nip and some dodgy behaviour from police. Opinions needed please.

[Bad lad]

Looking for input and people’s opinions please, just so I get different views…

 

Bare facts….

wife comes home annoyed with herself because she’s convinced she’s been caught by mobile speed camera,

 few days later nip comes in post in my name ( I’m registered keeper) 34 mph in  A 30 limit, from mobile camera in location and day time wife said…..

all simple so far

although I did consider accepting 6 points and fine rather than grassing Mrs up to police I have no respect or like of, wife insisted  ( only because of big fine) I fill form in and return with her details, 

form returned, fulfilling my section 172 Rta obligation as far as I’m concerned.

 

here’s where things get odd ! 

 

a few weeks later police send me second letter saying thanks for response however there appears to be a discrepancy so not able to transfer to nominated driver ( wife). examination of photo evidence suggests driver is not person I named as age and or gender do not correspond with my nomination. if I wish to view photo I can ask for it. letter goes on to make threats and demands under s172  ( although I believe I’ve fulfilled my s172 obligation by completing nip ) 

 

In my opinion they obviously  think my Mrs is taking points for me or something similar… obviously this isn’t the case, I’ve nothing to be worried about and chose to ignore the threatening letter… I don’t see why I needed to ask for picture so didn’t, besides I’m not going to go out of my way to be overly helpful I’m no fan of police remember… I’m of the opinion that if I see picture I’m privy to information I might have to share , besides my research tells me the photo has no other legal purpose than identifying the vehicle keeper from registration.

 

My attitude is I’ve fulfilled my legal requirements if they don’t believe me that’s not my problem, I’ll laugh at them in court. Go forward around 6 weeks, I’ve had another letter saying that they can’t deal with this anymore and I’ll hear from the courts…

 

quick side note, my Mrs hasn’t been contacted by them… obviously I’m assuming at some point I’m going to get a summons for either failing to supply information (s172 ) THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE. OR speeding  or you never know the fools might even try perverting the course of justice.

 

so,,, that’s pretty much where I’m at, I’m looking for input please and feel free to tell me if I’m missing anything.
Thanks 

Edited March 2, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Manxman in exile]

You've got a NIP for doing just 34 mph in a 30 limit?  That's strange because they usually only start to prosecute at the limit +10% +2 mph.  (ie 35 mph in a 30 limit).

[Bad lad]

Yes 34 mph I’m afraid 

[Man in the middle]

As much as it grates on you, you should have engaged with the police when this first arose. A quick look at the photograph you were offered would have confirmed your suspicion that this is a cock-up (or not). However, you are where you are. 

 

I imagine the next you will hear will be a single justice procedure notice for "Failing to provide driver's details." You will obviously plead Not Guilty to this and unless somebody looks at the case beforehand you will face a trial. 

 

Taking what you've said at face value, you have a cast iron defence. You've provided the details of the person you believe was driving. Is there any possibility she wasn't? Might she have lent the car to somebody without telling you? There is one thing you need to realise:
 

Quote

 

...besides my research tells me the photo has no other legal purpose than identifying the vehicle keeper from registration.

 

 

Whilst that's certainly what it was taken for, the police may use it for any purpose they choose. If it provides them with evidence to support their suspicion that an offence has been committed, it will be used (that's why it was a good idea that you saw it). 

 

You are correct - Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice is certainly a possibility and if you are charged with that offence you need to seek formal legal advice. If they just go for the s172 offence you will be served with the evidence they intend to rely on to convict you before you enter your plea. So you should see the photograph they have.

 

You need to wait to see what they do.

 

As an aside:

 

Quote

Yes 34 mph I’m afraid 

 

Any chance you might post the NIP up here (redacted, of course). There is another forum where members are very interested to learn of any action taken against drivers at below the (Limit+10%+2mph) threshold.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Man in the middle

[Bad lad]

Thanks for the info Man in the middle, grates is an understatement

I was not and will not go out of my way to help them, 

besides you never know the Mrs might get off with it

 

The nip itself is long out of my hands I’m afraid, it was filled in and returned 

[Man in the middle]

Unless the matter is discontinued, at some point you will need to engage with this. If you receive a SJPN at the very least you will need to respond to it. Failure to do so will see you tried in your absence. If it was me I would be absolutely intrigued to find out what this is all about and why the police believe you were telling Porkies. 

