Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Postal strike/speeding conviction quashed
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Wasn't sure if this was already posted but thought I'd share....

Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside, DC, 29 October 2009 (no transcript available), the court quashed a conviction for speeding. The applicant had been sent, via first class post, a notice of intended prosecution. However, due to postal strikes the NIP did not arrive until 16 days after the offence.

The question posed for the determination of the High Court was whether, upon a proper construction of s.1(1)©, s.1(1A)© and s.1(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a notice of intended prosecution should be regarded as having been properly served where the notice was sent by first class ordinary post on a date that would normally lead to it being delivered within the 14-day time limit but where the court was satisfied that it was actually delivered after the 14-day time limit.

Held: Save for NIP's sent by registered post or recorded delivery, the presumption of delivery was rebuttable. It was not possible to read down the Act, nor the CrPR 2005, to provide for a convenient way to close what may well become a well used loophole.

Comment: Given the current postal dispute it is likely that many client's will jump onto this bandwagon when word of this case hits the streets. Meanwhile, police forces would be wise to urgently consider other forms of delivery!"


where did this come from?
Seems to be a few places reporting it:;aq=f&oq=
I think Neil Herron has it with the full press report (text) as well.
QUOTE (Tancred @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 23:26) *
Seems to be a few places reporting it:;aq=f&oq=

Even here:
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.