View Full Version : HELP court summons received
Hi all, i have just today received a court summons for driving without due care and attention on the date of 06/07/10. I was not pulled over and this is totally out of the blue, not to mention over 3 months ago! Is there no timescale to which they have to convict you? I could really use any advice and am quite worried as i could receive penalty point and fine etc. Please help
Matt
Your best bet will be to speak to a solicitor who specialises in these cases.
Do you remember anything about the date in question?
Cant remember anything at all, the road in question is my route to work but the time does not fit. I already have 3 points for contravening a solid white line so im prety sure they will see this and assume im a rekless driver
fizzwheel
20-10-10, 11:19 AM
As said legal advice and take it from there.
Have a look in the back of MCN, theres plenty of firms specialising in this kind of thing. Alot of them may well give you the first hour free and then take it from there.
Got legal cover on any of your insurance policies?
if so, call them.
check the dates, the police only have 3 months to raise ANY court proceedings against anyone meaning that if the date was 06/07/10 they had untill 06/10/10 to raise the court request, outside of this date and any good solisitor will get it cleared off for you.
Also, got any other details about what they are charging you for? Should all be contained in the court documents.
the_lone_wolf
20-10-10, 11:51 AM
the police only have 3 months to raise ANY court proceedings against anyone
Six months to lay the papers before the court, no requirement to inform the defendant within that time limit
Source (http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingbanattendingcourt.htm)
sorry my mistake, although you should have received a letter asking if you were the driver of the viechle and the alledged offense that you should have replied to some time ago, if not chances are the police have done to you what they did to my partner, i confirmed i was not the driver (incident where she was driving my car and although stopped another car hit my cars mirror), she replied confirming that she was the driver unyet they apprently "never received the reply" even through it was handed in directly to the police station that it was intended to be sent to.
Milky Bar Kid
20-10-10, 12:19 PM
Right, did you receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution prior to this or is this the first you have heard of it? Seems strange that they haven't served a NIP on you as the registered keeper of the vehicle will need to be required under S172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide details of the driver of the vehicle at the material time. Are you sure this is a court summons and not a NIP?
Thanks for all the replies, it is a court summons, im due in court on the 7th of jan at 10am so should be a lovely late christmas present. I live with my girlfriend and my post goes to my parents place stil however i always collect it and dont remember getting an 'NIP' unless i mistook it a junk and threw it.
As for the details it literally just states the road and time and that i am being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention section 3 of the road and traffic act 1988. Im a full time student at university and work part time 24hrs a week i have very little spare cash to pay for solicitors. Im thinking of just pleading guilty and trying to get my punishment down to a bikesafe course. Ive read into this offence and apparently its hard to defend and easy to prosecute as its my word against that of an obviously upstanding officer of the law!
Are you sire you'll get away with bikesafe for admitting driving without due care and attention?
Milky Bar Kid
20-10-10, 01:07 PM
Thanks for all the replies, it is a court summons, im due in court on the 7th of jan at 10am so should be a lovely late christmas present. I live with my girlfriend and my post goes to my parents place stil however i always collect it and dont remember getting an 'NIP' unless i mistook it a junk and threw it.
As for the details it literally just states the road and time and that i am being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention section 3 of the road and traffic act 1988. Im a full time student at university and work part time 24hrs a week i have very little spare cash to pay for solicitors. Im thinking of just pleading guilty and trying to get my punishment down to a bikesafe course. Ive read into this offence and apparently its hard to defend and easy to prosecute as its my word against that of an obviously upstanding officer of the law!
Nah, they CANNOT just send you a summons. They can't prove who was driving or bugger all!
For a S3 you need to have been given a Section 1 warning under the Road Traffic Offenders act. Which has to either be given verbally IMMEDIATELY at the time or a NIP sent within 14 days of the incident, unless it is an accident (which doesn't necessarily mean you have crashed btw). If you haven't been given a S172 requirement or anything then I would defo be fighting this.
fizzwheel
20-10-10, 01:25 PM
dont remember getting an 'NIP' unless i mistook it a junk and threw it.!
That may explain it. They'll just assume you ignored the NIP if that was the case.
Like I said go get some legal advice.
I'd be wary of thinking they'll reduce your fine / sentance to a driving education course, especially with points already on your license.
Go get the legal advice, it may pay for itself in the long run by avoiding a mahoosive fine or a ban.
I'm with Fiz on this, get legal advice, check your insurance policies (car, bike, house, life etc) your bound to have "legal protection" on at least one of them which can be used for anything not just for what the policy it was setup with is for.
Alternately if your income is very low you may be able to get legal aid regardless especially if the case is totally bogus.
In court the onus will be on the police to first prove they followed procedure, then you'll be able to defend yourself, dont just admit guilt now otherwise you'll never know what you may be admiting guilt for and it may be a case of someone stole your number plate details without you knowing.
Also, Driving with out due care can be defended especially if there is no witness to prove otherwise and no evidence.
Milky Bar Kid
20-10-10, 01:47 PM
That may explain it. They'll just assume you ignored the NIP if that was the case.
Like I said go get some legal advice.
I'd be wary of thinking they'll reduce your fine / sentance to a driving education course, especially with points already on your license.
