Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Failing to provide driver info as requested
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
why_me
Im due to go to court today to answer charges of 90 in a 70 and failing to give info required.


regarding the failing to give info aspect,
I did give all the info required, ie my name , license number , address, ect ect, but forgot to sign and date the form .
It was returned saying "i had missed info out" , but i totally overlooked the date and signature part at the bottom of the form whilst trying to see what info i had failed to give in the top part

is it a legal requirement to sign and date it ?, or are the Staffs police just being picky trying to make a case out of this as well as the allegation of speeding
Mika
QUOTE (why_me @ Tue, 25 Mar 2008 - 09:53) *
is it a legal requirement to sign and date it ?

You must sign the response - dpp v Francis
why_me
Thank you Mika

looks like 2 x guilty charges are coming then rolleyes.gif
bama
as you did provide the info you always try pleading that you admit to the speeding and see if they drop the S172.. don't know if this is best done with the CPS before the case or during it.
why_me
Thanks bama, was just waiting to see if others had opinion on that
bama
when facing a double it seems best to try to trade one away...
andy_foster
If you decide to do a deal with the CPS, do so before you plead guilty to one of the offences (i.e. while you still have something to bargain with).

There is no absolute requirement to sign the s. 172 response, however, there is a requirement to comply with any reasonable requirement as to the manner in which the information should be provided, including any reasonable requirement that it should be in writing and signed.

Without your confession being signed, it cannot be admitted under s. 12(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to prove that you were the driver, so you shouldn't be able to be convicted of both, although anything is possible in a Magistrates' court.

If today's hearing is the one listed on the original summons, then it will only be for pleas to be entered, unless you plead guilty in which case they will convict and sentence at the same time. If you plead not guilty, the case(s) will be adjourned and a subsequent hearing listed.
why_me
Update

Adjourned due to the prosecution witness ( camera operater) not being able to attend today !. It appears that he was not told he would be required to attend court till last thursday, and he already had a prior family commitment.

I asked why his attendance was necessary, and its because i asked several questions of the Chief Prosecuter when i originally replied to the court. ( i included a copy of the letter to the Chief Prosecuter for the court). None of the questions have been answered yet.

I asked for the case to be either heard or dismissed today, but the bench said in the fairness of justice it should be adjourned to a later date so i can cross examine the camera operater. I emphasised that i was here and prepared to carry on today ( an 80 mile round trip for me) and it was not my fault that the prosecution had not got its act together for today, given that they had had some 4 weeks notice of the hearing date.

for reference, the questions i asked the Chief Prosecuter were;

1) Please inform me who the operator of the equipment at the time of the alleged offence was.
2) I would like to see all the current training and procedure certificates for the operator and written confirmation of the operators experience with this type of equipment.
3) Please provide identification of the actual equipment used to record the alleged offence.
4) I would like to see all maintenance and calibration records for the identified equipment.
5) I would like proper documentation that states that all calibration procedures for the actual site have been actioned accordingly and noted by the equipment operator and Traffic car driver.
6) Please identify exact location of equipment used to record the alleged offence; the GPS position would be helpful.
7) Please show that the vehicle named i.e., (vehicle registration number given) was isolated in the field of view and not “shadowed” by any other vehicle.
8) Please provide actual photos and video of the alleged offence.
9) Please provide documentation that the site used was totally suitable for this type of equipment and free from any type of contamination.
10) That the site used fulfils any guidelines set down in legislation, i.e., length of site, eight or more injury accidents in the preceding three years, ect.
11) That the 85th percentile speed was greater than the ACPO guidelines.
12) I would like a written copy of the forces procedures for the use of radar.
13) Confirm whether the equipment is approved by the Home office .

I did point out that i thought the camera operater was not qualified to answer all of these questions ( some of them yes, but not all of them), and that i felt the case should continue today, but the bench disagreed with me.
I then pointed out that One of the allegations against me was to do with me "allegedly failing to provide information that had been requested" , and i felt that the same scenario applied, in that i have been unable to get answers to any of my questions to reasonably prepare a case, and I was then told by the clerk that i am not legally entitled to "some" of the answers before the actual case !
I also wrote in my original reply to the court that it was not my intention to waste the courts time and would not be requiring anyone to attend as witness's , and indeed that is still the case, and asked for it to be recorded that todays delay was down to the prosecution and not me.

i look forward to comments and suggestions

thanks all
regards


wolfie
There must be a lot missing here - I don't see how you can get to a trial date without at least a photo of the alleged offence and several PTR's, assuming that you have been awkward (I mean attempting to get to the truth of the matter) from the very beginning.

