Beckham escapes speeding conviction

unforeseen

Well that blows a hole in the assumption of deemed delivery of NIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735

tonyh66

he probably paid more for his solicitor than he would have for the fine etc.

AndyMc.....

unforeseen wrote: »

Well that blows a hole in the assumption of deemed delivery of NIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735

Well it doesn't.

If the defence can cast reasonable doubt any prosecution will fail.

facade

tonyh66 wrote: »

he probably paid more for his solicitor than he would have for the fine etc.

It will be the points he was trying to dodge, the fine wouldn't even be small change to him.


Still, gives the rest of us more hope, as long as we can get a postroom to datestamp all our mail on receipt, or get the Postie to sign & date every envelope they deliver....

AndyMc.....

facade wrote: »

It will be the points he was trying to dodge, the fine wouldn't even be small change to him.


Still, gives the rest of us more hope, as long as we can get a postroom to datestamp all our mail on receipt, or get the Postie to sign & date every envelope they deliver....

I doubt that would have worked for him if CPS hadn't folded.

Car_54

unforeseen wrote: »

Well that blows a hole in the assumption of deemed delivery of NIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735

No it doesn't. It's a rebuttable assumption, and they've successfully rebutted it. The law says:


"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

TooManyPoints

Indeed. I don't know where the notion that the "CPS folded" comes from. The CPS brought the prosecution and Mr Beckham raised his defence. This was to rebut the presumption that the first NIP to the Registered Keeper was served two working days after posting. He did not have to raise "reasonable doubt". He had a somewhat higher burden of proof which was to prove the matter "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely to be so than not).

He did so successfully, the NIP was thus deemed "defective" and he could not be convicted. Mr Beckham was assisted in his task by Bentley Motors (the Registered Keeper) stamping the NIP as "received" on Day 15. To see a conviction the District Judge would have to have rejected the evidence provided by Bentley Motors that the NIP was received on the day it was stamped.

Still, gives the rest of us more hope, as long as we can get a postroom to datestamp all our mail on receipt, or get the Postie to sign & date every envelope they deliver....

Good luck with that.

AndyMc.....

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Indeed. I don't know where the notion that the "CPS folded" comes from. The CPS brought the prosecution and Mr Beckham raised his defence. This was to rebut the presumption that the first NIP to the Registered Keeper was served two working days after posting. He did not have to raise "reasonable doubt". He had a somewhat higher burden of proof which was to prove the matter "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely to be so than not).

He did so successfully, the NIP was thus deemed "defective" and he could not be convicted. Mr Beckham was assisted in his task by Bentley Motors (the Registered Keeper) stamping the NIP as "received" on Day 15. To see a conviction the District Judge would have to have rejected the evidence provided by Bentley Motors that the NIP was received on the day it was stamped.



Good luck with that.

Of course he did, it was a criminal matter.

When it comes to a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is greater than on the balance of probability.

Aretnap

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Of course he did, it was a criminal matter.

When it comes to a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is greater than on the balance of probability.

It's for the defence to prove non-delivery of the NIP within the timescale. Raising reasonable doubt is not enough. The clue being in the words "unless the contrary is proved". It's one of the many situations where the burden of proof is reversed - if you're claiming the benefit of an exception to the law or a statutory defence the onus is usually on you to prove that the exception applies.

Generally speaking in a criminal trial where the prosecution are required to prove something then they must do so beyond reasonable doubt. Where the defence have to prove something they need only do so on the balance of probabilities. So yes, Beckham's team had to persuade the court that it was more likely than not that the NIP arrived late.

At first glance it seems somewhat more likely that a letter arrived late than that Bentley's whole mailroom is engaged in criminal conspiracy to spare David Beckham 3 points and thirty seconds' wages, so I can rather see why the case went the way it did.

TooManyPoints

When it comes to a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is greater than on the balance of probability.

Yes, I'm well aware.

In short, the issue for the court to decide was nothing more than "was the NIP properly served in time". Since there was no dispute over the date of posting the presumption of service provides the prosecution with its evidence but that presumption is rebuttable.The rebuttal must be proved on the balance of probabilities (as the District Judge made clear when he pronounced his verdict today). There was nothing for the court to consider "beyond reasonable doubt"

hollie.weimeraner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Of course he did, it was a criminal matter.

How long has speeding been a criminal matter?

It may have been criminal if any of the evidence was fraudulent (ie Bentley perhaps leaving the post lying about for a couple of days before stamping it:think:) but as far as Beckham is concerned he could also afford a decent if immoral defence solicitor.