HELP - notice of intended prosecution

sebdangerfield

Lum wrote: »

They can be separate entities, however in practice they ARE merged. In the vast majority of police forces, camera-detected speed, red-light and mobile-phone offences get shoved into the exact same piece of software and get printed out using the exact same form template. The only difference is a mail merge field which instead of saying "Failure to obey a red light" says "Use of a mobile phone" or similar. Some of them even state the vehicle speed at the time the phone was being used!

From that post it's clear you should read the entire thread. We're not talking about local policies or logistics, It's been said previously that the two are often on the same form. I even said it and stated it was to save money by the force. Infact I'm looking at several on my desk now.

The fact is, a mobile phone offence is not dealt with by NIP. If the officers were not able to stop the offender at the time they issue a s172, the fact it's often on the same form as the NIP is irrelevant.

The reason a NIP is not appropriate for this offence is because it is an offence of strict liability but unlike speeding for example, the defences are specific and easily provable. For example, hone records will show if you were using the phone at the time. Therefore there is no need to serve a nip.

Due to the limitation of proceedings s1 of the road traffic offenders act was amended to mean that cases requiring a certain actus reus we're being brought to court six months after the d had allegedly committed the offence. It was not appropriate to assume the d would be able to make a defence in these circumstances.

sebdangerfield

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Why would a NIP be hand delivered?, or do you just mean the postman caught him and placed it in his hand?:A

Hello bri!

And this sums up my point. Why would an officer hand deliver a NIP? If they're there hand delivering it, they may as well deliver the nip verbally.

Lum

sebdangerfield wrote: »

From that post it's clear you should read the entire thread. We're not talking about local policies or logistics, It's been said previously that the two are often on the same form. I even said it and stated it was to save money by the force. Infact I'm looking at several on my desk now.

The fact is, a mobile phone offence is not dealt with by NIP. If the officers were not able to stop the offender at the time they issue a s172, the fact it's often on the same form as the NIP is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant.

The OP has received a piece of paper with "Notice of Intended Prosecution" written on the front, and Section 172 written on the back, in relation to a mobile phone offence.

The people saying that they can't issue a NIP for a mobile phone offence, and therefore the OP must be confused or unable to read are just confusing the matter. They can and they do issue NIPs for mobile phone offences.

That said, the people bringing up the 14 day rule are also confusing the matter as, as you correctly point out, a NIP is not required for a mobile phone offence.

sebdangerfield

Lum wrote: »

They can and they do issue NIPs for mobile phone offences.

No. They issue a s172 rtoa for the offence. The form just happens to have the NIP on the other side or at the bottom.

Please answer these questions;

1)Why would a NIP be issued for an offence like this?
2)What do you reccomend the op does with it?

My point regarding irrelevance is to do with this. A NIP is entirely irrelevant in this matter as any defences are specific and provable easily even at the full term of the limitation of proceedings. A NIP is only needed for offences which could be tried summarily and have specific defences regarding mens rea or actus reus. Mobile phone use whilst driving does not have this.

I think I've asked you before but what type of law do you practice? I've defended for many years now and have never heard of this.

Nearly_Old

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Okay, I'm not going to break your post down entirely as I don't have time today. However, it shows a fair misunderstanding of the law around this.

What are these two types of nip?

What benefit would the police or defendant have with sending a nip for this offence?

You are getting nip and s172 confused or merged. Nip is from s1RTOA and is to provide warning for drivers who may have committed an offence to provide time to develop o defence. The requirement to provide driver details is s172 RTA. The two are not joined, they are entirely separate entities.

I can assure you that I do have an understanding of the law around this and was only trying to put it down in simplistic terms.

I believe that the confusion is caused simply by the fact that the s172 is printed on the back of the NIP and people do not realise that this is not part of the NIP but, as you rightly point out, a notice issued under separate legislation. For offences that do not require a NIP then I suppose that, theoretically, all that has to be sent is the s172 but how many people would respond to the s172 without knowing what offence was being referred to?

