Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP Returned by Cumbria+Photographic evidence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
immy
This morning I have recieved my NIP back by first class post having been sent off unsigned.
I had filled in section 6 of my NIP that stated "I was the driver of the behicle at the time of the alleged offence, and wish the matter to be dealt with by a court hearing" I filled in my name address, DOB, and licence number and left unsigned.

The enclosed police letter states
"I am in receipt of your notice regarding the above fixed penalty.
I note you have completed page 4, part 6 of your notice requesting the matter to be heard at court. In order to proceed with this request I require your signature on this section of the notice. I return your notice for attention and request that you sign the page 4, part 6 and return to this office within 7 days.
Yours Faithfully
{signature}
Deputy Manager/File Decision Maker"

Should I send the PACE letter to them? Bearing in mind that i stay about 150 miles from the offence location, so very unlikely that they will send someone to caution me under PACE?

Or should I ask to see the photograph evidence since their was 2 occupants in the car that day and im unsure who was driving at the time of the incident.

Yours views much apreciated.
nigeldunne64
immy, I would write them a very polite note along the lines of " With reference to the alleged offence on the date of ..... To assist me in identifying the driver I would request that you provide me with a copy of the photographic evidence so I can ensure my legal duties are carried out. Obviously it is an offence to give information knowingly or recklessly that may be false and the photograph will ensure I identify the correct driver." DO NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT ADMIT OR DISCUSS FILLING IN THE PREVIOUS NIP!!!
If you do they will use that against you, as it stands they have no proof who filled in the form so keep it that way.
Re post when you get their reply please biggrin.gif
immy
only problem is, the person who was with me, is only covered as a named driver on her dads policy....so in effect not being insured to drive my car......can I bluff them for a bit?
nigeldunne64
immy, at this moment only you and the young lady know that. You will notice that they haven't asked to see insurance or Mot as they only want your money icon_evil.gif
No just do as I suggested and ask to see the photos to assist you in complying with S172 and then wait to see how good there shots are. If you cannot recognise the driver or even their sex, then the Police aren't stupid and will have noticed the same. they will then, if you have been seen to be reasonable,diligent and polite, drop the case quietly. Its certainly worth a try - you cannot lose any more trying this can you icon_question.gif
immy
This morning received a letter from Cumbria Police including 3 head on pictures of my car.
Speed is registered only on the 1st picture from a distance of 450m, number plate is not distinguishable from this range, neither are the occupants.
2nd and 3rd picture, shows my car 10 seconds later, this time the number plate can be read clearly. No speed is recorded on the 2nd or 3rd picture. The drivers clothing or facial features are not very clear.

Any advice as to what I do from here....
Divbad
I think, from other posts, that they need more cohesive evidence. A video of you driving at speed & stepping out of the car, smilig for camera, would suffice. A single still from that video would need to show the complete evidence - you, the car, the speed, time, date etc. - all in one photograph.

Who is to prove that their existing photos were even taken the same day? Do you belive the timestamp - in easy computer font? Is it really the same car in shots 1 and 2? There's a lot of similar cars about...
immy
Well from the pics....the only one that shows the speed evidence, it doesn't show number plate or occupants.
Do they have to produce stills in court or do they show the actual video?
Divbad
So maybe you could write to the court and the CPS, insisting / requesting that the non-identifying stills be barred from evidence as, clearly, there is nothing to connect the car caught speeding with your car, "caught" not speeding. icon_twisted.gif
immy
Ive learned that my stills have been taken from a video produced by the 20/20 Laserscope device.
Not sure what the rest of the video shows yet. Or if numberplate is distinguishable on other frames with speed offence.

The photos were sent to me, to aid me in identifying the driver....which at the moment im unable to do from the pictures they have sent me.
I shall send them a list of possible drivers it could have been and see what their response is.
Any sample letters I can draft that say that I am unable to determine who was driving?
firefly
immy, it may be a bit late but here you go.

QUOTE
Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - *******  

Dear  

I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, I can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following:  

· Name and address of driver number 1; and  
· Name and address of driver number 2, etc.  

Each has seen the photographic evidence but neither is able to be clear as to who it actually is. (or - Each was prepared to view the photographic evidence, but as you said in your letter of ***** "the photographic evidence is not intended to identify the driver, it is simply a means of identifying the offending vehicle".) I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.  

So other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters, and having provided the details of the two individuals above, there is nothing else I can do. I very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court.  

Yours sincerely,  


regards

ff
gassit
Just an aside to your comments. Whilst I appreciate the comments regrding the fact that the photos cannot be used too identify the driver only the vehicle , there is a problem with this. In a case where 1 of my employees was caught speeding I tried the "I did not know who was driving" angle. My solicitor said that I should do everything to prove due diligence. I sent vehicle logs and pool car procedures to demonstrate our system and the names of the 2 possible drivers. I was invited to view the photographs at the Scamera unit "to assist me in identifying the driver". When I saw the still Iwas relieved to see it was fuzzy and I really couldn't make out the driver. However, I was then invited to watch the video in real time, this being from an Lti 20-20.

The video starts at distance where the speed is identified, the operator then follows the caught car , all the way until it passes the van. The video was clear as crystal when viewed in real time. The stills are fuzzy, the same way as when you pause your video at home. There was no way I could say that it was not possible to make out the driver, it really was that clear. Funnily enough you could even see our driver mouth the word f**k as he realised what the van was.

So if they ask you to view the video watch out because you will probably be in the same predicament.

Cheers


Gas

Promoting the cause of LRC 100 garage door openers.
immy
I believe in a court of law(if the case was to go that far), the CPS are not allowed to use video surveillance to identify occupants of a car, only the vehicle. The only way they can identify the driver is thru a confession.
Even if its as bright as day that the person is easily identifiable from the video, they cannot use this in court without a confession.

Also I somehow think that they will be reluctant to send me a copy of the video if i asked for it and as the offence occurred 150 miles from my home, I doubt I shall take up any offer of going to view the tape at a Cumbrian police station.
As it stands, from the evidence they have provided, the images are not clear and Im unable to identify the driver of the vehicle, so shall write to them stating this and give them a list of possible drivers.

Should I sign and date the letter I send them?
firefly
Pretty much spot on as far as I can tell. It is wether or not the court have deemed you have been reasonably diligent rolleyes.gif or not, whatever that should be!!

regards

ff
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.