Notification of intended Prosicution

[andycowuk 0]

I havent received one thatnk god, but I was talking about this the other day.

 

A few months ago I read on here that someone got a NIP through the post on their birthday.... if i remember rightly they were from the Midlands or Wales area, but thats kind of irrelevant. Anyway, somebody put a reply on with a script/letter format and a named law case that was basically along the lines of, I have not been officially cautioned, therefore anything I say will not be used in court as evidence against me.

 

I just wondered if they could whack it back up.

 

Cheers

[davidwatsonok 0]

http://www.pepipoo.com/PACE_WS.php

 

 

Fill in, click to make printable, attach to NIP and write "See attached" on the NIP. DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE NIP !!!

[andycowuk 0]

Spot on mate!

 

Thanks

[Henny 0]

sweeeeet.... anyone used that and got away with it yet?

[davidwatsonok 0]

sweeeeet.... anyone used that and got away with it yet?

Plenty I believe. I was gonna use it recently as I thought a van had got me in Devon. Had a back-up just in case as the signs for the limit change didn't conform to the RTA1991. There's also some discussion going on in legal circles about enforcement devices needing Parliamentary approval, and none of the current speed enforcement equipment has been approved.

 

http://www.pepipoo.com

[steve_16v 0]

The PACE loophole has been closed now according to speed-trap.co.uk

 

see here

[mtc R32 0]

:scratch: ???? Explain ???

[steve_16v 0]

As it says on the site...

 

Loopholes? - as at July 14th 2006

 

From time to time someone will discover a potential loophole that can assist you with a speeding case. These loopholes are often shaggy dog stories - with no basis in fact. Sometimes a loophole may exist and be useable for a few months until a higher court clarifies the matter and closes the loophole. We have summarised the four main loopholes below. Two are currently unusable (pending a judgement from the European Court) but the other two can often produce a favourable result."

 

Loophole #1 - Section 172 conflicts with PACE

 

The main loophole that people have been exploiting is the Section 172 loophole. This loophole was exploiting an apparent conflict between the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) rules where you must be cautioned first and the process of receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution from a Gatso (or similar scamera) where you don't get cautioned and just receive paperwork through the post. This loophole has for now been closed following a ruling by the High Court in the case of Francis -v- DPP. This is being taken to the European courts but it is unlikely to get a hearing this year.

 

 

Section 10.1 of PACE code C basically says "A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, must be

cautioned before any questions about an offence, may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution."

 

So people have been getting away with speeding tickets by giving the details of the driver to the authorities but stating that they are giving them on the undertanding they won't be used in any proceedings against them due to them not receiving a caution.

[mtc R32 0]

Sorted!!!

 

Now where's my keys!!!

[trev-b 0]

davidwatsonok, Does this not work anymore then? I recently got my first NIP in 7 years of driving!

 

Anyone know any current loopholes? Not that i grudge paying the government money for nothing of course....

[Tempest 0]

It's not so much the money rather than the points ;-)

 

Currently the PACE route is still advised to take. The bigger issue will be the outcome of the EU court-case of human rights, whereby 2 GB peeps are fighting their case that the way the UK government intend to prosecute speeding offenders (i.e. that you actually need to incriminate yourself!!!!! by identifying the driver) is a violation of the basic human right to remain silent when accused, article 6 of the EU law. There cannot be exceptions, i.e. article 172 of UK law (devised as an exception to the right to remain silent) is in effect a violation of article 6 EU law.

 

All because the UK use Gatsos, where the driver cannot be identified by photographic evidence ... Even if the photographic evidence clearly identifies the driver (laser guns et al), the need to identify the driver on the NIP still holds, hence the Pace route.

 

Tempest

[coolrado 0]

a friend of mine recently got clocked at 35 in a 30 by one of the north wales police "arrive alive" vans while driving a tesco delivery van, when he got the nip through the post he replied saying he wasnt driving and asked for photo proof of who was driving, he expected to get a reply saying they couldnt identify the driver but actually recieved a very clear photo of him driving the van with no seatbelt on and talking on his mobile :lol:

 

fortunately for him they just gave him the fixed penalty for speeding.