Go get the legal advice, it may pay for itself in the long run by avoiding a mahoosive fine or a ban.
Yep agree with Fizz here.
Thanks again this is all very usefull i have just found i have legal advice with my insurance so will be ringing them shortly. I highly doubt there is any evidence if anything it will be a police officers word against mine. I was only thinking of admiting guilt after reading the rest of the papers that came with the summons saying how admiting guilt at an early stage would help avoid a severe sentance
Milky Bar Kid
20-10-10, 02:21 PM
Thanks again this is all very usefull i have just found i have legal advice with my insurance so will be ringing them shortly. I highly doubt there is any evidence if anything it will be a police officers word against mine. I was only thinking of admiting guilt after reading the rest of the papers that came with the summons saying how admiting guilt at an early stage would help avoid a severe sentance
Or a civilian witness? And witness statements, whether Police or civilian are evidence :rolleyes:
Can you not request to see/be sent the evidence that they intend to use against you in court before the actual date? Might jog your memory.......
As an aside, you say the post goes to your parent's home. What address is the vehicle registered to and where do you live?? Don't answer that. Isn't there a legal requirement about the address of the keeper.... just be careful you don't dig another hole without realising it.
hmmm Like you're supposed to remember (or find witnesses to?) a presumably unremarkable journey you may or may not have made over three months ago...
If it's a summons not an NIP shouldn't it include witness statements etc?
Add a plus1 to the legal advise
Specialone
20-10-10, 11:42 PM
Dont admit it or plead guilty, get legal advice, pm -ralph-, they tried this shizzle with him and the police basically manipulated the evidence.
It got thrown out in the end, case dropped, bad civilian witness as well.
Just cos its official dont mean its accurate and truthful.
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 08:43 AM
You need to phone the court and ask them to send you a copy of the evidence held against you. Say nothing, don't discuss it at all with the person on the phone, just quote the case number, ask for a copy of the evidence and tell them where you want it send to, ask when it will be done, and say thank you and goodbye.
the police only have 3 months to raise ANY court proceedings against anyone meaning that if the date was 06/07/10 they had untill 06/10/10 to raise the court request, outside of this date and any good solisitor will get it cleared off for you.
Incorrect
Six months to lay the papers before the court, no requirement to inform the defendant within that time limit
Source (http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingbanattendingcourt.htm)
Correct
to get my punishment down to a bikesafe course
No chance
If it's a summons not an NIP shouldn't it include witness statements etc?
No, you will need to ask the court for a copy of the evidence held against you, or you may find the CPS send it out in the next couple of days.
Nah, they CANNOT just send you a summons. They can't prove who was driving or bugger all!
For a S3 you need to have been given a Section 1 warning under the Road Traffic Offenders act. Which has to either be given verbally IMMEDIATELY at the time or a NIP sent within 14 days of the incident, unless it is an accident (which doesn't necessarily mean you have crashed btw). If you haven't been given a S172 requirement or anything then I would defo be fighting this.
Just to reinforce what MBK is saying about an "accident". We determined in my case that if an "accident" occurred, which could be as simple as you causing someone to fall over and hurt their back of which you are not even aware, then they don't need to NIP within 14 days. They have the 6 month period during which to investigate allegations before deciding whether to prosecute and sending an NIP, court summons, and filing papers with the court. You should have been sent an NIP before the court summons, but I never got my first court summons either and when I requested a copy of it, it was addressed correctly. I reckon they produced the letter, but never actually put it in the post, but you try and prove that! If they can produce a copy of an NIP for the offence, dated and addressed correctly, that will be good enough even if you didn't receive it.
My solicitor maintained right to the end that DWDC was exempt from the 14 day rule anyway, despite the Road Traffic legislation the police on this forum found for me, clearly stating to the contrary. Trouble is legislation is open to interpretation.
SVMAT - Any help I can give you I will, but you must remember that neither I, nor anyone else on this forum that I am aware of, are road traffic solicitors or barristers who fight these cases in court everyday. There are some great coppers on here who can help and give advice, but their job is to investigate and report the crime, not to prosecute it and that is what you are now fighting.
You MUST get good legal advice, preferably from a solicitor that specialises in motoring offences. I can tell you who I used and what he costs, but I can't make a recommendation, as I have only ever used a motoring solicitor once, I have nothing to compare him to, so can't evaluate how good or bad he was, and you may contact the same firm as me and get a different solicitor.
Read this, but remember there is a lot of debate, misinformation, etc in there, just as there is in any forum thread. Take it all with a pinch of salt.
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=135778
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 08:54 AM
I don't understand how they can summon you to court for DWDC, if they haven't yet identified the driver of the vehicle. I'd have thought you be getting summoned for failing to provide the drivers details. REMEMBER THOUGH I'm not an expert.
BTW, forget "careless" or "without due care" The offence is defined as
"allowing your standard of driving to fall below that of a prudent motorist"
to be guilty of this offence all the CPS have to prove, is that you did something that a "prudent motorist" wouldn't have done. It gets used as a catch all offence when you have allegedly done something wrong on the road, but there is no other specific offence to prosecute you under.