 

As I said, you will have to wait and see what they do. One thing you should realise is that a conviction for s172 will see you with an endorsement code MS90 and it is one which insurers hate. It will see your premiums rocket for up to five years. PCoJ, of course is a different ball game entirely. I would be doing everything I could to avoid either of those (especially the second) and I'd want to know what it is all about.

 

Do report back to let us know what you find out. I'm more intrigued than you are!  

[Bad lad]

Thanks for the info folks, just to add further information, I’ve emailed police asking for photo, only because it’ll be beneficial to my defence. 
Also my Mrs isn’t 100% sure but  she may  have been gardening at the time and had a baseball cap on  to keep her hair out of her face then nipped out . I suppose it’s possible they think it’s a young lad. Me and the Mrs are early 50s

[Ethel Street]

15 hours ago, Bad lad said:

I was not and will not go out of my way to help them, 

 

If I were in your position I'd look at it as going out of my way to help myself and keep me out of court! 

[Hammy1962]

 

Go to Court, laugh at them, let us know what happens.......

 

H

[Bad lad]

Update…. 

Today I’ve been  sent 2 photos and a further request for information under s172 ( again ! )

QUESTION, am I correct in thinking I’ve satisfied my s172 obligations by completing and returning the nip in the first instance ?

 

The photos: 

apologies, the offending speed is 35 mph on the picture not 34…

 

the pictures are pretty crap to be honest, I can just about tell it’s my Mrs by the long hair ( pictures are dark ) 

 

Im not totally thick and see a really weak reason for questioning who the driver is because photos are not conclusive,  I can also see argument that they shouldn’t be casting wild aspersions with no evidence…

 

from the pictures I’ve been sent I can only describe their actions as reckless and unfounded !
Obviously I rest on my laurels knowing exactly who was driving so can afford being on the moral high ground

to answerable couple of the above comments ,

 

it’s looking like the police are dead set on court going by their actions, I’m not really choosing it.

If they won’t accept the truth that was given to them what else can I do ?

 

of and if we end up in court I won’t be physically laughing but do believe I could run rings around their actions etc so far.

 

 

Opinions and views welcomed please

 

 

 

[Man in the middle]

Yes you have satisfied your obligations under s172.

 

 

However, there is nothing in s172 that says they cannot ask you again and (as far as I know) no English case law that covers the matter. There is a Scottish case which addressed the issue and the ruling in that was that refusal to respond to a second request (when the first had been received) was not an offence. However, Scottish case law is not binding on courts in E&W (though it can be persuasive).

 

It depends how much you want to stir the hornet's nest.

If you decline to respond to the second request they may try to prosecute you for that and the outcome would be uncertain (as above).

 

If you respond to it in exactly the same manner as you did the first, that removes that potential obstacle. That will leave you in the same position as now -  that is that you have responded with what you believe to be the truth. It would be for the police to produce evidence that you have not responded truthfully and from what you say they cannot do that.

 

At the very simplest you could ask your wife to provide a statement that she was indeed the driver at the relevant time and that she is indeed the person shown in the photographs. However, the trial process involves the prosecution presenting its case first and they have to produce sufficient evidence so that the court could (but not necessarily would) convict you.

 

Only if they do that will you be required to respond with your defence. If the prosecution fails to do so (in your opinion) you can ask them to consider that there is "no case to answer" and if they agree then no defence is required.

Edited February 3, 2022 by dx100uk
spacing

[Bad lad]

Thank you Man in the Middle, you seem very knowledgeable I’m assuming you are a solicitor or similar. Your time and efforts are appreciated.

Btw My googling only resulted in the Scottish case for reference.

you have given me food for thought. 
 

im considering replying to the police although it pains me, 

 

my reply might consist of a shot letter saying I believe I have fulfilled my s172 requirements and stand fully behind my original reply. I’m aggrieved by the inference of their letters

I do not intend to enter into further communication.

 

[Man in the middle]

I think that's wise.