I'm still waiting for my trial, and still waiting for the video - and mine has been going on for 15 months or so and there have been several PTR's and direction hearings.

Have you got an expert witness re the video? You need one.

Check out your local safety camera partnership composition. If the magistrates are part of the SCP, then you should be in front of a district judge, as the mags cannot be impartial.
why_me
Wolfie

offence alleged to have took place in late august
driver details requested in late aug , all details given by me ( but withheld for 21 odd days by me)
offer given of paying the fixed penalty/NIP in sept - i declined
reminder in sept and request for more info - i declined again
letter about court date received in Nov, for first date in Jan to set a trial date.
letter sent to court with copy of information I require letter to the CP
Jan - case adjourned till Feb, told not to attend by court
Feb , hearing to set a date ( again , no need to attend), date given as 25 mar
mid march VHS video arrives
today - adjourned till mid april for reasons mentioned above

ONLY info supplied by chief Prosecuter to date is a poor quality vhs tape, which is so short that by the time the tracking has sorted itself out, the video is rewinding ! not really of much use to anyone for anything

the rest is as above , so far all has taken place within 6 months of the date of alledged speeding offence
got to say Staffs are damn quick ohmy.gif
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (why_me @ Tue, 25 Mar 2008 - 17:08) *
Update

Adjourned due to the prosecution witness ( camera operater) not being able to attend today !. It appears that he was not told he would be required to attend court till last thursday, and he already had a prior family commitment.

I asked why his attendance was necessary, and its because i asked several questions of the Chief Prosecuter when i originally replied to the court. ( i included a copy of the letter to the Chief Prosecuter for the court). None of the questions have been answered yet.

I asked for the case to be either heard or dismissed today, but the bench said in the fairness of justice it should be adjourned to a later date so i can cross examine the camera operater. I emphasised that i was here and prepared to carry on today ( an 80 mile round trip for me) and it was not my fault that the prosecution had not got its act together for today, given that they had had some 4 weeks notice of the hearing date.

for reference, the questions i asked the Chief Prosecuter were;

1) Please inform me who the operator of the equipment at the time of the alleged offence was.
2) I would like to see all the current training and procedure certificates for the operator and written confirmation of the operators experience with this type of equipment.
3) Please provide identification of the actual equipment used to record the alleged offence.
4) I would like to see all maintenance and calibration records for the identified equipment.
5) I would like proper documentation that states that all calibration procedures for the actual site have been actioned accordingly and noted by the equipment operator and Traffic car driver.
6) Please identify exact location of equipment used to record the alleged offence; the GPS position would be helpful.
7) Please show that the vehicle named i.e., (vehicle registration number given) was isolated in the field of view and not “shadowed” by any other vehicle.
8) Please provide actual photos and video of the alleged offence.
9) Please provide documentation that the site used was totally suitable for this type of equipment and free from any type of contamination.
10) That the site used fulfils any guidelines set down in legislation, i.e., length of site, eight or more injury accidents in the preceding three years, ect.
11) That the 85th percentile speed was greater than the ACPO guidelines.
12) I would like a written copy of the forces procedures for the use of radar.
13) Confirm whether the equipment is approved by the Home office .

I did point out that i thought the camera operater was not qualified to answer all of these questions ( some of them yes, but not all of them), and that i felt the case should continue today, but the bench disagreed with me.
I then pointed out that One of the allegations against me was to do with me "allegedly failing to provide information that had been requested" , and i felt that the same scenario applied, in that i have been unable to get answers to any of my questions to reasonably prepare a case, and I was then told by the clerk that i am not legally entitled to "some" of the answers before the actual case !
I also wrote in my original reply to the court that it was not my intention to waste the courts time and would not be requiring anyone to attend as witness's , and indeed that is still the case, and asked for it to be recorded that todays delay was down to the prosecution and not me.

i look forward to comments and suggestions

thanks all
regards

QUOTE
it was not my intention to waste the courts time


that lot above says other wise. good luck
why_me
LOL . well it was the "original" intention wink.gif

EDIT However, they chose not to respond by post before the hearing, which would of saved a lot of time
slushpuppy
Hi

My understanding was that DPP v Broomfield 2002 required the response to be signed (appologies to Andy Foster if I am wrong)

Also my understanding is that in relation to not supplying details of the driver (Sec 172) it is not necessary to prove the original offence ie speeding. It is only necessary to prove service of the notice and the lack of driver details supplied. That would mean all details relating to calibration, training,guidelines etc are not relevant? If you were to trade 2 X sec 172 (12 points dependent on date of offence) for 2 x excess speed (6 points depending on speed) the cps would require a guilty plea and again all the above would not be relevent.

