Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Quite depressed
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
MW
PTR (Wiltshire) due soon and getting quite nervous, so I spoke with a local solicitor today.

My case is s172 but don't know driver.

I explained to the solicitor the circumstances, that we both drove the car within 10-15 mins of offence, that I had sent a number of letters requesting pictures etc etc.

His advice was that these cases are routinely in front of court and without any doubt I will be found guilty sad.gif . He advised writing to the court and plead guilty with mitigating circumstances, i.e. clean licence, honestly did not know who was driving etc

However it is odd that he suggested stating I am prepared to accept that I was driving, and hoping they wouldn't stick a further speeding charge on me. :?

Now, if I pleaded guilty to the s172 failure then why should I admit I was driving. Even if I did, surely I would not then be prosecuted for speeding as it is 6 months since.

Very confused and even more worried, anyone had Wiltshire experience.(I know Blackbird does, how are you getting on?)
Mika
MW,

As you have been a contributor since last December, did you send the letter that is suggested in the paragraph 4 sticky?

If you did, you may wish to enter a not guilty plea, and contest the charge. icon_idea.gif

Your post of January 10th, suggests that you did send such a letter.

It may be a good idea if you consult a solicitor that knows what he is doing, and would you like a McKenzie friend? biggrin.gif ....... icon_wink.gif
OU812
I believe that s172 is capped at 3 points (fine can be larger) so depending on how fast your car is alleged to have been going, taking the s172 might be 'better' as the speeding might carry more points.....

Have you been summonsed for speeding as well as s172 then? If so what evidence has been disclosed to you, what does your s9 witness statement say?

If the constabulary has refused to supply photos/denied viewing the video and you can prove that you have asked them then thats a good start towards showing 'due dilligance' but ultimately thats down to the magistrate

did the solicitor charge you for consultation or was it a duty solicitor? (it _sounds_ like he was just trying to fob you off and make you think it wasnt worth him getting involved....)
MW
Mica - I would be very grateful of any help especially Mackenzie. I did send a letter, not worded exactly the same, similar, and covering the basic points and covering all bases.

As far as legal representation is concerned I don't want to pay out a 4 figure sum in defence. My licence is clean so 3points has to be balanced against a large sum for costs.

OU812 - Charged with "keeper failed to provide information" and that alone. I received photo enclosed with final letter advising me the case was proceeding for consideration of summons.

s9 statement is factual although somewhat economical.

Basically states:
NIP issued
letter returned stating unable to ID
letter sent explaining duty
driver not id'd so summons issued.

Whereas my version is:
22/11/03 - car caught speeding
03/12/03 - nip received. Called office asked for help to id driver
04/12/03 - following returned call stating unable to help, returned with letter stating wife or I driving.
09/12/03 - letter received stating must nominate driver
12/12/03 - letter sent stating wife or I driving, unable to id, requesting location of camera and photo
16/12/03 - letter received stating location (ref point) and that phto does not help to id driver 08/01/03 - letter received stating case going court and enclosing photo
04/01/03 - sent letter again stating wife or I, requesting photo and reminding that I had set previois letters with info required plus requested help id'ing driver

Bold are actions by PoliceSafety unit

Solicitor was local, this was a phone consultation where I enquired about costs to defend me.
Mika
MW,

If you sent the letter, and you instruct a competent solicitor, you will most probably win. Then the CPS will have to pay all your costs. biggrin.gif

You may be able to have some fun with this one; and I don’t think it’s you who should be “depressed”. icon_wink.gif
cjm99
MW

Please type up accurately what the witness statement('s) says (S9's)

Leave out only personal identifications


Chris
MW
Here goes:

---------------------------
I am employed by the wiltshire constabulary in the conditional offer fixed penalty unit of the central road safety unit, chippenham, wiltshire.

On 2 December 2003 a notice of intended prosecution / s172 RTA, 1988 form (NIP/172) was sent from the central road safety unit, by first class post, to the owner/registered keeper of make of vehicle motor vehicle, registration number registration no.. This vehicle was recorded by a safety camera device exceeding a speed limit on the date of alleged offence at time of alleged offence.

The owner/registered keeper of the vehicle was identified in DVLA records as being my name of my address.

The purpose of sending the NIP/172 notice was to notify the owner/registered keeper about the alleged offence and request information relating to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The recipient was required to furnish the information within 28 days. Once identified and subject to certain conditions being met in relation to the driving licence held, the driver would then be considered for inclusion within the conditional offer fixed penalty procedure.

On 8 December 2003 the S172 notice was returned to the central road safety unit accompanied by a letter from my name which stated that he did not know who was driving at the time of the event.

That same day an identical NOIP/S172 notice was sent to my nameat the same address accompanied by an explanatory letter regarding the situation.

On 15 December a letter was sent to my nameexplaining his duty under sectio 172 of the road traffic act 1988.
On 6 January 2004, the S172 Notice was returned to the central road safety unit with details of both my name and wife name as the nominated driver of the vehicle at the relevant time.

On 8 January 2004 a letter was sent to my name stating that as he had been unable to furnish the details of the driver at the time of the event, the matter had been referred for consideration of further proceedings by way of summons.

-------------------------------------------
The statement is signed but not witnessed. Enclosed was a copy of the second NIP, a copy of a vq5 form, a copy of the photos previosly sent to me and a copy of my letter of 4/1/2004.
cjm99
Regretably, they do appear to have got the witness statements right as regards S9 CJ Act 1967.