 

I understand your reticence to go along with their demands. However, it will be far easier to win this argument by complying with their requests. If it does go to court and you can show that you have co-operated as far as you can the court cannot draw any adverse inferences by you trying to be obstructive. You want to win this and the police will be just as much defeated if you go along with their requests and you will not have left any avenue open for potential defeat.

 

There is no obligation to provide the information required on the pro-forma the police send you. However, to avoid an accusation that you have not responded properly I would include something like

 

"...and stand fully behind my original reply. For the avoidance of any further misunderstanding the driver was Mrs [firstname] Badlad, [address], [driving licence number]. This is now the second time I have provided these details as I am obliged to do under s172 ot the RTA and I now consider this matter closed.

 

Take a copy and get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office.

 

Do let us know the outcome.

 

 

[dx100uk]

what happened here please?

 

dx

[Bad lad]

Apologies on no Recent updates.

 

To put it bluntly nothing has happened, I decided not to say anything to the police, to be fair they have nothing to substantiate their spurious unfounded allegations.

 

In other words I decided on the leave em to it and see approach… 

 

I’m waiting for my moment to give them grief  (6month rule) we have just shy of a month to go,  might as well feel the benefit of immunity to prosecution

 

once the 6 months are up I’ll probably taunt and shame them on Facebook to exact my revenge

.Obviously I’ll post a link here

Edited February 3, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Man in the middle]

Quote

I’m waiting for my moment to give them grief  (6month rule)...

 

Beware. There is no time limit on a prosecution for PCoJ. From what you say they do not have evidence for that, but just a heads up.

[Bad lad]

So, here we have a development.

yesterday I received a single justice procedural notice dated 21/02/22.

literally just over a week to go until 6 months are up ! 

Charges are failing to give information of driver and speeding..

 

Lots of information to comprehend as I’ve never dealt with one of these before.

interesting to see statements from camera operator etc. 

the most interesting one is from police admin guy who starts off by saying he received s172 nomination but basically they’re not happy with picture and it suggests driver sex / age doesn’t correspond to nomination. 

It’s worth noting my name is spelled incorrectly in his statement.

he goes on to say that furthers172  requests were sent with no reply.

 

Obviously this proves that S172 was complied with and I nominated my wife, I stand by my belief that I’m under no obligations to keep supplying the same information and S172 request was complied with. 

I also look forward to seeing  ( questioning) the photo evidence they refer to that shines doubt on my wife driving. It is physically impossible that anyone other than my wife was driving ( she knew she’d got the ticket at the time and we know exactly where she’d been and why ( till receipt with date and time a couple of minutes before offence).

 

The photo’s they’ve sent me are useless and it’s impossible to even tell there’s a driver, they have absolutely no reason to say they don’t believe it’s her.

 

As a quick side note it’s interesting to see the speeding offence date of charge  is 07/09/21 

but fail to supply information is 12/12/21 not date  of speeding…

 

Again they appear to be playing silly buggers juggling dates, maybe because they realised they are almost time barred to prosecute.

 

Any advice welcomed, thanks.

Edited February 27, 2022 by dx100uk
spacing

[Man in the middle]

Along with the SJPN you should have been served with "The Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" (IDPC). This is basically the evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon to secure a conviction. Have you been provided with anything other than the photos which do not identify who was driving? 

 

Obviously you should respond to the SJPN by pleading not guilty to both charges. You have responded to the s172 notice and you cannot plead guilty to speeding as you were not driving. 

 

As regards the dates, the s172 offence is not committed until 28 days after the request for information was served (the recipient has 28 days to respond and the offence is not committed until that period expires). So if they state an offence date of 12/12 then it seems they are alleging you failed to respond to a s172 notice  dated 14/11 at the latest. Does this indicate it was the first s172 notice that they allege you failed to respond to, or could it have been a later one?

 

I'll do a bit of digging about the legality of serving more than one s172 request for the same incident when the first one had seen a response.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Man in the middle

[Bad lad]

Hi Man in the Middle, thanks for your help yet again.

there’s no photos with the idpc, in fact I’d missed the fact that they were   Skirting around that, thanks for the heads up

it looks like the s172 they’re trying it on with is  dated 17/11/21. 
 

thanks for doing some digging around btw.

im struggling to find the Scottish case , typical.

looking at s172 section 7b looks helpful and I came across Phiri vs Dpp 2017 EWHC2546 that might be a little helpful 

[Man in the middle]

Quote

it looks like the s172 they’re trying it on with is  dated 17/11/21. 

