Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: wrong time on nip
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
russellwookey
great forum guys been reading loads but still a litlle confused about how to go about all this

been caught in a contraflow on the m4 monmothshire doing 67 in a 50

got a nip not sent recoreded delivery (not sure if that means anything)

time on nip is 12 hours out approximatly says am offence was night before

they say they have photo evidence

how should i proceed with this

what are my chances ???

pls help
firefly
Hmmm...

Play your cards right with this one and you could be onto a winner.

Firstly, the police are required to issue a NIP to the registered keeper (RK) of a vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence.  The NIP must include certain information (i.e. the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed).  This is detailed in section 1©, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 :
_____________________________________________________________

© within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
_____________________________________________________________

In your shoes, I would wait until day 14 from the date on the NIP (thus preventing the police from rectifying their clerical cock-up) and write a letter along these lines (and make sure you send it 'Special Delivery' from the Post Office) :

QUOTE
Date

Scammer Office
99 Acacia Avenue
Bumchester

Dear Sir/Madam

Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) Number - ********

With reference to the above notice (copy attached), and after taking legal advice, I am writing to inform you that the vehicle allegedly invlolved in this offence was in fact (insert whereabouts of vehicle here) at the time you maintain.  This can be substantiated with eyewitness testimony, should it be required.  For this reason, I am unable to complete the s172 request for the identity of the driver at the time.

I look forward to your response in due course.

Yours faithfully




etc.

What I suspect will happen, is that the police will issue you with a new NIP with the correct time; but since this will be outwith the 14 days, you should - in theory - be in pretty good shape.

Do you understand the logic?
russellwookey
that  a great help  thanks alot

if they do issue another nip with correct date time etc what should i do with it
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
if they do issue another nip with correct date time etc what should i do with it

How did I know you would ask that?  :shock:

What I would do is this :

i) Wait until at least day 14 from the date on the NIP and send back the draft letter,
ii) Fill in the new NIP with the correct details (assuming an amended one is sent),
iii) A conditional offer of a fixed penalty will then be sent (providing the speed was not excessive).  Ignore it and wait for the summons to attend court (if it ever arrives),
iv) Fight the substantive speeding charge on the grounds covered.

If you're interested, there is a case similar to yours over here.  It isn't exactly analagous to yours (vague offence locus, as opposed to incorrect time), but the objective is the same.
russellwookey
excuse my ignorancwe but what grounds etc

is it the late ticket or the wrong info what exactly is my case

sorry never been caught doing anything lol
firefly
The NIP is, in theory, invalid because of the wrong time.  When you write to the police to inform them that you can't fill out the s172 form (which nominates the driver), then they'll probably issue you with another one which contains the correct time.

By that point it's passed the 14 day deadline and is therefore invalid.

Dig?
russellwookey
so my defece is u were late wich i made happen anyway

excuse my naivety
JT
QUOTE (firefly)
The NIP is, in theory, invalid because of the wrong time.  When you write to the police to inform them that you can't fill out the s172 form (which nominates the driver), then they'll probably issue you with another one which contains the correct time.

By that point it's passed the 14 day deadline and is therefore invalid.

The bottom line is that both NIPs are invalid, one because of an incorrect time, the other because it was served out of time.

But you DO need to complete and return the second one to avoid a charge under s172 for failure to supply details, and this will result in you getting a CoFP. Hopefully it is obvious you ignore this.

Should this eventually get to court you let them present their case and then defend the case on the grounds that no NIP was ever correctly served on you, that this is an essential part of the prosecution case, and that without it there is therefore no case to answer.

To be pedantic, there's just one thing I'm not sure about:

Q. Does the letter replying to the first NIP fully satisfy s172?
russellwookey
hope ur not asking me
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
so my defece is u were late wich i made happen anyway

excuse my naivety

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.  

JT's analysis is correct, in that the first and the second NIPs are invalid (providing you send away the letter, and subsequently receive an amended one outside the 14 day window).  I don't see how I could spell it out any easier.

QUOTE (JT)
To be pedantic, there's just one thing I'm not sure about:

Q. Does the letter replying to the first NIP fully satisfy s172?

Without a doubt.

How can you name a driver of a car at a specific time if the NIP states that the alleged offence took place when the car was - unquestionably - somewhere else?  The s172 request is for 'information'.  The letter is a legitimate response.  
Although not directly analagous, a similar point is discussed in the Jacob v Garland case to a certain extent IIRC.
JT
[quote=firefly][quote=russellwookey]so my defece is u were late wich i made happen anyway

excuse my naivety[/quote]
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.
[/quote]
I think he means that the second NIP will be late as a result of his delaying in pointing out the error in the first one.

Of course who "made it happen" is completely immaterial to the outcome of the case. In any case, surely the scammers "made it happen" by cocking it up in the first place! ;-)

[quote=JT]To be pedantic, there's just one thing I'm not sure about:

Q. Does the letter replying to the first NIP fully satisfy s172?[/quote]
Without a doubt.

How can you name a driver of a car at a specific time if the NIP states that the alleged offence took place when the car was - unquestionably - somewhere else?  The s172 request is for 'information'.  The letter is a legitimate response.  
Although not directly analagous, a similar point is discussed in the Jacob v Garland case to a certain extent IIRC.[/quote]
That sounds pretty solid - I was just checking.

