONFESSION this can not be viewed as a request for statutory information on a 172. This is soley for use as a voluntary confession, and surely should be taken under caution


Chris
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.