Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Thames Valley response to letter with PACE waiver
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
mb1rgw
I've had a letter back from TV in response to my PACE-style letter (see
[forum link]), and a follow-up in which I asked what would constitute a satisfactory response in the light of the Jones v DPP judgement. Basically a B&B (and BS), but has anyone any comments...?

QUOTE
I refer to your letter dated XXXX.

There has been much public debate and press interest about what is required to comply with the requirements of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  INdeed there have been a number of high profile cases involving this aspect of law, I refer in particular to the case of DPP v Broomfield.  HH Judge Wilkie was quite clear in his interpretation of what constitutes a satisfactory response.

I have copied some of the transcript from the case for your information.  We obviously may differ in our interpretation of the outcome of the appeal made by Broomfield but I believe that it still applies in this case.

'If the written notice is served by post and contains a reasonable facility for the owner to reply supplying the necessary information in writing (and signed), then that scheme will belawful even though the Act does not specify the method by which the information should be returned.  Section 144 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 creates rules which allow such notices to be admitted formally as evidence, so it makes no sense for a verbal return of information, for example, over the telephone.  This decision in DPP v Broomfield 2002 follows the case of Boss v Measures 1990 which looked at a similar provision in section 112(2) of the Road Traffi Regulation Act 1984.  NOTE that this case does not in any way prevent, for example, a police officer from serving the notice personally and requesting a verbal reply'

The purpose of the declaration at the foot of the form is so that you nominate an individual as the driver, if that person failes to comply with the requirements of Section 172 the form you completed could be submitted as evidence.  The reason for this is to save you being called as a witness in any subsequent court proceedings.  I therefore believe that the Road Traffic Act 1988 stands alone without inclusion of PACE.

I understand that you have been provided with a copy of the evidence and therefore should be in a position to nominate the driver of the vehicle.  I would therefore ask that you provide the information requested and sign where indicated and return the driver keeper statement to this office.  Failure to do so will result in court proceedings being initiated for the offence detailed at the foot of the Notice.

Yours etc...

SOME COMMENTS

1. The appeal wasn't by Broomfield icon_redface.gif
2. The quote is quite clearly not from the transcript - anyone any idea where it's from? Should I ask whether his misleading of me was inadvertant or deliberate?
3. Complete failure to answer in the light of Jones v DPP
4. Apparently he disagrees with J Owen that PACE applies icon_eek.gif


Any more?

Robin
DW190
mb1rgw,

The part that they have quoted is from the police criminal justice guidelines. I have read it in the last 48 hours but for the hell of it I cant find it.

You may remember someone posting about Cumbria's FAQ quoting a pack of lies and sending him a copy of guidelines quoting the s172 must be signed. Its from the same origin.

DW190
Mika
Robin,

My bet is that the quote is from the ‘police legal database’ – a computer system that is used nationally to advise forces on how to interpret and apply the law.

In my opinion, their letter is wrong in two crucial areas:

1. When the individual who was driving at the time of the alleged offence completes the form, the signature is required in order to turn that document into a witness statement and not for the purpose quoted in the letter.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)

12.(1)(B)

“(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,”

2. TVP are mistaken - PACE does apply to the Road Traffic Act 1988 because a High Court Judge has decided that the matter [Mawdesley -v- the Chief Constable of Cheshire [2004] 1 All E.R. 58].
mb1rgw
Following my Mika-style "Jones-compliant" letter, here's the latest B&B from TV TCO...

QUOTE
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated XXXX. I have noted that the driver information form was again partially completed, therefore we have still not received a satisfactory response from you. IN your letter you confirmed that you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence however as you have not completed the form you are failing to comply with the requirements of Section 172.

As this is a legal requirement I must urge you to complete and sign Parts 1 and 7 of the form (as indicated by an asterisk) within 7 days in order that a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty may be sent to you. Failure to do so will result in court proceedings being initiated for the offence of failing to provide information contrary to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as stated in my previous correspondence dated 23 March 2004.

Yours etc.


Enclosed was the S172 form on which I had written "see letter" in Part 6, with a received date stamp. There was no asterisk on the form!

It seems like they don't feel able to use the letter as evidence, hence the B&B. 8)

Comments anyone?

Robin
cas
I dont understand what you're trying to accomplish? Are you not signing the form? They will kill you with Idris...
mb1rgw
On the contrary, the Idris ruling confirms the ruling in Jones v DPP. They can require that you respond in writing and provide a signature, but they cannot require that you use the form.

Robin
DW190
Robin

I think you have just been nominated as the official test case for the s9 statement and Jones v DPP.

The future looks bright laugh.gif
Mika
Robin,

In my opinion, this is where their ‘twisting’ of both the English language and the law may run out of steam so, if your ‘up for it’, I volunteer to be your McKenzie friend.
Atty
QUOTE
As this is a legal requirement I must urge you to complete and sign Parts 1 and 7 of the form (as indicated by an asterisk) within 7 days in order that a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty may be sent to you. Failure to do so will result in court proceedings being initiated for the offence of failing to provide information contrary to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.


Do they have to be in receipt of a signed NIP before they can issue a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty?
mb1rgw
Thanks Mika,

If it comes to it, I guess I'm up for it. I'd rather not, but I'm not about to roll over.

As it happens, when I don't sign I suspect they'll give up on the S172 and send out a FPN anyway. Then when I ignore that they'll try to ignore the waiver on the letter and get it admitted as evidence.

At which point, I'll be asking for disclosure on the dodgyscope.

What a mess laugh.gif
Ker-ching
Atty wrote:

QUOTE
Do they have to be in receipt of a signed NIP before they can issue a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty?
Logically, you would think so, because without a signature, they don't have the "information" they need to issue the FPN. But since when has logic had anything to do with it? rolleyes.gif In practice, different scameraships play it differently. Some do, some don't.

mb1rgw wrote:
QUOTE
As it happens, when I don't sign I suspect they'll give up on the S172 and send out a FPN


Since I am dealing with TVP at the moment, I can tell you from experience that they won't give up on an S172, and that they are one of the scameraships that don't issue FPNs until they receive a signed NIP.
Atty
QUOTE (Ker-ching)
Logically, you would think so, because without a signature, they don't have the "information" they need to issue the FPN. But since when has logic had anything to do with it? rolleyes.gif In practice, different scameraships play it differently. Some do, some don't.


I am up for a s172, however they did send me an FPN. Is it worth writing to the court with a copy of the FPN explaining that that must of had the required information, which they did minus the signature?
DW190
mb1rgw wrote:
QUOTE
As it happens, when I don't sign I suspect they'll give up on the S172 and send out a FPN anyway.

Give up on what?
s172 requires you to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence to a request from the CC. You have done this.
s172 does not require you to make a statement to be used in evidence. or does s172 of the RTA contain magic ink that only muppets can read?.
It appears to me that Mika may have opened the door which appeared to have been closed after Idris's case.
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.