Safe Speed Forums

This just in, it's part of a NIP:



Look at the last line. It's a lie. It ignores the paragraph 4 defence and misleads about the maximum points that can be awarded for a S172 offence.

Question: Does this defect invalidate the NIP?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What about the bit, "IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION YOU WILL BE LIABLE..."

If you're unable to, then you're unable to.

It really stinks!

How much longer are these people going to ride roughshod over every last remaining shred of justice?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Sorry, yeah.

That's the bit I intended to highlight. "ignores the paragraph 4 defence"

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That should have read, "If you decline/refuse to provide the required information................."

That would have made more legal sense.

You get pinged on the way to the airport for your 3 month holiday, or as I nearly took a job overseas, 2 month on, 2 months off???????????????
I could have come back to drive my car and find that my licence had been revoked in my absence, but only find this out when I get stopped by plod and they do a DVLE check on me.

This stinks.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Your license cannot be revoked in your absence.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Why not return the NiP with a letter to the effect that the NiP contains erroneous statement(s) and is thus invalid. Point out that if a person is 'unable' to do something it means that notwithstanding any and all efforts they may make, they are still absolutely 'unable' to do that thing. Hence, under the law and S172, they have an absolute defence. Refuse to accept the NiP as an NiP until the wording is truthful and accurate. Suggest that they re-send it correctly worded at which time you will deal with it as required under the law. Then, if they do re-send it they have tacitly accepted that they had not sent a valid NiP within 14 days thus making it 'out of time' and if they issue a summons for non-compliance with S172 there is the defence that the original document purporting to be an NiP issued under S172 was not, in fact, a valid NiP due to its incorrect statement which was contrary to the Statute (S174 Para4). It's really an attempt to gain a confession under false and illegal duress.
Would the CPS want to run with this? A case for the media, maybe.

If a statement made on the form is factually incorrect then you suggest it makes the NIP itself invalid.

If this is the case then does "you are required to provide the information on the attached form", which is also factually incorrect, invalidate a NIP?

I don't think it would invalidate the NIP as such. Even though it contains bad and misleading advice, it still informs the recipient of the offence within the requisite 14 days, so I doubt if you could defend the alleged offence on these grounds.

I do get the feeling that another offence is being committed somewhere down the line, along the lines of fraud / deception / money by menaces or something of that ilk, and in any case, in the current climate I'm sure it would be a great thing to point out to the media.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I had a long chat with a District Judge yesterday on this NIP defect. It's possible that it might form a defence under some circumstances, if for example, the erroneous statement led one into responding improperly to the NIP. However it isn't thought to be a strong or a likely defence.

It was very much agreed that the wording is in error and misleading. So it's trial by press. I'll get on the phone today and look for a good opportunity.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hope this isn't too late Paul, but also remember to include the common lie where they say 'you are required to provide the information on the attached form'. The high court decided in DPP v Jones that providing the information in a seperate letter is legal.

Please forgive my ignorance (as I've never had one of these NIPS ), but wasn't there something on the lines that you didn't have to sign the NiP and therefore, when you sent it back, it was inadmissible evidence?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Mine from S.Yorks police said effectively the same thing:-

"If you fail to identify the driver, the driver will be prosecuted for failing to identify the driver"... Complete nonsense.

It looked that way for a while, but the High Court ruled in Francis that the information must be signed.

Point of interest - does owner need to be RK /vise versa and does owner/RK need to hold licence?

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

edited

edited

Thnks - take it by child you mean minor - would cause some problems ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I saw one from Leicester which stated 6 points and a £1000 fine. Could get it posted if you like.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

edited