Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Request for driver Info with Due Care offence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
delboy221
My question is, This letter is requesting for driver information only. There is no mention of prosecution for due care. As it has now been 17days after the offence. Does that now mean it is not possible for them to prosecute for Due Care?

Also the No License offence is total bollaux. Not looking good for the plod is it.

I have uploaded my letter
peterguk
Where's the rest of the thread gone?

OP, have you re-registered with a new username?

ETA

Here it is!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59607

superman and delboy are one and same rolleyes.gif
jobo
it was shut down by nemo, due to the underlying PCoJ conatations which kept croping up,,

this could of course be his friend posting ?

i think that is a very iffy NIP, but im not at all sure it isnt an NIP at all, as it ids the offences, back to the case law to see if it actualy has to say, that consideration is beeing given to prosicution, rather than just listing alledged offences.

im not sure that its enough to get it thrown out in the mags who arnmt al;l that keen on droping things on technicalities
CuriousOrange
Maybe this is supposed to be the friend now. Or I it's a coincidental but different case.

If the former, my reading of the other thread is that this letter was given in person to the RK at the time? So what are the chances of arguing that just because it doesn't say 'notice of intended prosecution' this isn't going to count as one? There's no set wording for verbal NIPs, and the requirement for the written is just

QUOTE
...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...


I'm not convinced that the magistrates will buy that this isn't sufficient as a NIP, which makes all the verbal/at the time arguments irrelevant (and would also explain the police were so keen to give a form over, something that the RK commented on).




Aretnap
IIRC a NIP is actually only required to be served or the registered keeper is it not? For people further on in the chain only the s172 request is needed. So if this is a second letter which superman's friend has recieved then whether or not it counts as a NIP would be irrelevant.

In any event, assuming this is Superman's friend were talking to, the fact that it is now 17 days since the alleged offence is no barrier whatsoever to prosecution.

The advice given in the other thread still applies. If you are thinking of falsely naming yourself as the driver in order to protect your friend then you should think again. This has the potential to backfire on you in a big way and could leave you facing anything from a due care charge to time in prison for perverting the course of justice.

Added: Never mind the above - I didn't notice the date on the letter. Obviously this is the original one, and unless Supernam has handed it to someone else (oops...), it's Superman posting, not the friend.
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 4 Mar 2011 - 12:40) *
it was shut down by nemo, due to the underlying PCoJ conatations which kept croping up, this could of course be his friend posting ?

To be fair, I think the official reason for locking it was that there was no other advice to give except 'name the person you know was driving', but the OP kept banging on wanting a cast-iron assurance that the due-care charge couldn't succeed.

Which is no different to this thread really.
Kickaha
I too think this superman (obviously during the day he is mild mannered Delboy221).

At a guess he keeps on about due care not being mentioned on the letter/NIP because his friend was happy to answer the no licence and no insurance, but is not going to help out on the due care charge.

Whatever the situation, it is not clear cut if the letter would stand up as a valid NIP (personally I think it would) BUT the OP needs to respond with the drivers details or get hit with a FtF charge.

The time to question the validity would be AFTER the driver is identified, because whatever its status as a NIP it is certainly a valid s172 request which must be answered.

peterguk
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Fri, 4 Mar 2011 - 13:28) *
The time to question the validity would be AFTER the driver is identified, because whatever its status as a NIP it is certainly a valid s172 request which must be answered.


This ^^

Sums up the situation perfectly. But for some reason, superdel seems to think he can avoid naming the driver..
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.