Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Decided to plead not guilty. Help! please.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Coogiboy
Guys
I have decided to plead not guilty to speeding. I was offered a 60 quid fine and 3 points.
the NIP did not arrive within 14 days and they claim to have posted it on day 6 of the 14 allowed in christmas week and out of the remaining 9 days ony 3 were working days.
I mentioned in writing that they were way over in time and they said they were not bothered it was not their responsibility to make sure it arrives just posted.
i then asked them who was driving as i couldnt remember and it waqs my wifes car.
they sent me a photo and on it it clearly shows a car right up the back of mine.
would this negate the reading?
ive decided to plead not guilty probably out of outrage than any real prospect of getting off.
What are the likely outcomes fine wise and could you give me any advice in regard to appearing and representing myself?
Any help gratefully received.
many thanks
Coogiboy
fedup2
you need to go through this


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=nipwizard
Ms Demeanor
Answer some questions;

Are you definitely the registered keeper of the car?

Did the police send the NIP by first class post?

Have you moved recently? When did you buy the car?

This is a preliminary issue unders.1 RTOA 88 if the court agrees that the NIP was not served in accordance with that section you cannot be convicted of speeding.

You may have to refer to case law to win the argument - R v Giddens.
Jlc
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 12:06) *
What are the likely outcomes fine wise and could you give me any advice in regard to appearing and representing myself?

What are the charges? Sounds like a s172 charge for not naming the driver?
Ms Demeanor
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 14:38) *
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 12:06) *
What are the likely outcomes fine wise and could you give me any advice in regard to appearing and representing myself?

What are the charges? Sounds like a s172 charge for not naming the driver?


If he got a £60 and 3 point FP then it got beyond the name the driver phase..
Jlc
QUOTE (Ms Demeanor @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 14:43) *
If he got a £60 and 3 point FP then it got beyond the name the driver phase..

Probably. Possibly an Avon 'super NIP'.
bama
1 do the nip wizard
2 "they said they were not bothered it was not their responsibility to make sure it arrives just posted." They put this in writing ?
Ms Demeanor
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 14:50) *
1 do the nip wizard
2 "they said they were not bothered it was not their responsibility to make sure it arrives just posted." They put this in writing ?


The police still seem to latch onto the old case of Groome and Driscoll and the irrebutable presumption of service if its sent with sufficient time to be delivered within the 14 days.

They often don't know about Giddens and the rebutable presumption of service when its sent first class.
Coogiboy
Thanks for the interest.
To clarify.
it was me driving they sent a photo, iwas doing 82 mph on the M1.
the NIP did not arrive at all.
First i knew of the NIP was when i got a letter warning me to name the driver.
requested Photo to clarify.
received photo and filled out sp172.
received offer of 3 points and fine.
couldnt do speed awareness as over 72 days from NIP
As i didnt get the NIP i asked to take the date from when i received the reminder.
nope.
Their exact response to the letter I sent quoting the 14 day regulation was.
"We are not responsible for notices delayed or lostin the post"

As i said in my first post i am pleading not guilty on the 14 day rule and the fact that there are 2 cars in the radar zone.
Im sure i have a snowballs chance of getting off but if i can make like difficult for these leeches then i can claim a small moral victory.

Its the way they put in the letter "the guidlines say this and that and we adhere to them and did in this case"
When in reality they do nothing of the sort.
The Van was parked illegally on the path, there are no speed camera signs on the stretch of the motorway in question.
There were no markings on the Van that i could see. maybe there were some on the back to make sure pedestrians didnt walk into the back of it.

So i intend to respectfully put it to the judge that these guys are tossers.

What are my chances?
smile.gif

Jlc
Can you post the photo's?

Just one point to note. If you plead NG and are subsequently found guilty the costs will be around £600. The fine will be income related (1/2 week) and a victim's surcharge added (10% of the fine, min £20, max £120) & 3 points.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 15:55) *
As i said in my first post i am pleading not guilty on the 14 day rule and the fact that there are 2 cars in the radar zone.

REALLY bad idea....that is saying you yourself aren't confident of your defence, stick with one or other, it's like saying 'I didn't throw the brick, but if I did it didn't break your window', it discredits you.
sgtdixie
You need to reconsider your potential attitude to court proceedings.
QUOTE
The Van was parked illegally on the path, there are no speed camera signs on the stretch of the motorway in question.
There were no markings on the Van that i could see. maybe there were some on the back to make sure pedestrians didnt walk into the back of it.


These points are irrelevant and if you start a perceived rant in court they will not only stop you but you will probably lose both credibility and any chance of a NG. In order for your defence based on no NIP within 14 days to succeed you will have to convince the bench you did not receive the original notice.

You originally said
QUOTE
the NIP did not arrive within 14 days and they claim to have posted it on day 6 of the 14 allowed in christmas week and out of the remaining 9 days ony 3 were working days


If it didn't arrive the number of working days is irrelevant. If you had claimed it arrived late due to the christmas post the court would have had a lot of sympathy, but that avenue is closed as you cannot lie about not receiving it. SO you are left with providing some sort of corroborative evidence it did not arrive. Very difficult.

