Speed ticket 3 months old?!

cyclonebri1

Back to the NIP thing I got embroilled wrongly in this one in a recent topic. I wrongly thought the police had 14 days in which to get the NIP into the mail system. I was proven wrong, the conclusion was that the NIP has to be posted in such time as to allow delivery by normal means, (ie allowing 2 or 3 days for delivery), and assuming no mail strikes and such like, and also assuming that the offender is the registered keeper and the address is that stated on the registration document.

Cases have been quoted where due to use of pool cars, change of employment/address etc, the NIP has taken months to reach the driver.

More info needed if the OP is not now on the run;)

Chippy_Minton_2

Even if the offender isn't the RK the NIP must be served on the RK within the 14 days.

Any defence from the offender under the 14 day rule, then it would be up to the offender to show the court the original NIP wasn't served within 14 days.

cyclonebri1

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Even if the offender isn't the RK the NIP must be served on the RK within the 14 days.

Any defence from the offender under the 14 day rule, then it would be up to the offender to show the court the original NIP wasn't served within 14 days.

Thats what I said

Quentin

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

It is the summons itself that can be served later and the statute barred date will be 6 months from the date of the offence. That is the date by which time an information needs to be laid. (Summons issued).

The date for "laying the information" before the court is the critical one as far as the 6 months is concerned, (and is not the same as the date the summons is issued).

Chippy_Minton_2

Quentin wrote: »

The date for "laying the information" before the court is the critical one as far as the 6 months is concerned, (and is not the same as the date the summons is issued).

Both need to be within the six months.

The information needs to be laid and stamped/summons isssued within that time.

Mr Freeman got a celeb (can't remember who or find the case) off recently with that. The info was laid before the court in time but sat on a desk before the summons being issued and sent out. Taking it over the 6 months.

Quentin

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Both need to be within the six months.

The information needs to be laid and stamped/summons isssued within that time.

Mr Freeman got a celeb (can't remember who or find the case) off recently with that. The info was laid before the court in time but sat on a desk before the summons being issued and sent out. Taking it over the 6 months.

No, the summons is not tied to the 6 month rule, as previously posted.

The famous case was that serial speeder, Monty, who's summons was issued late, but that was because the information was not laid before the court in time.

A summons shows the date the information was laid before the court, and that is the relevant date for the 6 months limit.

Chippy_Minton_2

Quentin wrote: »

No, the summons is not tied to the 6 month rule, as previously posted.

The famous case was that serial speeder, Monty, who's summons was issued late, but that was because the information was not laid before the court in time.

A summons shows the date the information was laid before the court, and that is the relevant date for the 6 months limit.

That's not the one I'm thinking of.

Mr Freeman sucessfully defended someone on the grounds although the case was laid before the court within 6 months the papers sat on a clerks desk. He was able to show the court that the summons weren't issued and posted within the 6 months. (Somewhere between 2 days and a week late). The matter was therefore thrown out and his client walked.