Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newbie - Fail to comply with traffic signs
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
lazerium
This is my first post so please be gentle.

On 18/08/06 I received an application for name and address of driver from Notts police for the offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign - prohibition of driving (driving was prohibited until 7pm, my vehicle was spotted at 6.40pm) on 12/08/06.

The attached form contained the standard NIP info request, although nowhere is it referred to as being a NIP.

I sent the form back blank and unsigned with a covering letter explaining that I could not identify the driver (this is actually genuine), explaining the reason - we changed drivers on the very street we were spotted on - and including the names, addresses and contact details of the potential drivers (my partner and myself). I also requested that the police send me any photographic evidence which may enable me to identify the driver.

I received a response on 21/09/06, the Police's letter was dated 09/09/06 and postmarked 18/09/09 sent second class.

The response was a copy of the original letter with the line "Unfortunately we have no record of the driver at the time of the offence but failure to supply the information could render you liable to further prosecution" added.

Obviously I can't identify the driver so what do I do now? Unlike most speeding offences on here its basically my word against the police officers.

Also, the original letter and all subsequent correspondence has been with the local Police station rather than their HQ.

My questions are:
i) What is likely to happen next?
ii) What do I do now?

Paul
djtaylor
QUOTE (lazerium @ Sun, 24 Sep 2006 - 20:11) *
The response was a copy of the original letter with the line "Unfortunately we have no record of the driver at the time of the offence but failure to supply the information could render you liable to further prosecution"

It's just as well they're not rocket scientists isn't it? Presumably, if they had record of the driver at the time of the offence, they wouldn't be asking you to provide it!!!

Presumably you are the registered keeper?

You could probably send back a PACE response letter that names the two possible drivers. That will discharge your obligations under S172.

They will then have the option of interviewing you both in order to obtain evidence. Of course if they interview you, they will have to caution you and give you the right to remain silent. wink.gif

Likely, they'll pretend that they don't know anything about your PACE letter or they'll tell you that there's no need to caution you to obtain "information". This is correct but it's the magical act they perform of changing information obtained under duress and threat of prosectuion, into "evidence" that's wrong so they'd rather just bully you and keep telling you that you *have* to fill in their nice confession form because it makes their life easier.

I'd just respond with PACE and name two possible drivers at the time of the offence. See the sticky's on PACE.

David.
lazerium
Thanks for that.

Yes I am the registered keeper

Im guessing if I replied with a PACE I would then get a summons? But for what offence?
jeffreyarcher
I disagree. If you are going down the 'reasonable diligence' defence to S172, a PACE letter response will blow your credibilty out of the water.
The Rookie
With JA, did you put in your letter WHY you couldn't ID the driver, did you ask for more details about where the transgression occured, all this comes under showing reasonable dillignece, if you just said you couldn't ID the driver, then thats asking for a summons. The more detail you put in the better!

Simon
djtaylor
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Mon, 25 Sep 2006 - 02:22) *
I disagree. If you are going down the 'reasonable diligence' defence to S172, a PACE letter response will blow your credibilty out of the water.

Yes but he knows that it's one of two people so why would responding with a letter listing that it was two people be any worse?

Why is that any different from doing the Hamiltons?

David.
cuckoo
Maybe I am being a bit thick here, but if driving on the road is prohibited until 7pm and the car was on that road at 6:40pm and the OP and the passenger switched over driving on that road. Haven't they both committed the offence of driving on the prohibited road? And if they have isn't naming both of them making things worse??

(As you can see I am fairly new to this so do correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here)
lazerium
Exactly. The police have a witness (their officer) who saw my car but no additional evidence.

In my letter I identified the two possible drivers and asked for them to provide the pic from the camera in order to identify the driver. I also included all the contact details, telephone numbers etc. in trying to be as helpful as possible.

From the polive reply it sounds as if it was just a community officer with a notepad jotting down numbers.

Im not sure if I should just stick my hand up and say it was me (even though Im not sure) or whether I should stick it out with the 'reasonable dilligence' route.

In doing so I would have to say that we both drove illegally which would leave us both open to prosecution?

Basically im trapped beween potentially comitting an offence if I do grass myself up (wrongly identifying driver) and committing an offence if I don't (not identifying the driver)
djtaylor
QUOTE (cuckoo @ Mon, 25 Sep 2006 - 11:15) *
Maybe I am being a bit thick here, but if driving on the road is prohibited until 7pm and the car was on that road at 6:40pm and the OP and the passenger switched over driving on that road. Haven't they both committed the offence of driving on the prohibited road? And if they have isn't naming both of them making things worse??

(As you can see I am fairly new to this so do correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here)

Not necessarily.

If the first driver parked the car before 7pm, was spotted at 6:40pm and the second driver didn't take over until on or after 7pm, only the first driver would have committed the alleged offence.

David.
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.