LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJust heard it on the news- Dwight York got away it. Precident set, so if you get a NIP lads, fill it in but DON'T SIGN IT!
Just heard it on the news- Dwight York got away it. Precident set, so if you get a NIP lads, fill it in but DON'T SIGN IT!
Huh?
he got away with that cause there was no signature omg!
that would never happen to any other normal person
errr ? ? ?
im confused
Actually it can happen to anyone not signing the NIP.. that's the great thing. Since it's happened to him you can get your solicitor to get you the same ruling until the law is changed. Finally we're fighting back against those Scameras!
Err, there has to be evidence that it wasn't you that filled out the form. The similar case of Mr Mawdesley from Chorley who filled out his own form was thrown out on appeal because the judge stated filling in the form himself he showed he admitted that he was driving. Yorke only got away with it because there was ample evidence he never saw the form or knew of its existence. Sooner this stupid loophole is changed the better. You get caught speeding, you pay the consequences (speaking as someone who lost his licence for speeding and wasn't driving for four years as a result)
Having looked at this more carefully, The judgement lays down the following principles:
1. An unsigned form is not a statement for the purposes of Section 12 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act 1988 and is thus inadmissible as evidence under that Act
2. The unsigned form can amount to a confession under PACE if, after considering all the surrounding circumstances, the Magistrates are satisfied that it was the Defendant who completed it. If a third party completed it, (as in Yorke's case - it was his agent) it cannot be a confession which is why his conviction was overturned.
3. Writing one's name in BLOCK CAPITALS in the "Name" box while leaving the "signed" box blank is not a signature for the purposes of Section 12 which is why Mawdesley's conviction was quashed. BUT, it may still amount to a confession under PACE (see 2 above) which is why his case has been returned for retrial.
4. The Judge, quite deliberately, did not address the question as to whether someone who returns the form unsigned has complied with his obligation to identify the Driver under S 172, because that was not an issue in the case.
That issue remains open for further litigation.
5. Forcing the registered keeper to give the information (whether in writing or otherwise) does not fall foul of the Human Rights Act as even if it is a breach, it is necessary and proportionate.
So my preliminary view is:
You must return the form but get someone else to fill it in for you and don't sign it. It can't amount to a confession, nor is it admissible under Section 12 but you will have to call the person who filled in the form to give evidence.
BUT, will you then be open to a charge of failing to comply with S172 as the Act says that it is the Registered keeper who must give the information?
Two views:
(a) Yes, because you cannot delegate the responsibility.
(b) No because you can get someone else to write for you. What if, for
example, you can't read or write or have your arm in plaster.
I think the answer has to be 'no'. Section 172(2)(a) is quite clear:
'The person keeping the vehicle shall give such information [...] as he may be required to give [...]'
There is absolutely no leeway there, IMO. The person has to 'give', not simply 'provide' or 'make available'. The action of giving requires some personal involvement, I would argue. He is asked to give details, and if HE does not give details, he has not complied with the requirement. And, in any case, this is what the courts will find otherwise there will be a real loophole!
In relation to the argument concerning inability to read, etc., it was only held that Yorke would have been able to argue that it was not a confession as he was not the creator of it. If the person was physically unable to make the confession, but had it made under his direction and under his superivision, I would argue that that would satisfy the PACE requirement of being 'a confession made by the accused' (PACE 1984 s.76(1) ).
It appears to me that there is no escaping liability. If you don't return the form, that is a s. 172 offence. If you return the form unsigned, it will be presumed to be a confession under PACE and - as such - admissable unless the contrary is proven. If you return the form signed, you will be convincted of the alleged offence. Returning the form unsigned will simply deprive you of the opportunity to accept a NIP. When you go to Court, you would have to argue that someone else replied to the form before you'd even seen it (else you'll be admitting the s.172 offence of failing to give the information). That will be very difficult, will usually fail, and will be costly if you fail. Looks like there's no real problem to me, unless s.172 is interpreted very oddly!
Zathras - go have a read at Pepipoo.com
A little pop up window appears with a list of FAQs - click on the "Do I have to sign the NIP?"
It explains it all far better than I ever could.
Simple answer: Don't bloody speed, as you are taking the lives of others into your own hands, and you don't have the right to do that. Christ knows driving is dangerous enough at legal speeds!
Well Hello!
]Originally posted by daverobev
Simple answer: Don't bloody speed, as you are taking the lives of others into your own hands, and you don't have the right to do that. Christ knows driving is dangerous enough at legal speeds!
I'm known for my niceness and political correctness......but you can't tell other people not to speed. Its not happening.