You do ofcourse have a parra 4 defence. Stick with it

Chris
mb1rgw
I don't see any statement anywhere that the request under s172 was made with the authority of the CoP. Is there anything in the evidence to show that the request was made by or for the CoP?

If not, that is a possible defence - see the Mohindra v DPP ruling, which details the chain of evidence which is needed.

robin
cjm99
The CPS will introduce the NIP/S172 form via the witness statement.( this was not appended to Mohindra's nor Browne's s9 statements) It is almost certain that the form will actually say it. But there is also case law to show that a request sent out by the police is in it's self acceptable as properly authorised.

Chris
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (cjm99)
But there is also case law to show that a request sent out by the police is in it's self acceptable as properly authorised.

What is this? If it's DPP v Arnold you're referring to, IIRC it doesn't say that.
cjm99
Jeffery, it is indeed Arnold to which I refer. I would appreciate your thoughts on an alternative interpretation.

Best Regards Chris.

QUOTE
In my judgment, looking at this document, it has all the appearance of authenticity. It is produced obviously from official sources. It is headed 'Lancashire Constabulary'. It contains, therefore, in my judgment, sufficient material for the justices, as they did in this case having reminded themselves of the authorities, having reminded themselves of the necessity for great care, to test the notice and to have regard to its authenticity."

19. True it is that there exist here the factual distinctions to which Mr Tetlow has drawn our attention and which I have sought to enumerate already. In my judgment, however, neither singly nor in combination did they preclude the Justices, looking at the matter overall, from reaching the conclusion they arrived at here, namely that the authenticity of this particular notice is to be regarded as established.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
QUOTE (cjm99)
But there is also case law to show that a request sent out by the police is in it's self acceptable as properly authorised.

What is this? If it's DPP v Arnold you're referring to, IIRC it doesn't say that.

QUOTE (cjm99)
Jeffery, it is indeed Arnold to which I refer. I would appreciate your thoughts on an alternative interpretation.


QUOTE (Lord Justice Simon Brown in Arnold v DPP)
20. Looking at the document as a whole, having regard to the form in which Mr Romaine's name appears on it as "Manager, for the Chief Constable", and bearing in mind that it emanates from the Central Ticket Office of the Thames Valley Police, I entertain no doubt that the Justices here well entitled on the evidence to reach the factual conclusion they did.

I would contend that those words are important.
cjm99
Good point,

Chris
jeffreyarcher
Unfortunately, Chris, you've replied before I finished editing my post; so, as Magnus would say, "I've started so I'll finish".

QUOTE (The Hon. Mr Justice Moses in Mohindra v DPP)
26. In none of the many authorities relating to proof of authority of the chief officer of police has the principle being doubted that the prosecution must prove that the requirement was made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police.
27. The most recent authority on the evidence required to prove the lawfulness of a requirement under section 172 is Arnold v DPP (1999) RTR 99. In that case a copy of the Notice under section 172 was annexed to a statement with a certificate of posting, disclosing the sender as "manager for the Chief Constable".
29. <...> Secondly, the person whose signature was described was described only as a manager and thirdly, the notice merely said it was signed by "Brian H. W. Romaine, manager, for the Chief Constable". Nevertheless Simon Brown LJ approved the justices' comment that with modern day computer technology it was not reasonable to expect a specifically authorised person to sign every notice. The fact that the author of the notice whose name appeared on it was described as manager to the chief constable coupled with the fact that the notice emanated from the Central Ticket Office justified the justices conclusion that authority of the Chief Constable was proved. (see page 108(f)).
33. In the instant cases there was no evidence that a requirement was made by or on behalf of the chief constable at all. The evidence of the postal clerk did not prove that. Nor did the fact that the evidence was not challenged provide such proof. The evidence said nothing about it since copies of the requirement were not annexed to the statement. The silence of the recipient did not prove the authority of the chief officer. These cases differ from the circumstances in Osgerby where a defendant had been shown a copy of the notice by a police constable and had remained silent. Mr Walsh, on behalf of the prosecutor, did not contend otherwise.
36. Since that did not happen in these cases I am compelled to answer Question 2 in Meera Mohindra and Question 1 in Joanne Browne in the negative. In neither case was there evidence that the requirement under section 172 had been made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police. <...>
MW
Wrote a letter asking them to move th PTR as wife is due to give birth around that date. they have written back saying no need as i do not need to attend.

Is that a good thing not to attend the PTR???
Blackbird
Yes.
However Wiltshire do have a habit of having multiple PTR's

Best Regards
MW
I note some people have success in writing to the CPS enclosing all their "Para 4 due dilligence" evidence and have found the CPS then review and in some cases drop the charge.

Any views?
nigeldunne64
MW, Definitely I would write a very polite letter, even getting in your wifes impending due date, and outline all you have done. Provide full copies of all correspondence as well. Strongly suggest that you HAVE done all in your power and ask how it can be in the public interest to put you and your pregnant wife through such stress.
As I have said many times the CPS tend to only see your file on the day of the case. By sending this letter to someone wit at least half a brian there is a HUGE chance that they will agree it is not in the public interest and unlikely chance of success.
Feel free to mention the Hamiltons and their result - not wishing to imply one law for the rich and famous one for you of course icon_wink.gif
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.