Speed camera van motorway

[nikpro]

Hi Guys, Micky the newbie to the forum here. Interesting post on the speeding thing but just remember a couple of points before you go handing over a signed piece of paper saying youre guilty.

As with any case, the prosecution have to prove their case. It's easy to be intimidated by a form too which says if you dont say who the driver is we will prosecute you for that too. Remember that you are being pushed into a corner to return one of the applicable sections completed and if you can show the ticket office that putting pressure on you to make a statement by the threat of a secondary prosecution you may have a case to challenge them in court where you will say that you were intimidated into completing their form by the nature of the wording. The issue here is that any statement made has to be made of your own free will. Your statement is the basis of their successful prosecution.

A statement made under duress cannot be used in court.

You can always complete the form and return it unsigned, you have then complied with the request for information but it does not constitute a statement and carries very little weight.

satman.

Satman,

this is completely incorrect - I have personal experience of this!

Nick Freeman discovered a Loophole in Sec 172 RTA and Dwight Yorke famously returned the NIP unsigned and was acquitted (YORKE v Cheif Constable Cheshire Constabulary - didn't meet required standard under S12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988); this loophole has now been closed and if the form is returned unsigned you have failed to comply with S172 RTA and will be prosecuted. (Francis v DPP 2004). The penalty for not complying with Sec 172 can be a disqualification.

The NIP and providing a statement under duress are completely different:

The NIP is a form stating you MAY be prosecuted.

The part requiring you to say who was driving is covered by section 172 RTA which states that as the keeper of a motor vehicle you are required by law to tell the Cheif Constable who was using it at a certain time.

The form contains the wording that you have to do this as it is a requirement under sec 172 and if you fail you will be prosecuted for that offence and not the offence for which you received the NIP. When you sign for your driving licence you sign accepting the fact that if required you will give the details under sec. 172 RTA.

The Human Rights issue has already been through the House of Lords and has been found not to breach them.

If you genuinely Don't know who was using the vehicle at the time then say so but the evidential burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that they could not possibly know who was driving at that particular time - if the Court consider that there was not due dillegence on behalf of the vehicle owner they can prosecute the owner for an offence under S172 (Fail to give user details at a particular time).

[rm163603]

Aren't a lot of people doing this pace thing where they give the info required of the form but in a seperate document that cannot be used as evidence? That's what I was reading at pepipoo.com

[steve_m]

The loophole hasn't been closed because it was never open in the first place - there is no requirement under S172 for an information reply to be signed.  What's happened is that mags/SCP will now not accept it unless it is signed, that's something completely different.  That's a change in interpretation not a change in the law.  If it's not signed then it can't be used in court to prosecute the driver for speeding as an unsigned form is not usually accepted as evidence, despite the fact that it is perfectly acceptable in law as a reply under S172 which is what was originally requested.  It was the corrupt legal system/govt/SCP's perverting the course of justice by using this reply to prosecute the driver for speeding.

What you could also have done is to write on a separate form, or even a letter, not using the NIP as again that is perfectly legal but you may find it's not accepted because of the fraudulent interpretation of the law by the SCP scumbags .

The human rights argument went to the House of Lords and is now going to the ECHR - it's not the end of the story by a long way !  

Best way to deal with it is cause as much trouble as you can then pay up if you need to, they will give in if you can't identify the driver, especially if you hand it over to the police - you can't be done for failing to supply because you've requested the help of the professionals !    If they can't decipher the photo's then there's no case to answer.

[nikpro]

Nope Steve; you are wrong; if you fail to sign the section 172 notice you have failed to comply with sec.172.

Quote:

Lord Justice Kennedy in Francis v DPP

Lord Justice Kennedy's reading of the law meant that every form had to be signed.  Failure to sign now would result in a s.172 prosecution for "failing to provide the driver's identity".

The majority of Law in the UK is made from stated cases and therefore the Law has changed - prior to Lord justice Kennedy's ruling there was no requirement to sign the Section 172 Notice, Now there is.

Regards Human Rights issue:

Human Rights and S.172 RTA

The PACE statement comes into play that untill recently Traffic legistlation was not governed by PACE (There is no requirement to Caution someone to ascertain owner/driver details). This has been recently contested and the arguement ensues as to whether Road Traffic legislation will also be governed by PACE (Requirement to Caution a person if there is reasonable suspicion that they have commited an offence); IMO unlikely unless it is a triable either way offence like Dangerous Driving.

[steve_m]

Nope Steve; you are wrong; if you fail to sign the section 172 notice you have failed to comply with sec.172.

Quote:

Lord Justice Kennedy in Francis v DPP

Lord Justice Kennedy's reading of the law meant that every form had to be signed.  Failure to sign now would result in a s.172 prosecution for "failing to provide the driver's identity".

