Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP for speeding, summons for red light!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
weavingweb
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2008
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 11 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A1000 barnet Road, Potters Bar North of junction with Ashwood Road Northbound
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Caught by a front facing camera, received the NIP, completed it and returned it just a few days over the 28 day limit. Expected to get a COFP but nothing received. Now have received a summons but for a red light camera offense at the same location, time and date! Clearly this is wrong as there are no traffic lights at that location let alone red light cameras. Summons is for 3 Feb 08.

Was thinking that the best course of action would be to plead not guilty to the red light summons to get the case rescheduled. This would hopefully be beyond the time limit for them to correct their mistake and summons for the speeding. Then submit a defense statement pointing out their error which would result in them dropping the whole thing.

Does this sound like the best approach?


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:35:55 +0000
davepoth
Absolutely right. Just plead not guilty by post and see what happens. I would think that the CPS won't look at the file at all on the 3rd, and so the next time anyone will bother is the next scheduled hearing, which you will need to attend. Make sure to take the original NIP along, as well as some photos of the area if you can.
weavingweb
Thanks Davepoth

Just trying to convince myself there's nothing to trip me up here:

Is it possible that the information laid with the court was for speeding and its only the summons that's incorrect. If that was the case could they then just generate a new summons (which would count as in time)?

Also I assume they can't use the slip rule to correct the error as this is hardly a minor discrepancy!

Thanks all

weavingweb
weavingweb
OK so sent in the not guilty plea and now have a letter back informing me that the CPS are to ask the court to amend the summons from red light to speeding!

I assume this is because they realise they are now out of time for a new summons

They refer to Section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 and Queen vs Scunthorpe magistrates. Have briefly looked this up and it appears to be a case where the CPS attempted to change an original charge of robbery to that of common assault after the 6 month time limit and the mags refused but on appeal the high court allowed it. The key issue that the justices considered seems to be that the "different offence or offences allege the "same misdoing" as the original offence" i.e in that case the defendants assaulted someone in order to rob them so its Ok to change the summons.

In my case they want to change the offence from red light to speeding which I would say was a completely different offence

Would appreciate some views from those with more knowledge than me please!!

Thanks in advance

weaving
andy_foster
QUOTE (weavingweb @ Fri, 13 Feb 2009 - 09:56) *
Would appreciate some views from those with more knowledge than me please!!


That counts me out then.
My immediate reaction was that they were not the same misdoing, but I didn't know which case that phrase came from.

Other than strongly suggesting that you carefully read that case to see if there are any other relevant points, IMHO you've hit the nail on the head.
CuriousOrange
On reading that case, I'd say the CPS are trying to pull a fast one.

Some select quotes:
QUOTE
I would not wish prosecuting authorities to think that any licence is available to them to disregard the rules and hope that their troubles may be corrected by amendment at the hearing. On the other hand, in this instance the facts of the two competing offences are really identical, and it seems to me that the justices could hardly have reasonably come to any conclusion other than that the amendment here should be permitted.
QUOTE
the broad principle applicable to questions of this kind: an information which was good enough to enable a defendant to identify the misdoing alleged against him could be amended so long as it continued to allege the same misdoing
QUOTE
In my view the justices applied the wrong test. They expressly declined to consider whether the common assault and theft were based on the same facts, or substantially the same facts, as the robbery. Instead they asked themselves whether the offences were different offences...In my judgment it is clear beyond argument that the new offences of theft and common assault arose out of the same, or substantially the same, facts as the original offence of robbery.

Also R. v Ashton & Ors:
QUOTE
The authorities cited...(R v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher (1998) ...which relate in any event to amendments to an information do not support his argument that a count in an indictment can be reformulated in the way he suggested, not least because the two offences we are considering do not allege the same “misdoing”: they are essentially different offences.


I'd say that if the alledged 'misdoing' was that you'd (for example) gone through a red light at 50mph in a 30mph zone then they might have a case. But as you've said there aren't even any red lights at the location in question, they're talking rubbish by effectively claiming R. v Scunthorpe lets them change a charge any time they like.
spanner345
Is southpaw82 about?
sharewatcher
And one for our side (I hope)
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?d...;method=boolean
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.