In any case it would be prudent to staple the letter to the first NIP, which in turn should be clearly annotated "See attached Letter", before sending back by recorded delivery AT LEAST 14 DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (firefly)
If you're interested, there is a case similar to yours over here.  It isn't exactly analagous to yours (vague offence locus, as opposed to incorrect time), but the objective is the same.

Unforunately, in aix's case to which you linked, Young v Day supported him in that the location was too imprecise.
In this case, Pope v Clark does not.
The accused has to have been misled by the error, thus adding another hurdle to the defence.
The suggested letter is O.K. at this stage (but see below[#]), though, as it seems to comply with Neal v Fior and Jacob v Garland (can't help you Guv, not my car). For S172 to stick, they then have to prove that your car was involved in the alleged offence, which they cannot, because the time on the evidence is wrong (presumably).
However, if they do issue a corrected one, you must then give the details and you are back to relying on the incorrect time, which, according to Pope v Clark, will be problematical.
[#]Therefore, if you can prove that the car was elsewhere at the alleged time, it may be better to just supply the details as requested and hope that the error carries on all the way to court. It may, of course, be fixed on the way, but if so, you could return to the inprecise location defence, and so you've lost nothing.
In the light of Pope v Clark, I just don't see the incorrect time working.
firefly
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
<...> [#]Therefore, if you can prove that the car was elsewhere at the alleged time, it may be better to just supply the details as requested and hope that the error carries on all the way to court. It may, of course, be fixed on the way, but if so, you could return to the inprecise location defence, and so you've lost nothing.
In the light of Pope v Clark, I just don't see the incorrect time working.

I take your point (and had considered it prior to writing), but by providing the driver's details, russellwookey (RW) would be - in effect - acknowledging the incorrect time.  Hoping that it isn't picked up (and subsequently amended) until his day in court is risky.  Plus, you have the additional problem of cries of 'ambush' from the prosecution.  If the s172 notice was returned with RW's details and was produced in court, then the question may be asked, "Why didn't you raise this before?", whether they are entitled to do that or not.

The wording of legislation states that, "...within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was....served on him..."
Has the NIP been 'served' if it contains incorrect information?  In aix's case it was a vague offence locus, so the logic (although admittedly slightly different) must hold.  Is 4 miles (Young v Day) any less misleading than 12 hours?  I acknowledge the Pope v Clarke ruling, but what it doesn't tell us is how far out the time was in that case.  It may only have been 15 minutes, in which case RW's case is a good deal stronger.  

Anyone have the full Pope v Clarke judgment kicking around?  :roll:
russellwookey
now im really not sure what to do lol
russellwookey
ur not gonna belive this !!!!!!!1

i hadnt seen the nip until this morning but the person read it out to me over the phone as 12 31 am but the am part was infact  the double language bit of the welsh form at = am

can i still do any thing

am thinking of sending the letter anyway and saying i thought it meant am  in the hope they will drop it

cant handle 6 point i drive for a living help
JT
So it would seem that you are in receipt of a valid NIP after all.

In the light of this development, may I suggest you go and read this first then pick up the story from there?
russellwookey
if i want to go the time out route i think i must do this pls help me if u can im assuming it s the only option left

return nip after about 27 or is it 14 days reg post saying the time of offence was wrong (it wasnt but there welsh form is a bit ambiguous)

then if they return the nip ask for a photo of the vehicle going down the not sure who was drivuing route ( i am a part time vehilcle trader makes this easy as i dpnt know who was driving)

ask for more evidence of location etc basically stall stall stall

im assuming if i send correspondance reg post and they return not reg  i can just keep waiting for them to cum find me as they dont know if ive recieved it or not.
russellwookey
jt ???
firefly
It would really help to see the NIP, although from what you've said it doesn't sound as though the 'time-out' option is a runner.

You'd be well advised to seek a new plan of attack methinks.  :idea:
russellwookey
ive read alot but not sure how to attck this can u help fire fly
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
ive read alot but not sure how to attck this can u help fire fly

If you want to put up a fight, then I suggest you follow the advice as set out in this thread.
russellwookey
if i go the pace route what then happens
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
if i go the pace route what then happens

confused1.gif A hundred different things can happen.  I suggest reading up on some of the cases in here.  Type "PACE and statement" into the 'Search' facility at the top of the page and read up on some current cases.

Any more than that, I can't tell you.
firefly
As a side issue, just found out the times involved in the Pope v Clarke ruling.

Accused involved in incident at 11.45am, and the notice stated that it was 1.15pm -  which is 1½ hours.  It was held at appeal that this did not prejudice the accused sufficiently.  

I maintain that a 12 hour mistake is misleading.
russellwookey
im still not hundred percent sure who was driving the vehicle as i am a part time vehicle trader and share alot of driving from newport auctions with my girlfriend was thinking about asking for a copy of the photo first will this affect the pace route at a later date or not want to exhaust all the options first

1. ask for photo see if any one can be identified
2. if not say we cant indentify driver if either of us cannot be seen
3. if we are identifiable pace route after

ur opinions would be apprecited

thanks
russellwookey
any one

i have to to work in scotland tomorrow would be great full if ud help
firefly
Don't mix your defences.

