Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 'PACE' or 'why should I sign' Letter ?, advice please
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
russellg
I received an NIP which I signed saying my wife was driving, my wife received an NIP and by that time I had read these forums.

The NIP was returned unsigned, completed by me due to my wife's 'illness'. I have now received the B&B letter from Hants Constabulary stating that I have to sign, blah blah blah and "....that the process outlined above complies with the ruling of the High Court in the case of the DPP -v- BROOMFIELD (2002)".

Now my question is, do I respond with the 'lacuna' type argument asking them to clarify why I have to sign ?, or do I respond with the PACE agrument asking them to explain my rights ?.

Having read these forums I am not sure if there is a standard approach.

Thanks for any help.


BTW, the reason I'm choosing to contest is that my wife was caught by a Scamera unit doing 39 in a 30, the unit was parked in a 40 zone and my wife was about 10yds from it. Another money making scam.
Observer
QUOTE (russellg)
Now my question is, do I respond with the 'lacuna' type argument asking them to clarify why I have to sign ?, or do I respond with the PACE agrument asking them to explain my rights ?.


I assume you mean "why my wife has to sign". "You" should be off the hook completely.

My advice is to ignore correspondence and wait to see what turns up.
russellg
I passed the scamera unit today and decided to stop and have a look at the camera etc.

The woman operating was very pleasant and more than happy to show me the 'system'.

Anyway, having seen the camera and the images I believe that my wife will be easily identifiable as the driver should the speeding charge come to court.

Given that premise is there any point in continuing to refuse to sign the NIP ?
Mika
Russell,

This is a very interesting point and I just happen to have very recently spoken to a solicitor about it.

The “driver” is identified by means of the signed Section 172 notice, or by means of an unsigned Form - voluntary confession under PACE.

I am not aware of a case where the driver was identified by means of the photographic on its own. Therefore, if you wife is “Yorke compliant”, there may be no evidence to convict here; even if the photographic evidence shows that, someone ‘that looks similar to your wife’, may have been driving at the time of the alleged motoring offence.

Furthermore, I am not aware of the CPS actually ever trying to rely on a voluntary confession under PACE. icon_wink.gif
DW190
All the letters from CTO's mentioned in the forum appear to be the same.

The photographic evidence is for the purpose of identifying the vehicle registration number.

Dont the police need to apply for special permission for photographic surveylance of persons for more than 28 days.

Mika linked to a case were the 28 days had extended to 31 and someone got compensated even though the surveylance identified the egg thrower.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_eas...ast/3109221.stm
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.