Good luck
nemo
QUOTE (slushpuppy @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 01:14) *
My understanding was that DPP v Broomfield 2002 required the response to be signed..

Broomfield is not binding. And Wilkie's references to signing the s.172 response in Broomfield were done so obiter dicta - ie mentioned in passing; not necessarily part of the decision making process; merely illustrative comments or thoughts..

Its Francis which provides that a Chief Officer of Police 'is entitled to make reasonable requirements prescribing how the person to whom the notice is addressed shall respond. So the chief officer can require that the response be in writing (see Boss v Measures) and that it be signed..'

And Boss v Measures provides that there is no requirement to comply with a request if it is an unreasonable one.

QUOTE (Woolf LJ in Broomfield)
As long as the request is a reasonable request, then it is a lawful one. If it was, however, an unreasonable request, then it would be unlawful and there would be no obligation to comply with it.
sal_park
QUOTE (nemo quoting Woolf LJ in Broomfield)
As long as the request is a reasonable request, then it is a lawful one. If it was, however, an unreasonable request, then it would be unlawful and there would be no obligation to comply with it.


Given that they obviously received your details (enough to offer you two FPNs anyway), could you not argue that the S172 request has been reasonably accepted ? i.e. they have accepted that you responded correctly to the S172 because they used the information to contact you ?

The Rookie
If we had more info you could have taken to court the two case law's that preclude the CPS being given an adjournment to make up for the errors in not being prepared, such as a witness not turning up.

Simon
wolfie
http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/cameras/Partners/

Are you in front of a bench of mags, or a single DJ?

If the former, how can you expect a fair trial from people that will financially benefit from your conviction?
The Rookie
Netting off, out of date and defunct now wolfie....

Simon
wolfie
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 11:50) *
Netting off, out of date and defunct now wolfie...


Sorry simon,

Too cryptic for me - "Netting off"?

I have been into court several times now and it is always a DJ - never seen a magistrate yet. Do you mean that there are some parts of the country where basic principles of justice no longer apply?

I'd be shocked ohmy.gif !

Wolfie
why_me
QUOTE (slushpuppy @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 01:14) *
My understanding was that DPP v Broomfield 2002 required the response to be signed (appologies to Andy Foster if I am wrong)
Also my understanding is that in relation to not supplying details of the driver (Sec 172) it is not necessary to prove the original offence ie speeding. It is only necessary to prove service of the notice and the lack of driver details supplied. That would mean all details relating to calibration, training,guidelines etc are not relevant? If you were to trade 2 X sec 172 (12 points dependent on date of offence) for 2 x excess speed (6 points depending on speed) the cps would require a guilty plea and again all the above would not be relevent.

Good luck


I supplied all details relating to myself as the driver apart from dating and signing it. My intention was that the failing to provide info charge fell down on itself in the sense that i responded to all mail and by means of me turning up at court proved that i was hiding nothing relating to who the driver was.
As it was 2 seperate charges, i felt i had to defend the speeding charge on the basis that the prosecution may well make a mistake .
I'm hoping that there is only 1 charge of sec 172 ( I am a bit more worried now as you mention 2 x sec 172's ?)
regards

QUOTE (nemo @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 08:53) *
QUOTE (slushpuppy @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 01:14) *
My understanding was that DPP v Broomfield 2002 required the response to be signed..

Broomfield is not binding. And Wilkie's references to signing the s.172 response in Broomfield were done so obiter dicta - ie mentioned in passing; not necessarily part of the decision making process; merely illustrative comments or thoughts..

Its Francis which provides that a Chief Officer of Police 'is entitled to make reasonable requirements prescribing how the person to whom the notice is addressed shall respond. So the chief officer can require that the response be in writing (see Boss v Measures) and that it be signed..'

And Boss v Measures provides that there is no requirement to comply with a request if it is an unreasonable one.

QUOTE (Woolf LJ in Broomfield)
As long as the request is a reasonable request, then it is a lawful one. If it was, however, an unreasonable request, then it would be unlawful and there would be no obligation to comply with it.