In your shoes, I'd go for the PACE route.
russellwookey
one last thing im gonna go for the pace route now but is it worth waiting to send back my nip and how long should i leave im guessing  this increses the odds of a time out ??

many thnaks guys watch this space
russellwookey
??????????????????????
matt1133
QUOTE
how long should i leave im guessing  this increses the odds of a time out ??


If taking the PACE route, send back via special delivery (next day delivery) on the 26th or 27th day of the 28 day 'limit' stated on the NIP.

cheers,
matt
russellwookey
safty cam partner ship have now replyed to my pace letter

letter says

refering to correspondence blah blah job of police is to record detsils of vehicle not driver

having done htis it is the keepers job to supply info on the driver in the prescribed form renders him her liable to prosecution

we will now submitt papers to cps recommending prosecution for failing to supply detail summonms will be issued etc

what happens now guys am i off to court and what the hell do i do when i get there
Jase00
If you are being summoned for failure to supply and you have sent the Pace letter then I think thats a good thing icon_wink.gif
russellwookey
pls elaborate jason im a little confused or any one lo

can this still time out ?
The Rookie
Its good news because it sounds like they intend to 'do' you for failure to supply contraray to S172, but as you have presumably put the details of the driver in the PACE letter, then (from 'jones') you have satisfied the requirement of S172......so you cannot be guilty!

Simon
russellwookey
is it really as simple as that if it goes to court i say what in my defence seems like im addmitting that i did it lol sorry for my naivety
DW190
QUOTE (russellwookey)
is it really as simple as that if it goes to court i say what in my defence seems like im addmitting that i did it lol sorry for my naivety


A mate of mine is in court near the end of August for failing to identify the driver after sending the PACE statement.

The good thing is he has an acknowledgement for his letter/statement.

What police force is this?

BTW Dont do anything.  Just wait for the summons.
russellwookey
though it never went to court if it does what do i do lol
Jase00
Russ, in simple terms, you are ( maybe, wait till the summons arrives to be sure) being summonsed for failing to supply driver details,
Plead not guilty
Because you HAVE supplied the nessasary information for a s172 request via your PACE statement which should be in the evidence bundle,
OK?
QUOTE
seems like im addmitting that i did it

If your only being 'done' for failure to supply then the actual speeding offence is history icon_wink.gif
russellwookey
must say this little jem helped me alot does me getting off rest on the appeal though cheers


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pickford.html
russellwookey
how do i know when  this has timed out a friend seemed to think that even after six months as lond as the cps have laid the detail before the court they could then summonse me at any time
russellwookey
anybody ?
DW190
QUOTE (russellwookey)
how do i know when  this has timed out a friend seemed to think that even after six months as lond as the cps have laid the detail before the court they could then summonse me at any time


After six months has passed from the date of the alleged offence you can check with the court in the area which the alleged offence occurred if any informations have been laid in your name.
russellwookey
ive had a court summns from wales now oh dear iu suppose the good news is its for failing to supply details under section 172 bad news is ive lost the proof of reg post oops not sure if i can get any joy with the post office on this one im a little nervous about this ive never even been in a court ur advice boys looks like im going the whole hogg  :shock:
firefly
What did you actually send to the camera office?  Did you send the PACE letter, or the "unsure of driver" letter?
russellwookey
pace
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
pace

biggrin.gif  

If s.172's all you've been charged with then you're in good shape.  I strongly recommend reading this thread in the member's section.
DW190
QUOTE (russellwookey)
ive had a court summns from wales now oh dear iu suppose the good news is its for failing to supply details under section 172 bad news is ive lost the proof of reg post oops not sure if i can get any joy with the post office on this one im a little nervous about this ive never even been in a court ur advice boys looks like im going the whole hogg  icon_eek.gif


Your summons should have a bundle of documents enclosd with it.  Is there a copy of your pace statement in the bundle.

Also if you have checked on the Royal Mail web site that your SD was delivered it would still be in the history if you typed in the first letter of the reference in the track and trace.
russellwookey
is the defense really that simple ask the questions stated  and hand in the document to the clerk of the court or am i over simplyfying things
firefly
QUOTE (russellwookey)
is the defense really that simple ask the questions stated  and hand in the document to the clerk of the court or am i over simplyfying things

Pretty much.

You will need to explain that DPP v Jones is authority for the fact that a written & signed response (PACE statment) is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.  Read up on Jones.  Any questions, give us a shout.
russellwookey
right what i posted the other day is slightly inaccurate was relying on partner over th e phone do apologise

1 being prosecuted for speeding and failure to produce driver

2 cannot find proof of delivery however hove contacted the camera unit who say they have recieved "something" in correspondance from me !

3 they also want me to say if i whether i object to thier wotness statement

4 i suppose i plead not guilty on the court form and return it

am getting a little shaky now

could i be done for both offences seperatly

i guees ill need 2 defences now sorry to sound such a fool but ive never done anything like this
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.