Regards Human Rights issue:

Human Rights and S.172 RTA

The PACE statement comes into play that untill recently Traffic legistlation was not governed by PACE (There is no requirement to Caution someone to ascertain owner/driver details). This has been recently contested and the arguement ensues as to whether Road Traffic legislation will also be governed by PACE; IMO unlikely unless it is a triable either way offence like Dangerous Driving.

That's not true nikpro, you're wrong   , there is no requirement in the Road Traffic Act to sign a reply given in response to a S172 request.  Read the Act and tell me where it says it must be signed !

What's happened is that the SCP's/Mags/Police and the Govt recognised that the law wasn't suiting their fraudulent, thieving purpose so chose to interpret it differently.  That's all.

If that's not the case show me where the law was changed to state, clearly, where the S172 reply has to be signed ?

I think we're talkng about two different things regarding ECHR and I've not got the inclination to find out what you're talking about !  

[S8ight]

I have an interesting one, have just received a NIP for my wifes MPV (registered in my name though) and on the day in question at least 4 people drove the vehicle up and down the stretch of road where the camera van was alladgedly situated............

you need to say "i have no recollection of this event"

you will have to request a picture, it should look like everything is made from lego !!

from personal experience, got an nip from north wales finest sperm donors, if you try to contest it they will try to intimidate you.

at the end of the day though they have to prove who was driving the car at the time of the offence.

[Arm]

Great debate guys please keep it going.

[Carl]

Depends on the County,

Over the last 4 years I've got Zapped in Wales and Warwickshire, both times replied saying forgot who was driving, send me photo, etc. They refused and tried to intimidate me by threatening prison and a £1000 fine. I waited it out and eventually everything went away.

However wife got Zapped in Northants recently, I tried the same tatic and got a superp piccy of her, absolutely clear as day. She got 3 points.

[nikpro]

at the end of the day though they have to prove who was driving the car at the time of the offence.

To prove the offence of speeding this is correct

As previously stated, however you can be prosecuted under sec.172RTA - as the keeper of a vehicle you have an obligation to provide the cheif officer with the details of who was driving a vehicle at a stated time. The burden of proof for this is on the owner and the penalty for not doing so can be a disqualification from driving!

[steve_m]

at the end of the day though they have to prove who was driving the car at the time of the offence.

To prove the offence of speeding this is correct

As previously stated, however you can be prosecuted under sec.172RTA - as the keeper of a vehicle you have an obligation to provide the cheif officer with the details of who was driving a vehicle at a stated time. The burden of proof for this is on the owner and the penalty for not doing so can be a disqualification from driving!

NO . . . the burdon of proof is not on the owner    . . . there is a requirement under the Road Traffic Act for the registered keeper to respond to a S172 request, to name the driver.

If the registered keeper can not be sure who was driving, he/she/it has to be able to demonstrate that they have made a reasonable effort to identify the driver.

I thought you had something to do with the SCP's nikpro ?  I know our justice is screwed in this area    but you're making it sound far worse than it really is.  

[Paul Hurdsfield - Joint Manchester AO]

Depends on the County,

Over the last 4 years I've got Zapped in Wales and Warwickshire, both times replied saying forgot who was driving, send me photo, etc. They refused and tried to intimidate me by threatening prison and a £1000 fine. I waited it out and eventually everything went away.

However wife got Zapped in Northants recently, I tried the same tatic and got a superp piccy of her, absolutely clear as day. She got 3 points.

I can back this up    we got zapped, got the piccy, clear as a bell, of the back of the car   you can even see the beam dead centre of the number plate  

[pistonbroke2]

Should have worn

The Veil.

   

[steve_m]

Should have worn

The Veil.

   

Oh dear . . . I can see a whole new argument looming . . .    

[nikpro]

NO . . . the burdon of proof is not on the owner    . . . there is a requirement under the Road Traffic Act for the registered keeper to respond to a S172 request, to name the driver.

If the registered keeper can not be sure who was driving, he/she/it has to be able to demonstrate that they have made a reasonable effort to identify the driver.

I thought you had something to do with the SCP's nikpro ?  I know our justice is screwed in this area    but you're making it sound far worse than it really is.  

Steve,

how can you say 'NO' in the first line then...........

In the second paragraph admitt that it does?

I am sat with Blackstones UK law reference guide for the Courts infront of me and the last line in this stated defence states:

'The Burden of Proof in this case lies with the Defendant'

I also have nothing to do with SCP's

[steve_m]

Taken straight from Blackstones (UK law reference for the Courts) -

. . . and this is what I said . . . "If the registered keeper can not be sure who was driving, he/she/it has to be able to demonstrate that they have made a reasonable effort to identify the driver."

The burdon of proof referred to in Blackstones is not to prove who was driving but to prove that reasonable efferts were made to ascertain who was driving . . . the word reasonable is used three times . . . the general public are not yet required to prove their innocence although I'm sure Bliar would like to make that happen soon too.

I also can't see any mention of a signature