In using the terms "Initial" and "Final" NIPs I was only trying to differentiate between the 2 forms that are usually issued that are in effect: 1) the s172 addressed to the RK followed by 2) the NIP addressed to the driver who may, or may not, be the RK.

Lum

sebdangerfield wrote: »

1)Why would a NIP be issued for an offence like this?

Because it is on the same form template as the S172 and their software is unable to split them.

2)What do you reccomend the op does with it?

Fill in the S172 request, naming their husband as the driver and send it back to the appropriate address.

You are correct that a NIP has no legal significance in this case, but the fact of the matter is that the OP has a piece of paper that has been issued to them by a police force that has the words "Notice of Intended Prosecution" on it, therefore in laymans terms they have been issued with a NIP, and to be more accurate they have also been issued with a 172 requiring them to name the driver.

The fact that the police do not need to issue a NIP for a mobile phone offence does not change the fact that this particular police force have chosen to do so.

Now if we can just get to the bottom of the "hand delivered" aspect of this, the whole thing will be sorted.

Paradigm

Lum wrote: »

Now if we can just get to the bottom of the "hand delivered" aspect of this, the whole thing will be sorted.

Why does that matter? Delivered by hand or by post makes no difference, either is acceptable.

Also, the discussion as to whether a NIP is required for the offence of using a mobile while driving is pretty much irrelevent.... the s.172 request to name the driver comes first & must be complied with, that's all that matters at this stage.

Nearly_Old

sebdangerfield wrote: »

I'm not really sure about you point regarding different time limits for NIPs as its not relevant to this matter. But to clarify, the time limit for an NIP is the same regardless of the offence.

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Why would an officer hand deliver a NIP? If they're there hand delivering it, they may as well deliver the nip verbally.

If the 14 day rule applies and the NIP (with the s172 on the reverse of the NIP) was hand delivered then there would be no dated postmark on the envelop. I suggest that only if we knew the full details would it be known if this is of any significance.

However as far as the OP is concerned IMHO the important aspect is to ensure that the s172 is dealt with within the required timescale.

moomoominx

[STRIKE][/STRIKE]

maninthestreet wrote: »

So the NIP was not sent via Royal Mail? Were you in when the NIP was delivered? Did anyone knock on your door in order to deliver it?

sorry have been away for the weekend so only just come back to my thread! - i was in the shower when the door was knocked so i just ignored it tbh - and it wasnt until later i found the letter on the door mat! - also to the earlier poster the date was the 19th april - delivered on the 20th

moomoominx

Lum wrote: »

Because it is on the same form template as the S172 and their software is unable to split them.Fill in the S172 request, naming their husband as the driver and send it back to the appropriate address.

You are correct that a NIP has no legal significance in this case, but the fact of the matter is that the OP has a piece of paper that has been issued to them by a police force that has the words "Notice of Intended Prosecution" on it, therefore in laymans terms they have been issued with a NIP, and to be more accurate they have also been issued with a 172 requiring them to name the driver.



The fact that the police do not need to issue a NIP for a mobile phone offence does not change the fact that this particular police force have chosen to do so.

Now if we can just get to the bottom of the "hand delivered" aspect of this, the whole thing will be sorted.

BLIMEY! right - we had 2 sheets of paper the first as i explained was headed NIP and where and when my husband was spotted and the crime commited & the copper involved in the 'spotting' - and the second was where he has to fill in the details identifying the driver - so we have had both the NIP and the 172 - and the documents were HAND delivered at about 6.30 ish fiday evening - by the policeman involved i would presume as he had signed the enclosed documents - but as i was in the shower i cannot be 100% sure it would be the same policeman - i think the best thing we can do is send back the form as my husband is guilty and it could be proved via phone records - it was the words 'prosecution' that freaked me! - but as he wasnt stopped i guess they couldnt issue him with a fixed fine etc - so this confusing paperwork has been sent to identify the driver, many thanks for all your replies - much appreciated