 

If that's the case and your SJPN mentions an offence date of 12/12, no offence had been committed by that date. A s172 request dated 17/11 is deemed "served" two working days later - Friday 19/11. An offence is not committed until Friday 17th December.

 

That aside, I don't really see where the police are going with this. They've asked for information from you and you have provided it (presumably) within the timescales allowed. There seems to be no dispute with that from what you say. What they are saying is that they either didn't like or didn't believe your answer. If that's the case, a charge under s172 is not appropriate. You have complied with the requirements of s172. If they are to prosecute you for anything it should either be  for perjury (i.e. making  a false statement) or attempting to pervert the course of justice (i.e. providing information which might deflect a potential prosecution to somebody other than the perpetrator). 

 

The case of Phiri doesn't really help much as it is more to do with the response not being received at all (because the respondent put it into an outgoing post tray in his office and not into a Royal Mail post box). Section 172 (7)(b) is more to cover where a response is made late for good reason.

 

With one caveat, I'm fairly certain that a prosecution under s172 would fail. You responded in time and there is no dispute about that. The only worry I have is the duty a recipient might have to respond to multiple s172 requests for the same incident when the first has been responded to. My view (and it's only mine at present) is that such requests could be seen as an "abuse of process". It would be perverse, in my view, for the police to continue to make requests ad infinitum. Apart from anything else it would extend the time limit they have (of six months) to prosecute you for a s172 request similarly indefinitely. All they have to do is make a fresh request every five months and the clock starts again and that cannot be right.

 

I've put a couple of feelers out and will keep you posted.

[Bad lad]

Thanks for your excellent imput again, you certainly do have a broader view than me.

I know it’s hard for you to accept what I’m saying as 100% true etc, I’m more than happy to email you pictures of the paperwork if you wish. I can post my email address here if that’s within group rules.

let me know if that’s ok with you , I’d rather not post private information here, plus I’m not totally sure how to

[honeybee13]

Please don't put your email on the forum. 

 

With the documents, can you cover up the personal information and post them on the thread?

 

HB

[dx100uk]

One mass pdf only please

read our upload guide carefully.

 

dX

[Bad lad]

I’ve updated my profile picture, that’s what the police say doesn’t appear. To be the gender or age I nominated

[Man in the middle]

Quote

I know it’s hard for you to accept what I’m saying as 100% true etc,

 

I don't doubt any of it. Whenever I offer advice to questions like this I work on the basis that what we're told is 100% the truth. The only person to suffer if that is not the case is the person who posed the question as they will end up with incorrect advice.

 

So, here's what I've established:

 

There is no English case law covering the issue of multiple s172 requests being made. That's may be because such an issue has never reached the courts. There was a Scottish case as we both suspect. Nobody can cite it but the consensus is that it would not cover your circumstances anyway. What does seem to be common ground is this:

 

If you respond to a s172 request naming somebody who was not the driver, you are guilty of an offence under that section. The offence is failing to name the person who was driving. If you name somebody else, then you've failed in that obligation.

 

If the prosecution wants to secure a conviction on that basis they will have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,  that the information you provided was incorrect. From what you say they may have difficulty doing that.

 

As far as issuing multiple s172 requests goes, the law says that you are required to provide the information requested. It says nothing about responding to notices or requests. That requirement begins when the first s172 notice is served, it continues until it is satisfied or until the 28 day clock stops and the offence is committed. Although the police may extend the 28 day deadline at their discretion the requirement cannot be made a second or subsequent time for the same alleged incident. The notice (and any reminders/repeats) all relate to that single requirement. With that in mind, the offence (failing to provide driver's details) can only be committed once and that is 28 days after the first notice was served. So, apart from you having a sound defence anyway, there is a strong likelihood that the offence has timed out. I don't need to see the papers, but what was the date of the alleged speeding offence and the dates of the various notices you received?

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Man in the middle