Dun speeding - 36 in a 30. But cannot acknowledge on portal.

GrumpyDil

So this sounds like a new process to cut down on paper/postage etc which has clearly been fully tested and verified as working before rolling out to the public 😂.

TooManyPoints

The issue for D&C is that the response from the driver, confirming he was driving, has to be in the form of a paper document signed in "wet ink". This is because it effectively becomes a “witness statement” and it forms the only evidence that the police must have to show who was driving.

The Criminal Procedure Rules describe the format such documents must follow and a submission via a portal (or whatever) does not fit the bill.

Some forces allow an electronic return which nominates somebody else as the driver (as this is not normally required as evidence) but will insist on a written return from the driver. This seems to confirm that:

Fortunately the portal worked fine for me as I did have to declare a different driver.

What D&C are doing by not providing the form for the s172 response is effectively cutting the period a Registered Keeper who is also the driver has to respond by more than half. A s172 response must be made within 28 days of the date the request was served. Not sending the form out until fourteen days have elapsed is putting the RK/driver at a disadvantage. If I was in that unfortunate position I would respond in writing as soon as I got the request. It is not a requirement to use an official form so long as the driver is clearly identified and the response signed.

I notice that among other things, the government is considering allowing NIPs and s172 requests to be sent via electronic means. his creates an immediate problem because e-mail and mobile phone numbers are not currently held by the DVLA (and there is no requirement for a keeper to provide them). Whilst the Criminal Procedure rules allow electronic service of most forms and requests, they do not allow for electronic responses from the driver to be admitted in evidence, so those rules will have to be amended.

Okell

WIAWSNB said:

TooManyPoints said:

The NIP will come to you by default.

But he already has it.

....and therefore a full copy of the NIP will automatically be sent to you after 14 days if no portal response is received.

If the first correspondence does not satisfy the requirements of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, anything sent after 14 days will not remedy that deficiency as a compliant NIP must be served within 14 days of the alleged offence. But this does not apply to the request for driver's details.

WIAWSNB - I don't understand what it is that you don't have now which will, apparently, be sent to you after 14 days have elapsed. What is preventing you from responding, in writing, to the request for driver's details now?

Hi TMP (good username - I guess you know the score  )

They "are committed to reducing the carbon footprint, and no longer include the notice to be posted back..."

It adds to not email or phone.

I ain't going to post.

Just to clarify, are you saying that they sent you a hard copy NIP through Royal Mail snail mail, but that they didn't include a pre-printed s172 form for you to sign and send back to them via snail mail?

ie the only option ( at this stage) was to nominate yourself online?

WIAWSNB

Okell said:

WIAWSNB said:

TooManyPoints said:

The NIP will come to you by default.

But he already has it.

....and therefore a full copy of the NIP will automatically be sent to you after 14 days if no portal response is received.

If the first correspondence does not satisfy the requirements of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, anything sent after 14 days will not remedy that deficiency as a compliant NIP must be served within 14 days of the alleged offence. But this does not apply to the request for driver's details.

WIAWSNB - I don't understand what it is that you don't have now which will, apparently, be sent to you after 14 days have elapsed. What is preventing you from responding, in writing, to the request for driver's details now?

Hi TMP (good username - I guess you know the score  )

They "are committed to reducing the carbon footprint, and no longer include the notice to be posted back..."

It adds to not email or phone.

I ain't going to post.

Just to clarify, are you saying that they sent you a hard copy NIP through Royal Mail snail mail, but that they didn't include a pre-printed s172 form for you to sign and send back to them via snail mail?

ie the only option ( at this stage) was to nominate yourself online?

Yes, it would appear so.
The single-page, 2-sided letter says it's a NIP, and a driver ID request, and that I should confirm who was driving using the portal. 'Happy' to do so.
The portal had the photos (not at all clear, but I ain't going to quibble) and all that jazz. The only issue was the portal form-filling error, seemingly caused by it not recognising my DL number.

