Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Can an ANONYMOUS NIP be on behalf of the Chief Constable?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Hardshouldertocryon
I'm in court soon for S172 and facing a ban if convicted.

The initial NIP letter I received asking me to name the driver was not signed by anyone. In fact, it was not attributed to anyone. Just a computer generated piece of paper. It had NO NAME on it at all. NO JOB TITLE. NO DEPARTMENT. NOTHING!!! It didn't even say "ticket office" or anything. The only indication of where it originated from was that it had a "Dorset Police" crest on the top of the letter. But nowhere on the letter was there any reference to the Chief Constable.

Can I claim that this letter was not on behalf of the CC?

Or will the magistrates just say it's obviously from the CC 'cos it has the crest?
DW190
Some where on the document or along the line you should have had a request to provide information as to who was the driver of the vehicle No. ??/??? on ??/??/???? at ??.?? on ?????road. either from the Chief Constable or on behalf of the Chief Constable.

The request for the information must be made or they're bolloxed
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Hardshouldertocryon)
The initial NIP letter I received asking me to name the driver was not signed by anyone.

Doesn't have to be signed by them, Arnold v DPP.

QUOTE (Hardshouldertocryon)
In fact, it was not attributed to anyone. Just a computer generated piece of paper. It had NO NAME on it at all. NO JOB TITLE. NO DEPARTMENT. NOTHING!!! It didn't even say "ticket office" or anything. The only indication of where it originated from was that it had a "Dorset Police" crest on the top of the letter. But nowhere on the letter was there any reference to the Chief Constable.
Can I claim that this letter was not on behalf of the CC?
Or will the magistrates just say it's obviously from the CC 'cos it has the crest?

I would say that you had a good chance, Mohindra v DPP.
The point is not that it was not sent on behalf of the CC, but that there is no evidence that it was sent by a person authorised by the CC.
1) It lacks a name or described signature.
2) It lacks any indication of any general management authority of the sender.
3) It lacks the declaration, 'for & on behalf of the CC'.

Running this may need legal advice as to tactics because Mohindra also contains 'anti-ambush' provisions.
firefly
Hi HS,

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
I would say that you had a good chance, Mohindra v DPP.
The point is not that it was not sent on behalf of the CC, but that there is no evidence that it was sent by a person authorised by the CC.
1) It lacks a name or described signature.
2) It lacks any indication of any general management authority of the sender.
3) It lacks the declaration, 'for & on behalf of the CC'.

Running this may need legal advice as to tactics because Mohindra also contains 'anti-ambush' provisions.

Read onwards from paragraph 24 in Mohindra.
Bob_Sprocket
Hi,

I have Dorset NIP and asked a similar question here a few weeks ago. On my NIP it says "Manager, Central Ticket Office, Authorised Officer For and Behalf of Chief Constable" It was unsigned and there was no indication of the name of the "Manager". The first one I received did not have the Police Crest on it but a copy sent later did have.

My question was in relation to whether a job title can be authorised or only a named person. I would contend that only a person can be authorised and not a job title.

Best wishes

Bob
cjm99
You will find that the authority in case law for this is in Osgerby. I do not have a copy. However, the Hon. Mr. Justice Moses in Mahindra does state that this requirement goes to 'substance' not merely 'procedure', whilst refering to and acknowledging Osgerby.

If, as you describe, nothing specifies that the request is for and on behalf of the CoP., then I think you are on a winner.
Hardshouldertocryon
I have searched the web for the "Osgerby" case referred to in DPP v Mohindra, but I can't find it anywhere! Can anyone help?
peteturbo
Surely the matter goes to traceability and accountability. If they can show that there is only one manager and his written duties include sending out nips (and only him), then fair enough. But I seriously doubt it.

If neither he nor his underlings have the written duty within their internal procedures, with traceable authorisation, then they should be stuffed.

To follow an audit trail as above, I presume you would have to disclose before trial.

Peteturbo
Bob_Sprocket
QUOTE (peteturbo)
Surely the matter goes to traceability and accountability. If they can show that there is only one manager and his written duties include sending out nips (and only him), then fair enough. But I seriously doubt it.


Hi Peter,

All of the relevant legislation talks about "authorised person".

For example RTOA 1988 s 54 (9) In this Part of this Act "authorised person" , in relation to a fixed penalty notice given at a police station, means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the area in which the police station is situated.

What really bugs me is the fact that they can require us to sign the reply because "this is the normal way to authenticate information" as I think Judge Owen said, but they do not think that it is required for someone serving a notice which may lead to someone being banned and losing their job requires the same level of authentication.

Best wishes

Bob
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.