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 09:01 AM
This is the solicitors firm I used
Their DWDC advice page
http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/careless_driving.htm
their prices
http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/services/faq.htm
If you decide to use them, don't bother paying 40 quid for a phone consultation and phoning them until you have the evidence held against you from the court, as you don't even know what you are accused of yet, you have nothing to discuss with them other than "I got a letter through the post".
The solicitor that helped me was Alan Jones.
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 09:03 AM
SV-MAT, where abouts in the country are you?
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 09:10 AM
BTW, and the police on here might not like this, but you must remember that not all police are as good as the guys on here, it's the first thing my solicitor said to me and IMO this is good advice.
If the police knock on your door asking for an interview, politely explain that you will be very happy to make an appointment to come into the police station and discuss it, with you solicitor, after you have had an opportunity to review the evidence against you.
The job of the police is to determine if they believe a crime may have been committed, they have determined that this is the case as they have sent you a court summons. Once past this stage they are no longer interested in finding out what actually happened, their job and all they are interested in, is gathering evidence against you that will support the prosecution case. Therefore you should not discuss it with the police on your own as you may trip yourself up.
Thanks ever so much RALPH i will ring the court and get the evidence if there is any. As to my whereabouts i am located in Chatham, Kent. The officer did actually come to my door the cheeky f*** but fortunatly i was not in. All the advice is great thankyou i will def be fighting this, as for a solicitor/barrister i am waiting to so if my legal cover with my insurance covers this or not :S. Cheerz Matt
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 11:16 AM
No worries, if you think it will be helpful PM me your number and Ill call you, but I can only tell you what happened in my case and what I know about the system, Im not qualified to give you advise. You cant decide if you are going to fight this yet BTW. Once you see the evidence, you may remember the incident, and think "oh ****, yeah I did do that" and the evidence may be irrefutable, ie: street CCTV, and the police could have done everything by the book, just the post failed you. Only then and with the advice of your solicitor can you decide whether to fight it. If you are banged to rights about something, pleading guilty at the first opportunity will get you the best result possible.
You need to be honest with yourself about your driving style, if you are a bit of a boy racer, take into account what any witnesses in court may say about you and what they saw.
Milky Bar Kid
21-10-10, 12:10 PM
BTW, and the police on here might not like this, but you must remember that not all police are as good as the guys on here, it's the first thing my solicitor said to me and IMO this is good advice.
If the police knock on your door asking for an interview, politely explain that you will be very happy to make an appointment to come into the police station and discuss it, with you solicitor, after you have had an opportunity to review the evidence against you.
The job of the police is to determine if they believe a crime may have been committed, they have determined that this is the case as they have sent you a court summons. Once past this stage they are no longer interested in finding out what actually happened, their job and all they are interested in, is gathering evidence against you that will support the prosecution case. Therefore you should not discuss it with the police on your own as you may trip yourself up.
Can I just say, that is incorrect. My job is to gather evidence, for and against the prosecution and disclosure now ensures this. But like you said, not everyone is a good guy/gal.
I do agree with Ralph that they shouldn't be able to have pursue the case without having a S172 req completed. If I didn't get a response to a NIP, I would send another. If I still got no response, I would be knocking at the door of the registered keeper until I got a response!
-Ralph-
21-10-10, 12:58 PM
Ha ha, see I knew you wouldn't like that post. It is your job to collect evidence for and against, but the reality of the world we live in is that people dont do exactly what it say in their job description.
<rest deleted as it was relevant to my case, not SV-MAT's>
Milky Bar Kid
21-10-10, 01:01 PM
Ha ha, see I knew you wouldn't like that post. It is your job to collect evidence for and against, but the reality of the world we live in is that people dont do exactly what it say in their job description. Evidence against the prosecution which was in police posession was deliberately omitted from the evidence preented to the court in my case. If there is compelling evidence against something, would you even submit it to the CPS for prosecution? And would the CPS have laid it before the court? This guy has been sent a summons, any evidence agains the prosecuton, unless it absolutely could not have been gathered beforehand, puts egg on the CPS face. It has to go to court now, the next opportunity for the CPS to drop it is on the morning of the court date when they could decide not to run it. As RH said after my trial, the first casualty in a court of law is justice, and it was 100% obvious to the CPS after the first the witness that I was not guilty, but did the drop it? No, they pushed a false version of events as hard as the could with achieving a prosecution the only goal. Justice and finding out what happened was not even on the radar. The copper who prepared the case also had the same one and only goal.
Didn't say I didn't like it, and I also said not everyone is good guy/gal.
And yes, I have, and will continue to submit evidence which goes against the prosecution to the Procurator Fiscal. Whether he decides to put it forward, is his/her choice, and shouldn't (but does) reflect on the Police.
DWDC&T on the way to work...normal day for me then ;)
Hope you get it sorted fella. Nothing to add other than whats been said really. Popping that weelie past the nunnary and school wasnt such a good idea now was it ;)
Evidence against the prosecution which was in police posession was deliberately omitted from the evidence preented to the court in my case.
Surely it is for the defence to present evidence against the prosecution. The only responsibility is to make the evidence available to the defendant.
No, they pushed a false version of events as hard as the could with achieving a prosecution the only goal.