Okell

TooManyPoints said:

The issue for D&C is that the response from the driver, confirming he was driving, has to be in the form of a paper document signed in "wet ink". This is because it effectively becomes a “witness statement” and it forms the only evidence that the police must have to show who was driving.

The Criminal Procedure Rules describe the format such documents must follow and a submission via a portal (or whatever) does not fit the bill.

Some forces allow an electronic return which nominates somebody else as the driver (as this is not normally required as evidence) but will insist on a written return from the driver...

Hmmm....

I may have discussed this previously with you either here or on FTLA, but I can confirm that Norfolk & Suffolk constabularies 100% do (or certainly did) accept self-ID nominations online.

I got nabbed back in September or October 2023 and I nominated myself online.

When completing the self-nomination online I was informed:

"By typing your name into the box below you are signing that you ADMIT to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence.  You will receive an offer for the penalty options that are available to you once the admission has been processed.  Once you have received the offer, if you do not comply, this admission will form part of a notice for court proceedings for the alleged offence".

If I had waited until just before the 28 days to respond, could I then have ignored the subsequent offer of a speed awareness course and also have avoided a speeding conviction on the grounds that they didn't have a "signed" hard copy admission that I was driving?

[Edit:  I'm not sure I mean 28 days, do I?  I mean waited long enough to name myself that they could not have sent out a later nomination request.  Or could they send out a later nomination request anyway?]

I don't have a particularly high opinion of our local constabulary - you may recall that Norfolk police tried to criminally prosecute somebody for a civil parking offence in Great Yarmouth a couple of years ago - but I'd be really disappointed in them if they don't understand that in the case of a s172 self-nomination it needs to be a properly signed hard copy nomination.

TooManyPoints

I believe that you could have responded as the police asked you to (so as to avoid prosecution under s172) and then challenged the speeding prosecution on the basis there was no reliable evidence to prove you were driving. 

That said, I suspect you would be convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and may have to appeal to the Crown Court and possibly to the High Court using the “case stated” procedure. Neither of these two processes guarantee success. 

There are really two issues:

The police can determine what form the response must take. So there is nothing to stop them saying that an electronic submission without a signature will be accepted. If they do that and such a response is provided, then no conviction under s172 can succeed. But most forces will not do that, and the driver must supply a written, signed response. 

But the second issue is what use can be made of such an electronic response. It is my view that it should not normally be acceptable in evidence to prove who was driving. There is no foolproof method to check who made the response or whether it is true. A malicious friend or relative might gain access to the phone or computer of the recipient and simply say he was driving. With a written, signed response, at the very least a signature check is available.

There is coverage in both the criminal Procedure Rules and the Electronic Communications Act of electronic signatures. But these discuss true signatures (i.e. electronic copies of a person’s signature) and not, as you describe, “By typing your name into the box below you are signing that you ADMIT to being the driver…” That is not what is meant by an electronic signature.

The issue is further complicated by the position in Scotland. There, there is a well used option for a driver to provide an unsigned s172 response. The police will annoy him and try to get him to sign (possibly even by means of a personal visit) but if he holds out until the speeding offence “times out” the Procurator Fiscal has not seen fit to pursue a charge under s172, nor has a speeding prosecution based on an unsigned s172 response been attempted. 

Case law in England has determined that if the police ask for a signed response, that is what must be provided, and a prosecution under s172 will succeed. But whilst English case law can be persuasive in Scotland it is not binding. The reason the PF does not want to take a chance there is almost certainly because a failure will effectively see the end of speeding enforcement where the driver was not stopped at the time. So they would prefer o stand the relatively small number of drivers “going unsigned” than to take that risk.

In reality this business is becoming a mess and it needs sorting out. It seems individual constabularies are taking it on themselves to accepts declarations that I believe stand a good chance of being rejected by a court. They probably have good reason to believe their strategy will be successful. The overwhelming majority of speeding cases do not reach court and most drivers just want to limit the damage with minimum aggravation.  But it should not take an individual to have to go to the trouble (and expense in the event of failure) of referring their case to the High Court for clarification.

In the meantime, people face being convicted based on questionable evidence.