Jump to content


DEN58

Notice of intention to prosecute

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3621 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

PLEASE HELP!!I was involved in an incident in a car park where a woman walked into the side of my car, I was reversing,saw her and stopped - she then bumped into the side, said she was fine, unhurt (got out of car to ask & offer to assist at least 3 times- am a nurse). More than 4 weeks later , police turned up at my home, she'd contacted them, told them she'd been injured and I've been charged with driving without due care and attention. Pleading not guilty, court date at end of Jan -this has been hanging over me for a year now!! Trying to find out about 2 week NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROSECUTE as actual summons wasn't recieved until 3 MONTHS after incident. Solicitor not had reply to letters to police - so he says. Is this prosecution fair and legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event of an accident, a NIP is not legally required.

 

The Police have 6 months in which to lay the information before a court so that a summons can be issued.

 

I think from your post that the prosecution is legal.

 

You need to concentrate on the circumstances of the alleged offence. For example, was this a car park with barriers - thus not public highway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying. I haven't been charged with injuring this woman. 'driving without due care and attention' ....reversing over unnecessary distance, (approx 12 ft in order to manoeuvre) and not looking when reversing -I was, that's how I was able to see her! Was dark, she was dressed in black and looking at her mobile. Car park was shopping outlet. Police statement of when I was questioned contained a few untruths too, but I didn't see that until 3 weeks ago. Her statement was a pack of lies, stating I was aggressive and abusive refusing to give my details - all untrue. A real worry for me as my job is subject to an enhanced CRB check. I've never had so much as a parking ticket before.

Edited by DEN58
punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEN58,

If you are being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, then the Police do have to NIP you. However, this does not have to be in writing. They can do it verbally. Did the Officer that questioned you say somtning like this " You will be reported for the question of considertaion of prosecuting your for - drivng without due care and attention". If so then he has NIP'd you . If you can clearly remember that he didnt say that, then he should have sent you a written notification of Intended Prosecution. If he failed to do that then basically the whole thing is illegal. However, that said ; it is up to the court and who they believe - if the offcer states the he did NIP you.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you saw her and stopped then she bumped into you. how is that undue care on your part. Any CCTV footage of the location ? or a witness ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry scousegeezer but you are totally wrong on this one.

 

If there is an accident involving the vehicle in question, of which the driver is aware, then the police do not need to provide an NIP.

This is one of the exceptions to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all!

It's all very odd! Police said they weren't going to prosecute for leaving scene of an accident as there wasn't one. So charge would be driving without due care. They also said there was an 'independent' witness but she was a woman I had already told them about who I believed was WITH the first woman!!! So it'll be my word against theirs in court. No cctv as far as I know, and no A&E report either. She claims the car hit her shoulder - I drive a fiesta and she was quite tall! Hope the magistrates are reasonable, worried this could be a [problem]!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SrawDog,

This has nothing to do with the accident and whether the driver is aware of the accident or not. This is connected to the alleged manner in which the vehicle was being driven, as far as the OP is concerned. For offences of wreckless, dangerous, inconsiderate or driving without due care, a NIP is required ; either verbal or in writing within the fourteen day time limit.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following offences require (under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - you'll find the whole Act here) that you be given notice of the fact that you may be prosecuted:-

a) Dangerous Driving

b) Careless & Inconsiderate driving

c) Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous place

d) Dangerous cycling

e) Careless & Inconsiderate cycling

f) Failing to conform with the indication of a police officer when directing traffic

g) Failing to comply with a traffic sign

h) Exceeding temporary speed restrictions imposed by s 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

i) Exceeding speed restrictions on a special road

j) Exceeding temporary speed limit imposed by order

k) Speeding offences generally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely none of the above would apply if it is a private car park and a council owned car park is also classed as private. I think thsi is a [problem].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surfer01,

As Pat Davies has said above - it all depends on whether the public have free moving access or whether there is a barrier or not. This wil;l be for the court to decide.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following offences require (under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - you'll find the whole Act here) that you be given notice of the fact that you may be prosecuted:-

a) Dangerous Driving

b) Careless & Inconsiderate driving

c) Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous place

d) Dangerous cycling

e) Careless & Inconsiderate cycling

f) Failing to conform with the indication of a police officer when directing traffic

g) Failing to comply with a traffic sign

h) Exceeding temporary speed restrictions imposed by s 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

i) Exceeding speed restrictions on a special road

j) Exceeding temporary speed limit imposed by order

k) Speeding offences generally

 

 

Have a look at your link, para. 2 (1), in respect of accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a look at your link, para. 2 (1), in respect of accidents.

 

You beat me to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RayKay,

I understand your point BUT as the OP states there is no action as far as the "accident" is concerned. He has not been reported for an injury accident, or anything connected with an accident. As far as the OP is concerned he has only been reported for an offence of driving without due care and attention - with nil action for an RTA. The unnecessary reversing of a vehicle, so as a stand alone driving offence ; he has to be NIP'd one way or the other.

 

Cheers - Scousgeezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the evidence of the alleged of driving without due care and attention is a non-injury accident?


********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scousegeezer

 

With the greatest of respect:-

pedestrian (injured) v. motor vehicle = accident

motor vehicle v. pedestrian (injured) = accident

 

The OP in his/her opening post states that the pedestrian was injured as a result of this incident,albeit this claim was made later to the police.