Surely they presented their interpretation of events to gain a prosecution as they thought you were guilty. You weren't, of course, and the court found the fact of that.
Milky Bar Kid
21-10-10, 02:32 PM
Surely it is for the defence to present evidence against the prosecution. The only responsibility is to make the evidence available to the defendant.
Surely they presented their interpretation of events to gain a prosecution as they thought you were guilty. You weren't, of course, and the court found the fact of that.
Contrary to popular belief the Police are not actually the prosection. We are evidence gatherers, we gather evidence, both prosection and defence, and put it before the Crown, who will disclose it to the defence, the crown and defence then decided what to do with it!
Or certainly that's the case up here!
Contrary to popular belief the Police are not actually the prosection. We are evidence gatherers, we gather evidence, both prosection and defence, and put it before the Crown, who will disclose it to the defence, the crown and defence then decided what to do with it!
I know that, and I wasn't totally clear in what I said. My point was that the prosecution does not need to disclose evidence to a court that doesn't help their prosecution, but they can't hide it from the defence team.
Milky Bar Kid
21-10-10, 02:38 PM
I know that, and I wasn't totally clear in what I said. My point was that the prosecution does not need to disclose evidence to a court that doesn't help their prosecution, but they can't hide it from the defence team.
Yeh, spot on. And they really can't hide it with Disclosure!
As far as I'm aware, in England we have an adversarial system, the prosecution and defence are "adversaries", i.e. opponents or antagonists, or enemies even. Each is there to present and argue their version of the case and to "win", i.e. gain a verdict in their favour. The Court is not there specifically to determine the "truth" as in an "inquisitorial" system.
I'm surprised that yu didn't receive the prosecution evidence with the summons, the CPS would normally do this under the advance disclosure rules. So contact the CPS office and demand it. At least then you'll know what you're up against.
so while not reguarded as such in the legal statue a conviction is what leads to a penalty for a event which contravined the rules
From what I remember about the FPN the nice man gave me at Blair Atholl, it states quite categorically that it wasn't a conviction. So I think MBK is right here.
davepreston
21-10-10, 09:21 PM
done that just for you ralph
After going round in circles for a while i was told in order to get evidence i would have to write a letter requesting it to the police who would the forward it to the cps who will decide whether i get disclosure or not :S. The woman on the phone made it sound as if they basically did not have to disclose the evidence to me.
yorkie_chris
22-10-10, 01:46 PM
That may explain it. They'll just assume you ignored the NIP if that was the case.
Like I said go get some legal advice.
I'd be wary of thinking they'll reduce your fine / sentance to a driving education course, especially with points already on your license.
Go get the legal advice, it may pay for itself in the long run by avoiding a mahoosive fine or a ban.
+1 on the legal beagles.
Now this might be me talking balls as I'm no brief... but if he had been sent a NIP to determine who was driving (doesn't sound like he was), and did not respond to this (obviously he did not)... then would he not be being charged with failure to disclose the driver or whatever it's called rather than the DWDC offence?
yorkie_chris
22-10-10, 01:47 PM
After going round in circles for a while i was told in order to get evidence i would have to write a letter requesting it to the police who would the forward it to the cps who will decide whether i get disclosure or not :S. The woman on the phone made it sound as if they basically did not have to disclose the evidence to me.
A lot of these things are "policies" which the monkeys on the phone might be told regardless of the legalities of the situation.
Paul the 6th
22-10-10, 02:43 PM
been quietly watching this thread with my fingers crossed for you mate, but it sounds like a solicitor specialising in motoring law is needed now - they'll be able to advise you on whether or not evidence can be disclosed etc...
If I was to turn up at court without first seeing the evidence, I'd have to explain to the judge that I've no idea why I've been summonsed and that the relevant bodies have decided not to show their evidence to me, so please bear with me if I seem a little confused about the whole reason as to why I'm now stood before a judge.
out of curiosity, what and when did you get your 3 points already for?
are the police trying to prosecute you twice for the same offence?
Milky Bar Kid
22-10-10, 03:42 PM
+1 on the legal beagles.
Now this might be me talking balls as I'm no brief... but if he had been sent a NIP to determine who was driving (doesn't sound like he was), and did not respond to this (obviously he did not)... then would he not be being charged with failure to disclose the driver or whatever it's called rather than the DWDC offence?
I would have thought he would have been charged with that AS WELL as the original offence he was being NIP'd for.
out of curiosity, what and when did you get your 3 points already for?
are the police trying to prosecute you twice for the same offence?
He already said it was for contravention of the double white line system, and a S3 is different from that.
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 04:00 PM
After going round in circles for a while i was told in order to get evidence i would have to write a letter requesting it to the police who would the forward it to the cps who will decide whether i get disclosure or not :S. The woman on the phone made it sound as if they basically did not have to disclose the evidence to me.
Police - Investigate the crime and build a case containing evidence to present to the CPS.
The CPS - Crown Prosecution Service, a government department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases that have been passed to them by the police.
(All prosecution is "criminal" and motoring offences are a crime, which do result in a record of crime, they just don't result in a "criminal record" in the common sense of the expression, which means the Criminal Records Bureau and the Police National Computer databases don't flag up records against you)
The Magistrates Court - The lowest level of court, presided over by Magistrates, usually a voluntary member of the public (read society do-good'er and general sticky beak if you wish), who is advised by a professional legal advisor.