As for the technical defence where you will be claiming the actual reading is wrong or does not relate to your vehicle. This could well end up with experts argueing the issue at great expense. Also until you see all the prosecution evidence you have no idea what was the money shot.

I would also say that magistrates courts dislike multiple defences. Saying the NIP didn't arrive, and anyway the actual speed is wrong smacks of desperation. Add to this an anti speed camera rant and your chances of winning are very small.
AntonyMMM
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 15:55) *
Im sure i have a snowballs chance of getting off but if i can make like difficult for these leeches then i can claim a small moral victory.


You won't make life difficult - they deal with these cases every day of the week and will hardly notice you. If they are required to attend court, they may even make some overtime money out of it.

QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 15:55) *
So i intend to respectfully put it to the judge that these guys are tossers.

What are my chances?


With that approach - almost nil.

You need to choose your defence and research and understand the law it is based on, and then present it well in court.

Any rants or attempts to reel off a multitude of defences especially irrelevant stuff about the siteing of the van or the lack of warning signs on the road/van will result in you being told to sit down and shut up pretty quickly.

These cases can be won, but only with work and planning.
desktop_demon
It is possible although not easy to prepare a defence on the facts stated. Who can say what the court will think.
Coogiboy
Thank you for all your comments.
I was under the impression if there was more than one valid technical reason i might put them forward as defence.
as i do not know yet what type of radar the mobile was using i cant say whether or not it may be a valid defense.
Under the APCO guidance any readings with more than one vehicle in it should be disregarded.

But we all know they dont stick to the guidelines in any way.
The 14 day one is the one i know for sure happened and has really pi%%$ed me off as i would have took the safety awareness course thingy.
Because i didnt get it by the time i had received the photo and filled out the sp172 it was over time.

Maybe i have a rose tinted veiw of our legal system. i thought there may be a slight sense of right and wrong applied by the Magistrate.
ie
these bastards lie through their teeth. they are clearly not playing the game fairly.
vs
here's a good honest citizen lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

none of that applies i guess.
Jlc
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 17:27) *
The 14 day one is the one i know for sure happened and has really pi%%$ed me off as i would have took the safety awareness course thingy.
Because i didnt get it by the time i had received the photo and filled out the sp172 it was over time.

The limit for taking an awareness course is usually up to around 4 months from the offence. I don't understand why it took so long?

Could you provide some 'evidence' of the late arrival?
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (Coogiboy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 17:27) *
as i do not know yet what type of radar the mobile was using i cant say whether or not it may be a valid defense.

Since no type of RADAR would have been used, almost certainly no defence there. Mobile units are certain to have been using a LASER device which doesn't have the same limitation. So it looks like you need to stick to the 14 day service issue.
desktop_demon
How was the NIP received? Were there any witnesses to the delivery or even when the letter was opened? Did the OP mention it to anyone at the time? Does the OP have CCTV covering the house?
What were the weather conditions at the time - were they likely to support the idea that delivery was disrupted? Is there a regular postman who knows the area or do they frequently change?
Logician
You need to understand that any guidelines are simply that, they are not enshrines in law. You would need to show that as a result the speed reading is wrong or cannot be relied on, which is an uphill struggle. There is requirement whatever to have camera signs, the van marked or anything else. This famous stealth camera was and is perfectly legal.
Jezzerh
Are you sure it was a van? The M1 seems an unlikely place when they have HADECS.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 19:11) *
There is no requirement whatever to have camera signs, the van marked or anything else.

Fixed that for you.
The Rookie
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 16:34) *
SO you are left with providing some sort of corroborative evidence it did not arrive. Very difficult.

No he's not, credable verbal evidence is ALL that is required, the key being credable*, having a rant on irrelevant stuff will kill any credability.

*If the court believe him they MUST aquit, if they don't they won't.
Logician
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 19:36) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 19:11) *
There is no requirement whatever to have camera signs, the van marked or anything else.

Fixed that for you.


Thank you!

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 19:38) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 16:34) *
SO you are left with providing some sort of corroborative evidence it did not arrive. Very difficult.

No he's not, credible verbal evidence is ALL that is required, the key being credible*, having a rant on irrelevant stuff will kill any credibility.

*If the court believe him they MUST aquit, if they don't they won't.


Fixed that for you!
sgtdixie
In my experience someone who simply says they did not receive an NIP will struggle to convince a bench they are telling the truth. Corroboration takes many forms. It can be a history of poor postal service, joint tenants who will give evidence nothing was received or even actions when a reminder was received.

I fully accept that if a court believe the OP when he says he did not receive the original NIP they must acquit, but a simple statement to that effect is rarely believed, hence my comment that in the real world some form of corroboration is required.

This is the difference between the theory of court and the reality.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.