Safe Speed Forums

Apparently Nick Freeman was on Radio 4 this morning, saying that the postal strike will invalidate prosecutions because of late NIPs.

Sounds good.

But wait a minute. The authorities have an obligation to send a NIP so that, in the normal course of post the NIP will arrive no later than the 14th days after the date of offence.

So the way I read it they will be OK if they post them on time. Won't they?

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

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 13:19 this afternoon.

PR550: Postal Strike and Speed Cameras

news: for immediate release

For a speed camera prosecution to take place a notice - called a 'Notice of
Intended Prosecution (NIP) - must be served on the vehicle's registered keeper
within 14 days of the alleged offence.

With the current disruption to the postal service, these notices may not be
served and motorists will not be prosecuted.

Responding to comments by celebrity lawyer, Nick Freeman, on Radio 4 this
morning, Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Every cloud has a
silver lining, and in this case it appears that motorists will get a welcome
respite from the flawed and failed speed camera policy."

"Once speed cameras have been scrapped we will all be able to go back to
concentrating on the road ahead - and it won't be a day too soon."

"A vehicle owner receiving a notice more than 14 days after an alleged offence
should mark the notice 'out of time', and return it from whence it came by
recorded delivery. That should conclude the matter."

<ends>

It seems that there's a bandwagon and we have thus jumped on it.

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

Nothing NORMAL about the post situation, and it was well warned in advance. There is no excuse in my book.
Further action is to come too.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Maybe it will hinge on whether an 'out of time' delivery due to the strike action could be termed either as 'force majeure', in other words could not reasonable have been anticipated, or as a foreseeable event. If it was deemed foreseeable, then the authority issuing the NiP should have taken care to ensure that the document reached the addressee within the 14 days by using other delivery methods, like a police officer delivering it by hand or a courier firm who would get a signature on receipt.The Postal Workers Union have announced that strikes will be taking place, so IMHO, it was/is foreseeable. A totally 'wildcat' sudden walkout by postmen could well be 'force majeure'. That's not the case with this dispute.
Therefore, the SCP's/CPS are 'stuffed' if they rely on the GPO to deliver the NiP's.

Yep. I went round that loop and came to the same conclusion.

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

As I understand it, the managers continued to operate the "Guaranteed Next Day" service which would have enabled them to ensure delivery at a price.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

the way i look at it the posties go on strike, when they go back to work they get overtime to clear the backlog

The quote above is not entirely complete as it refers only the the posting of NIPs.

To be more precise, the NIP must be served before the 14th day following the alleged offence. It does not have to be served by post.

My understanding is that if they post the NIP in good time to reach you by post, then there is a presumption of service of the document(s). However due to the postal strike that presumption is rebuttable and therefore the NIP is out of time.

As the lovely Mandy Rice-Davies commented on a different matter; "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?".

what would happen if you wait until the NIP you just received (say it arrived within 14 days) is more than 14 days old then mark it out of time and send it back. If a dishonest person were to do this could they get out of responding to any NIP every time and just "blame it on a slow post service"

That wouldn't normally work.

The critical obligation is that the NIP must be sent in such a way that there's a reasonable expectation of it being received within 14 days.

When the post is all to pot, no such reasonable expectation can exist.

But at other times - when the post is working normally - sending it at, say, 12 days would normally be sufficient for the presumption of service to kick in.

The presumption of service is rebuttable in law, but lying about it could get you banged up for attempting to pervert the course of justice. There are better ways to fight back...

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

The reliance on normal post is flawed because they cannot prove you have received it or been served the NIP within the time limit. Post gets lost all the time.

What would happen if you did not open the letter (you can easily see its an NIP), waiting until the 14 days is up (assuming the offender knows the date of the offence) then sending it back writing on it "delivered to incorrect address - return to sender" written on a sticker placed over the original address to ensure it goes back.

By the time they get it back it will be too late to serve again.

That's why the presumption of service is rebuttable.



If you get caught that's attempting to pervert the course of justice. Again.

You can fight the law with the law but lying and cheating are big big risks.

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

The backlog is still not cleared. I have received today a first class recorded delivey item sent on 23rd

track and trace
parcel number= dw054667509gb

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

What happens if you are away when the NIP lands. You could naturally assume that it was delivered after the 14 days and send it back marked "out of time"

You are still perverting the course of justice. What if the postman remembers delivering it?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I would have thought that the "Perverting the Course of Justice" regs. would also apply to the CTO,s in Lancashire as well as the ordinary motorist.

Remember they are being investigated for "Falsely procuring Court Documents" or are they exempt from this piece of legislation?

Also what about the Hampshire CTO,s partnerships who were incidentally told 12 months ago "BY A SERVING POLICE OFFICER" that the signage was wrong and the convictions were very likely illegal and did nothing, surely this is a clear case of "Perverting the Course of Justice" or is it again a case of "Double Standards"?

The answer is a profound NO as the point is categorically "TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE CASH STRAPPED LOCAL BOROUGHS" and nothing to do whatever with "Road Safety"!!!!!!!!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Why don't they just scrap or reduce the 3 points then and just have a fine. Many people would object less to that. OR What about an option to pay to reduce your points: A driving licence valet