The woman on the phone obviously doesn't have a clue. Of course they have to disclose evidence held against you, or how can you now what you are accused of, enter a plea in court, of prepare a defence?
Don't write to the police on the advise of this daft woman on the phone, now is the time to involve your solicitor, and tell him the difficulty you have had in obtaining the evidence.
I still cannot understand how they can summon you to court for DWDC, if you still have not told them who was driving at the time of the alleged incident.
benji106
22-10-10, 04:04 PM
Just a thought but if someone else had been sent an NIP and responded claiming the OP was the driver at the time, would that explain why he got a summons without an NIP or should he still have recieved one (NIP)?
Milky Bar Kid
22-10-10, 04:06 PM
Police - Investigate the crime and build a case containing evidence to present to the CPS.
The CPS - Crown Prosecution Service, a government department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases that have been passed to them by the police.
(All prosecution is "criminal" and motoring offences are a crime, which do result in a record of crime, they just don't result in a "criminal record" in the common sense of the expression, which means the Criminal Records Bureau and the Police National Computer databases don't flag up records against you) Must be majorly different down there because according to Scottish Crime Recording Standards, very few motoring offences are classed as "crime". The few being things like S178 (twoc'ing basically) and disq driving. And motoring offence do show on PNC under a persons name file if they have been convicted at court, not if it is a FPN though.
The Magistrates Court - The lowest level of court, presided over by Magistrates, usually a voluntary member of the public (read society do-good'er and general sticky beak if you wish), who is advised by a professional legal advisor.
Why would you have to write to the police? They now have nothing to do with it, other than a responsibility to ensure they have investigated fully and pass any new evidence to the CPS, and the CPS will probably call a police officer as a witness in court.
The woman on the phone obviously doesn't have a clue. Of course they have to disclose evidence held against you, or how can you now what you are accused of, enter a plea in court, of prepare a defence.
Don't write to the police on the advise of this daft woman on the phone, now is the time to involve your solicitor, and tell him the difficulty you have had in obtaining the evidence.
I still cannot understand how they can summon you to court for DWDC, if you still have not told them who was driving at the time of the alleged incident.
100% agree with Ralph that you need to be getting in touch with a solicitor NOW.
fizzwheel
22-10-10, 04:06 PM
Now heres a thought.
Liz got pulled for speeding on the M5 a while ago. I very nearly did, but thats another story... the officer that stopped her cautioned her at the side of the road for driving without due car and attention and speeding. so no need for an NIP.
A couple of weeks before the 6 months deadline from when the offense was committed, the pack came through with the summons in it and a court date, included with the summons were two written statements from both the police officers that were in the car that were the evidence being presented by the prosecution.
So makes me wander if theres actually any evidence to disclose and thats why the OP doesnt have anything to go on and the lady he spoke to on the phone was vague or not forthcoming with what he asked for.
I would agree with ralph, get your solicitor involved now ! Theres no harm in doing so and you will protect yourself in the long run.
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 04:10 PM
Just a thought but if someone else had been sent an NIP and responded claiming the OP was the driver at the time, would that explain why he got a summons without an NIP or should he still have recieved one (NIP)?
No, they would then need to notify the OP that they intended to prosecute. "Notice of Intended Prosecution", they cannot proceed with a prosecution until they have done this (though they may have done this and he didn't get it).
Even if somebody else had named him as being in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence, that still doesn't prove he was driving. He could have given somebody else the keys, they still need to send him s173 ask him who was driving.
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 04:12 PM
It is very different down here MBK, everything goes through the CPS, whereas in Scotland a Camera Partnership can decide to send something through the courts. Motoring offences convicted in court may show on PNC down here, I don't know about that a English copper would have to tell us, but they are not a "criminal record" in the traditional sense of the word, they wouldn't fail a CRB check.
Milky Bar Kid
22-10-10, 04:19 PM
It is very different down here MBK, everything goes through the CPS, whereas in Scotland a Camera Partnership can decide to send something through the courts. Motoring offences convicted in court may show on PNC down here, I don't know about that a English copper would have to tell us, but they are not a "criminal record" in the traditional sense of the word, they wouldn't fail a CRB check.
No they can't! The CPS is like our Procurator Fiscal office, we still need to put everything through them first!
Well, PNC is primarily English system, we have our own system to work from, so they must show motoring offences, I have checked many English people and it has shown their motoring convictions. Fair enough with the CRB.
Milky Bar Kid
22-10-10, 04:20 PM
No, they would then need to notify the OP that they intended to prosecute. "Notice of Intended Prosecution", they cannot proceed with a prosecution until they have done this (though they may have done this and he didn't get it).
Even if somebody else had named him as being in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence, that still doesn't prove he was driving. He could have given somebody else the keys, they still need to send him s173 ask him who was driving.
LOL! That'll be a Section 172 then Ralph!! But you are spot on with that.
Shellywoozle
22-10-10, 04:22 PM
Motorngs convictions do show on PNC. That's my bit done :)
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 04:26 PM
Now heres a thought.