It seems that Staffordshire prosecution obviously thinks i should of signed and dated it ( unfortunately). sadly it seems nothing is 100% clear about wether you should or should not sign
regards

QUOTE (sal_park @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 09:07) *
QUOTE (nemo quoting Woolf LJ in Broomfield)
As long as the request is a reasonable request, then it is a lawful one. If it was, however, an unreasonable request, then it would be unlawful and there would be no obligation to comply with it.


Given that they obviously received your details (enough to offer you two FPNs anyway), could you not argue that the S172 request has been reasonably accepted ? i.e. they have accepted that you responded correctly to the S172 because they used the information to contact you ?


As far as i am aware there was only an offer of 1 FPN which i declined, it was only when i received the summons to appear i realised there was 2 charges ( i will have to go back thru my paperwork to confirm this). I agree with your thoughts on this though regarding that they have reasonaly accepted it because they contacted me thru the info provided.
regards

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 11:38) *
If we had more info you could have taken to court the two case law's that preclude the CPS being given an adjournment to make up for the errors in not being prepared, such as a witness not turning up.
Simon

having not been in this position before i was unaware of how it worked. i would be interested to find if i could still get it dismissed at the next date due to the case laws you mention though ?
regards


QUOTE (wolfie @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 11:44) *
http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/cameras/Partners/

Are you in front of a bench of mags, or a single DJ?

If the former, how can you expect a fair trial from people that will financially benefit from your conviction?

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 11:50) *
Netting off, out of date and defunct now wolfie....

Simon


It was in front of a bench of 3
regards

Thank you everyone icon_salut.gif
nemo
QUOTE (wolfie @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 19:21) *
Too cryptic for me - "Netting off"?

AKA hypothecation..

It refers to the manner in which the Safety Camera Programme was funded. Under an agreement with HM Treasury, the SCPs were allowed to recover their costs from the fine revenue raised from speeding offences. This scheme was phased out on April 1 2007..
nemo
QUOTE (why_me @ Wed, 26 Mar 2008 - 19:25) *
..sadly it seems nothing is 100% clear about whether you should or should not sign

It is clear. If the request is reasonable, then it is a lawful requirement that the s.172 response be signed. Failure to sign the response in such cases would render the addressee liable to be prosecuted (and convicted) of failing to provide driver details..
The Rookie
As Nemo has said, the Francis case supported the fact that it was reasonable for them to ask for it to be signed, so therefore you are striclty guilty of the S172 offence. You MAY have a defence if you say it was returned saying you had missed information out and you did not realise they classed the signature as 'information' and it didn't specifically ask you to sign it, does the original paperwork as you to complete the form or complete AND SIGN the form?

I suspect that doing a 'plea bargain' and pleading guilty to the speeding as long as they drop the S172 is your best bet!

Simon



why_me
the original request for driver info didnt specify it needed a signature, but when it was returned, the "multi option question" note from them had " a signature in part 7 is required"
not so much a request as a demand ohmy.gif .

Obviously i need to seek legal advice now, as it seems i "may' end up with 12+ points , all because i challenged the system . i should add that i am a LGV driver and rely on my license for a living . Not for sympathy, but this is my first offence in 29 odd years of driving and a possible 12+ points seems a little unfair to say the least.

The Rookie,
you mentioned in post #16 about ,
two case law's that preclude the CPS being given an adjournment to make up for the errors in not being prepared, such as a witness not turning up.

could you point me towards those 2 case laws please ? Thanks.
i have tried PM'ing you but your inbox is full

regards
The Rookie
PM inbox now emptier!

In the paying members BB&G forum there is a case library sticky including 2 cases where it has been ruled that the CPS should not be granted an adjournment just to correct their errors, one is X v Camberwell youth court.

Simon
why_me
Simon

Thank you wink.gif , will be a paid member over the next 2 days.
regards

EDIT : OK, i lied, i did it within 2 minutes not 2 days LOL
why_me
UPDATE

although I/this is now in the hands of a soliciter, I was due in court last Thursday .On Wednesday morning i received a letter form the courts saying that the prosecution wanted to vacate the trial ( ajourn it) on the grounds that the witness for the defence ( camera operater) has got pneumonia and has provided a doctors note to this effect.

The only good thing aout this is that he's not at work, and hopefully the Stafford area has one camera less in operation due to his ill health.

more to follow as and when
regards
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.