It is illegal at present to do 71 in a 70 limit....and thats the law......so in theory you are correct....however as I have been pulled by the Police at 91 and told that if I was doing 85 they would have let me drive by, and as speed cameras in my area flash at about 34 mph in a 30 limit, then I feel it a little unfair.
If you have NEVER done 31 in a 30, or 71 in a 70 in all honesty you need taking in a field and hosing off, cos you are the one in my way all the time
Think you get the idea.....
Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
Lowe, I've read pepipoo and a number of other anti-speed camera/pro-"hard done by I'm not a criminal" motorist pages and their advice is 'biased' to say the least. I've argued this case with a few friends who are rather high-powered lawyers in London, and also read verdicts on the ruling on uk.legal, so I have managed to gain a rather wider interpretation than places like pepipoo. If you want to argue specifics of my case or think I'm misguided on anything I've written then tell me your interpretation.
Zak: You're seriously complaining that you were done for 91mph and are miffed that you wouldn't have been done at 85 or 31 in a 30? The leeway is here for speed-creep down hills, slight misalignments with speedometers and reasonable understandable reasons why people might be slightly over the speed limit. This is completely different from doing 20mph over the speed limit which is showing blatant disregard for the limit. I know, I lost my license for doing 50 in a 30, and I was caught, fair and square. Had I been doing under 33 or 34 then I'd feel agrieved, but I wasn't and at the moment you don't get done for that. Would you prefer that all those going over the speed limit, even by 1mph get the same punishment or do you accept that breaking the speed limit by 20mph shows a lot more disdain for it than breaking it by 1mph and as such should in practise be treated differently?
50 in a 30 tho IMO isnt in the same league as 90 on the motorway tho, in a 30 I'm guessing you've got houses parked cars etc, on the motorway you've got other cars and lorrys n stuff...
My 50 in 30 was on a long empty dual carriageway at night. I won't bitch about being caught, because I was breaking the limit, and by some way too, just as someone doing 90 in a 70 or 80 in a 60 is.
Fraid i don't agree, 50 in a 30 is almost double the speed limit.
90 in a 70 is just under 30% increase and speeding in a thirty zone is much more socially unacceptable than doing 90 on a motorway.
A lot of people do 90 on a motorway i'd Never do 50 in a 30.
If you get caught speeding its your choice that you face the consequences. Personally i'll take my chances on A-roads and motorways but i never speed in 30's...
TiG
Zath..you are of course right......had it been a busy wet motorway and I was doing 91 mph up the arse of another car, I'd expect it....
however I was on the middle lane and I was being overtaken on the outside by a Pug 405....we both saw the Police at the same time, and in both cases slowed to below 80.....he went on at 85 ish and I passed the Police at 75
I got tugged.....cos I was nearer...and then got told if I had cruised past at 85 and never been at my original 91 in the first place (ie when Ime and the Pug came into sight) I'd have been let off.....allegedly they radio'd ahead for someone else to nick the other car...stop me whinging more like
but thats another story.......
I am in no doubt that the speed limit is WRONG on motorways. 70mph is not dangerous. Nor is 85......not in the right conditions.
You can do 70mph on a Dual Carriageway, which has Pedestrians crossing, roundabouts, cars crossing directly across your lane, horses, mopeds, and hay wagons, combine harvesters and pedal bikes....scary innit?
But you can do 86 and "officially" be tugged on a 4 lane wide, motorway with slip roads, and none of the above dangers.....
Dual Carriageways are SAFE.....so by definition, Motorways must be too slow..and we need VARIABLE speed limits, that go up as well as down.....
Imagine a quiet, dry evening, Motorway, clear lanes...why not 85..why not 100mph? Autobahns have a very low incidence of death....no limit on bits of those. Then the Police can get on with arresting dangerous criminals.
Now what Daverobev is saying is "your're risking other peoples lives too" and that is not really fair. My car at 85 mph is not inherently more deadly than a Robin Reliant at 70.....and yet he aint speeding and is therfore ,by implication, safer.
Thats simply not a fair comment. Driving is not dangerous, it is immensely practical, flexible and should be conducted on every possible occassion. And enjoyed to the max
I don't have a problem with being pulled personally by a copper if I'm doing something wrong. What narks me completely is the use of cameras..
A patrol vehicle is happy to let you do 80ish down the motorway so long as you're not driving like an idiot. The civvy in the laser van sat on top of the motorway however will nail you regardless. Especially when it's 2am in the morning.
That is what narks me. My points were well deserved. I was doing 28mph over the limit. I held my hand out and took the slap on the wrist. However, my anti-camera feelings come from seeing what could be a great safety idea being abused to bring in revenue.
Just something for you guys to think about. Cameras are put in alledged accident blackspots. Why don't they spend the 30k+ it costs to put a camera in on sorting out the blackspot instead?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