Liz got pulled for speeding on the M5 a while ago. I very nearly did, but thats another story... the officer that stopped her cautioned her at the side of the road for driving without due car and attention and speeding. so no need for an NIP.
Good thought, SV-MAT, you certainly didn't get stopped by the police at any point?
I don't think it's relevant, but is it your car? Not a company car, or a lease car? Do you have the V5 registration document in your name and at your parents address?
Think carefully about that last question. I realised last week that the V5 for my XT600 that I bought in December has never arrived, because the previous owner phoned me to say he'd had a tax disk reminder! He says he sent the new keeper supplement to the DVLA, but the bike is still registered in his name! If you had asked me if I had a V5 I'd have said yes because I have four vehicles and I had put all the paperwork away when I bought the bike, not expecting a V5 to be amongst it, so there was nothing in my head flagging that something was out of order.
Everything has now become clear as to the NIP not being issued, my friend just told me he has a court summons for same day same offence same time and whereabouts as we were riding together. At the time we were being followed by a police biker (we may have been riding slightly fast before we realised he was behind us) and i took my turning toward home whilst my friend continued down the road, he was then pulled over and cautioned and asked if he knew me and if were riding together. It must have been the police bikers intention to pull us both but did not do so before i took the turning. Apparently both our numberplates and details were taken.
Thank you so much for all the advice and help. Just got to see about acquiring this evidence, i will be contacting a solicitors on monday.
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 07:24 PM
No they can't!
Lothian Speed Camera partnership did it to me MBK, was filed with the court and the court summons came from the Camera Partnership, never went near the PF.
LOL! That'll be a Section 172 then Ralph!! But you are spot on with that.
Fingers fatter than laptop keys ;-)
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 07:27 PM
Everything has now become clear as to the NIP not being issued... he was then pulled over and cautioned and asked if he knew me and if were riding together. It must have been the police bikers intention to pull us both but did not do so before i took the turning. Apparently both our numberplates and details were taken.
Thank you so much for all the advice and help. Just got to see about acquiring this evidence, i will be contacting a solicitors on monday.
Doesn't matter, he didn't pull you and caution you, so they still need to have issued an NIP by post. If they have filed papers with the court and never produced this NIP, you are in the clear.
fizzwheel
22-10-10, 07:30 PM
Doesn't matter, he didn't pull you and caution you, so they still need to have issued an NIP by post.
Thats my understanding of it to.
If they didnt issue the NIP then I would think that the Solicitor should be able to deal with it swifty. If they did and the OP never received it / lost it, then thats a different matter.
-Ralph-
22-10-10, 07:31 PM
Doesn't matter, he didn't pull you and caution you, so they still need to have issued an NIP by post. If they have filed papers with the court and never produced this NIP, you are in the clear.
If no NIP exists, you will need to challenge the need for it in court though! Again don't speak to the police about the NIP until you have spoken to your solicitor.
Milky Bar Kid
22-10-10, 08:23 PM
Lothian Speed Camera partnership did it to me MBK, was filed with the court and the court summons came from the Camera Partnership, never went near the PF.
I'm sorry but that is news to me. All reports need to be submitted to the Crown Office. It has to go to the Crown Office before a summons is issued. Anyway, that's irrelevant.
littleoldman
22-10-10, 08:53 PM
You need to do everything you can to avoid a conviction for this. It happened to me 30 ish years ago, the fine and the points were nothing, it was the increased cost of insurance that hurt for many years. Good luck, on Monday don't forget to phone the brief.
Thats my understanding of it to.
If they didnt issue the NIP then I would think that the Solicitor should be able to deal with it swifty. If they did and the OP never received it / lost it, then thats a different matter.
Spot on.
timwilky
23-10-10, 07:08 AM
Are NIPs date stamped with an sequential index number?
Assuming the O/P solicitor asks about the NIP. what is to stop the plod going "Oh Poo" I forgot to issue it as I had cautioned his mate and simply saying "Yes it was issued" How does plod/CPS prove a NIP was issued within the two weeks as required and therefore the prosecution is lawful.
Red Herring
23-10-10, 08:17 AM
Much the same way that the OP proves he didn't receive one, honesty and integrity.
To issue an NIP through the post a police officer doesn't just fill in a form and post it, they have to complete an application and submit it up the paper chain, so actually the police have the honesty and integrity of several people, and the existence of an audit trail, to help prove they did send one. Of course mistakes are made, and I'm sure if it's pointed out early enough by the OP then things can be sorted out.
With regard to disclosure, key statements are generally provided to the defendant when they are initially summonsed, it would be extremely rare for them not to be. Again if this hasn't been done the OP should contact the case file administration for the area where the offence was alleged to have happened. The OP doesn't say which force it was (he says he lives in Kent) but different forces have different names for such departments, but it's normally something like Case Administration or Criminal Justice Unit. Their job is to make sure all the paperwork is correct, they are not particularly biased and if the OP turns up in court and the paperwork hasn't been served correctly then it's them that will cop an earful....
Personally I'm a little intrigued by this thread. Serving an NIP is a basic thing to do and most police motorcyclists are fairly experienced officers. The only time an NIP isn't routinely sent is following a crash and I did notice a recent thread from the OP where he wanted some new forks.... Are you sure about the dates involved?