Yes, the whole matter seems very strange, but accident (alleged) it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayKay,

I understand your point BUT as the OP states there is no action as far as the "accident" is concerned. He has not been reported for an injury accident, or anything connected with an accident. As far as the OP is concerned he has only been reported for an offence of driving without due care and attention - with nil action for an RTA. The unnecessary reversing of a vehicle, so as a stand alone driving offence ; he has to be NIP'd one way or the other.

 

Cheers - Scousgeezer

 

Para 2 (1) means that an NIP is not needed for offences in section 1(1) if the offence occurs at the same time or immediately after an accident.

 

A summons for driving without due care and attention is not unusual in similar accidents to the OP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she then bumped into the side, said she was fine, unhurt (got out of car to ask & offer to assist at least 3 times- am a nurse).

 

SO, if there was a personal injury accident and the driver of the vehicle has failed to report it within 24hrs , why has the OP not been reported for summons for that offence. FOUR WEEKS later the old bill turn up at his home and report him for driving without due care. NO mention of an RTC. THEREFORE he needs to be NIP'd. END OF.

 

Scousegeezer

Edited by scousegeezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Section 2(1)

 

It all depends on the meaning of accident. Case law suggests that an accident does not have to be something that causes damage or injury, merely something that is an: "unintended occurrence"

 

I would say there has been an accident here. The woman stated she was ok and no details were exchanged. However, after becoming aware of injuries (which is rather suspect) she has informed the police.


Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEN58 - Ask your solicitor to request a copy of the prosecution file, you are entitled to disclosure of the alleged offence.

Forget about whether you have had/should have received an NIP.

I am assuming this was a public car park, and therefore a road under the Road Traffic Act. You were involved in an "accident" (injury is irrelevant) and you knew you were involved, therefore the NIP is not required.

Concentrate on the alleged injuries and any medical reports that are on the prosecution file.

Measure from the ground to the roof line of your car and compare it with the height of the lady involved. Her height should be on the medical report, which will give an indication of where she would have hit your car.

Unfortunately from your account it looks like this is a speculative claim.

Have you had any contact from your insurance company?

In these circumstances it is usual for them to investigate the incident themselves before paying any injury claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
she then bumped into the side, said she was fine, unhurt (got out of car to ask & offer to assist at least 3 times- am a nurse).

 

SO, if there was a personal injury accident and the driver of the vehicle has failed to report it within 24hrs , why has the OP not been reported for summons for that offence. FOUR WEEKS later the old bill turn up at his home and report him for driving without due care. NO mention of an RTC. THEREFORE he needs to be NIP'd. END OF.

 

Scousegeezer

 

Ok - shall we all just assume & accept that nearly a year down the line from this'incident' (sic) & now close to trial, the police, Crown Prosecution Service & the OP's solicitor have all been collectively negligent in somehow overlooking this fundamental point concerning the NIP & screwed-up big-time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 2 (1) RTOA 1988 does not define what type of accident is concerned, just 'an accident', which did occur - person ran into side of vehicle, which means that an NIP under Section 1 is not required.

 

As far as failing to report is concerned:

Section 170 RTA Act 1988 is different in that it only applies to accidents causing damage or injury, and that the driver must stop and if required to do so, give their name and address etc.

 

Obviously the OP did stop, and spoke to the woman who may or may not of said she was injured and may or may not have requested the driver's details and so there may be no requirement to report the accident to Police.

 

The Police may have considered that, and an offence under s.170 did not apply in this case and so did not summons for that offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raykay - totally agree with your post.

 

scousegeezer - I'm afraid it has to be said & no offence is intended, but you appear to be in complete denial over the facts as well as the law here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

 

Nip?? No chance on this one. I would not Nip for Sec 3 RTA88 as it does not apply if there is an RTC.

 

I have always used DAFFLE

 

Dangerous/Careless/inconsiderate Driving Cycling

Aiding and Abetting offences

Failing to comply prohibited Traffic signs (i.e No entry)

Failing to comply with Constable's direction (now includes PCSO and highways officers)

Leaving vehicle in a dangerous position.

Excess Speed

 

S170 RTA 88?? Definitely falls within the definition of RTC so long as the car park at that time was a "public" place. I fully agree with PD on this. If this is private... No Criminal prosecution should be used! Best scenario i can give on this is Tesco's carpark, car versus pedestrian. Tescos open, car park accessible to public, although rubbish it IS an RTC.

 

I hope i haven't read this wrong but hasn't the Op admitted to declaring "UNTRUTHS" in her statement. She also declares that the other party has told "A PACK OF LIES". Whatever the reasons for lying I'm sure the courts will bottom this out.

 

One thing i am confused about as this is relevant.

 

For this offence was OP interviewed ether by Contemporaneous notes or tape. This should have been done. The word "STATEMENT" was mentioned. I have never taken a statement from a suspect before in relation to an offence where he/she has been accused.

I am not impressed if it was a statement as OP would not have been cautioned plus 3 (if Contemp note). It should have been after interview for which OP was reported for summons followed by NOW caution.

 

Regards

 

S

Edited by PCSTAMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...