Can someone clear something up for me? Let's suppose the NIP did get sent by the police and for some reason the OP did not receive it. Maybe someone chucked it on the fire by mistake for example without realising what it was, or threw it in the bin by mistake. What is the next step by the police? Is it to carry on with the prosecution and to submit a summons to court? Or is there a different step the police should take?
I just can't understand how the OP got a court summons for a traffic offence without ever knowing anything about it previously. I would have thought that if the NIP had not been acted on, then there would be another step to be taken by the police before a summons to court was issued? Also, is it not an offence to ignore a NIP? In which case why has the OP not received any notification of any other offence along with the traffic offence?
Confused.
Milky Bar Kid
23-10-10, 06:14 PM
If I had sent a NIP and it wasn't responded to, I would either send another, or just go straight to the Registered Keepers address and personally issue a S172 requirement, or have another force send officers to do it for me.
Red Herring
23-10-10, 06:52 PM
An NIP doesn't require or invite a response, it is just what it says, a notice of intended prosecution. I think some people are confusing it with a Section 172 notice. This is another form the police can send to the registered keeper of a vehicle requiring them to provide the details of the driver at a particular time.
In reality, thanks normally to speed cameras, they tend to be sent out together, however there is no requirement for the police to send out a sect 172 if they already know who the driver was. They are however still required to send an NIP is the offence being considered requires it.
Milky Bar Kid
23-10-10, 06:59 PM
An NIP doesn't require or invite a response, it is just what it says, a notice of intended prosecution. I think some people are confusing it with a Section 172 notice. This is another form the police can send to the registered keeper of a vehicle requiring them to provide the details of the driver at a particular time.
In reality, thanks normally to speed cameras, they tend to be sent out together, however there is no requirement for the police to send out a sect 172 if they already know who the driver was. They are however still required to send an NIP is the offence being considered requires it.
Yes but in this case, I would suggest that a S172 should have been sent with the NIP.
-Ralph-
23-10-10, 11:06 PM
there is no requirement for the police to send out a sect 172 if they already know who the driver was
So is a friend who was riding with the OP, having named him at the side of the road, sufficient for the Police to deem that they KNOW who the driver is? Or in this case, should they still S172?
Red Herring
24-10-10, 12:30 AM
Ralph, I'm speaking in principal. There is no way I'm going to offer an opinion on the specifics of the OP's case based on what he has told us.
-Ralph-
24-10-10, 08:19 AM
Ralph, I'm speaking in principal. There is no way I'm going to offer an opinion on the specifics of the OP's case based on what he has told us.
OK, forget that I asked about the OP then, it was really an in principal answer I was looking for.
Hypothetically, if you chased two lads who were racing each other in their Subaru's, but only managed to stop one of them. You had run a check against the other lads reg during the pursuit and knew who the registered keeper was. Then the lad you had stopped gave the same name and address when asked who was driving the other car. But you have no way of actually knowing if what you are told is true, it could actually have been another one of the lads mates who was actually at the wheel. Would the combination of a registered keeper matching the a statement from a friend as to the identity of the driver, be enough to negate the need for an S172 in your opinion?
Red Herring
24-10-10, 01:17 PM
There's a lot if "what if" there. To report a driver for summons someone the police need to show that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting they have committed an offence. The CPS will only then apply for that summons if they believe the evidence presented has a reasonable chance of securing a conviction, ie: they can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
I would suggest that should an officer present a case based on evidence secured in the way you describe then it is unlikely to result in a summons being issued, but then again nothing surprises me these days.....
yorkie_chris
24-10-10, 02:09 PM
I would hope my mates would have the brains to go "no mate... he just appeared in my mirrors and stayed there" with regards my name and address if asked!
I would hope my mates would have the brains to go "no mate... he just appeared in my mirrors and stayed there" with regards my name and address if asked!
i hope mine do the same!
benji106
25-10-10, 10:05 AM
I would hope my mates would have the brains to go "no mate... he just appeared in my mirrors and stayed there" with regards my name and address if asked!
Was just thinking the same thing.
i hope mine do the same!
You'll be lucky ;) :twisted:
diamond
25-10-10, 07:19 PM
The police would have probably known exactly who they both were before stopping, they did when i got stopped when riding with Fizz a bit fast down the M5. I ended up with a court summons and 5 points and £250, Fizz ended up with nothing, even tho they asked about Fizz by name by the side of the road after he carried on when the police car stopped me.
Paul the 6th
25-10-10, 08:28 PM
He's a right bast is that fizz! :razz:
The police would have probably known exactly who they both were before stopping, they did when i got stopped when riding with Fizz a bit fast down the M5. I ended up with a court summons and 5 points and £250, Fizz ended up with nothing, even tho they asked about Fizz by name by the side of the road after he carried on when the police car stopped me.
Yeah, but aren't your bikes registered at the same address?
fizzwheel
25-10-10, 10:02 PM
Yeah, but aren't your bikes registered at the same address?
Yes they are.
But Liz and I are not married so we dont share a surname, the officer when he spoke to Liz knew this and refered to me by my surname.
refered to me by my surname.
Was it possible for him to check it over the radio or something?
My point is, since your bikes were registered at the same address, there's no chance of you two not knowing each other.
Milky Bar Kid
26-10-10, 12:52 AM
Was it possible for him to check it over the radio or something?
My point is, since your bikes were registered at the same address, there's no chance of you two not knowing each other.
Exactly. A PNC check would reveal the keeper of the bike, the address and the insurance details (among other things) so they will have known that you live together.
benji106
26-10-10, 08:52 AM
The police would have probably known exactly who they both were before stopping.
No, they would have known who the registered keeper of the bikes were but that doesnt prove who was riding it at the time and they would still have to acertain that.
fizzwheel
26-10-10, 08:52 AM
Exactly. A PNC check would reveal the keeper of the bike, the address and the insurance details (among other things) so they will have known that you live together.
So... if thats the case.
Why didnt the OP in this thread get his NIP and why hasnt he had any supporting documentation evidence with his court summons.
Two riders, riding together, surely a PNC check on both bikes would have revealed the registered keeper without the officer asking the first rider to identify his mate ?
Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?
Milky Bar Kid
26-10-10, 12:06 PM
So... if thats the case.
Why didnt the OP in this thread get his NIP and why hasnt he had any supporting documentation evidence with his court summons.
Two riders, riding together, surely a PNC check on both bikes would have revealed the registered keeper without the officer asking the first rider to identify his mate ?
Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?
Yeh, but the registered keeper doesn't necessarily mean it's the rider. I have said several times in this thread that I would have sent a NIP and a S172 req to the reg keeper, because, IMO, there isn't sufficient ID of the rider.
Matts-Yokes
26-10-10, 01:17 PM
Everything has now become clear .......(we may have been riding slightly fast before we realised he was behind us)
Thank you so much for all the advice and help. Just got to see about acquiring this evidence, i will be contacting a solicitors on monday.
Ooops and you know the term may of been riding slightly fast actually means they were going for it...they wouldnt summons you for nothing..good luck!
yorkie_chris
26-10-10, 04:28 PM
Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?
Do bikes have ANPR?
Do bikes have ANPR?
I think they radio it in.
yorkie_chris
26-10-10, 04:40 PM
Yeh, but the registered keeper doesn't necessarily mean it's the rider. I have said several times in this thread that I would have sent a NIP and a S172 req to the reg keeper, because, IMO, there isn't sufficient ID of the rider.
What do you think a court will make of it?
davepreston
26-10-10, 04:59 PM
Do bikes have ANPR?
ive seen some round here with it (the fully marked up ones)
Red Herring
26-10-10, 05:04 PM
Do bikes have ANPR?
Very unlikely because ANPR systems require someone to watch a screen and a rider can't do that and ride at the same time. Obviously they could park up and set up a system but given the relatively limited use that would make of the device I shouldn't think it would be considered cost effective.
davepreston
26-10-10, 05:06 PM
RH they had it on a bike at rivi barn on a sunday (biker day) and also on the bike safe at blackpool
Red Herring
26-10-10, 05:14 PM
I'd be seriously quite interested in knowing more about that then. Was it fitted to the bike or was it a flight case system?
davepreston
26-10-10, 06:03 PM
camera mounted to the front left of fairing ,with a display mounted to a bracket right behind the screen , i dont know where the "brain" was placed but i think it was in the back left pannier (hard)
i'll see if ive any pics of it
-Ralph-
26-10-10, 08:32 PM
I'd be seriously quite interested in knowing more about that then. Was it fitted to the bike or was it a flight case system?
I spoke to the Warwickshire inspector that you dealt with on flameboys case. There are often fleets of police bikes sitting along the length of the A34 from M42 J4 into Birmingham. When I mentioned it to him , he said it wasnt his force area, but he thought they were doing APNR checks.
They are West Mids not Warks, but he may know a bit more about them.
Milky Bar Kid
27-10-10, 12:40 AM
What do you think a court will make of it?
I have no earthly idea! It all depends on the rest of the case and what, if any, other evidence there is, etc etc.
Owenski
27-10-10, 09:32 AM
Just read through this,
Gutted that your mate didnt have the bonce about him to deny knowing you.
benji106
27-10-10, 01:02 PM
Very unlikely because ANPR systems require someone to watch a screen and a rider can't do that and ride at the same time. Obviously they could park up and set up a system but given the relatively limited use that would make of the device I shouldn't think it would be considered cost effective.
I got pulled by a bike a few years ago in Southampton as my car was showing up as no insurance. just hadnt made it onto the insurance register yet but he was sat at side of road checking tax and insurance of passing cars. He was a really sound bloke as it happens.
Red Herring
29-10-10, 05:40 AM
The police regularly use bikes for ANPR checks, especially for stopping the straight forward traffic jobs, but they are usually dispatched onto the subject by either a van, or patrol car, that is fitted with the ANPR equipment. Kitting out bikes with the equipment isn't usually cost effective, and you have all the issues around the rider being unable to read the information whilst on the move. The cost of systems is coming down so maybe some forces have decided it's worthwhile. Bit of a derail but at least it's kept the thread alive pending the OP providing some more real information.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.