NIP but haven't been asked who was driving
Discussion
Good day all,
I was invited to see my local police this morning. He told me on the pre-meeting call that he needed to chat to me about who was driving my vehicle on a certain day, so that they can consider prosecution. I turned up and the relevant PC wasn't available, quite frustrating of course. Half an hour of waiting later, and in an effort (I think) to make me think it wasn't a waste of my time, two other PCs came out and told me they were reporting ME for several offences, and the prosecutor would decide if I should be charged or not.
It seems to me that they've skipped a step - how can they go from needing to know who was driving (which I still haven't been asked about and hence haven't told them), directly to giving ME a "Notice of Intended Prosecution"?
The incident happened on the 15th of June.
Thanks!
I was invited to see my local police this morning. He told me on the pre-meeting call that he needed to chat to me about who was driving my vehicle on a certain day, so that they can consider prosecution. I turned up and the relevant PC wasn't available, quite frustrating of course. Half an hour of waiting later, and in an effort (I think) to make me think it wasn't a waste of my time, two other PCs came out and told me they were reporting ME for several offences, and the prosecutor would decide if I should be charged or not.
It seems to me that they've skipped a step - how can they go from needing to know who was driving (which I still haven't been asked about and hence haven't told them), directly to giving ME a "Notice of Intended Prosecution"?
The incident happened on the 15th of June.
Thanks!
I was on my bike and was wearing a full-face helmet and a snood. I have no intention of denying being the rider, it just seems weird to me that they can skip the step of checking who was riding and go straight to NIP. Surely the prosecutor will be wondering why that step was skipped? Officially, they still don't have confirmation of who was riding it at the time...? 
ozzuk said:
How did they get your number to call you? Pretty fast for a letter to get to you and get you in from 15th to 18th! What did you do?!
Yes I thought the same. OP does'nt say whether he has receievd a letter and a call or just a call, although it is quite easy for plod to get a number(s) from an address if they really need to, but not quite adding upWon't the NIP when/if it comes have the usual bit on it about identifying the driver though? As above, they might just have been saying 'we'll be charging you' in an offhand manner and on the assumption that if in fact it wasn't you then you'd be quite keen to apprise them of that fact at the earliest opportunity. I expect you still will be able to say it wasn't you once you get the NIP; I doubt there's an easy 'out' here.
fattiereturns said:
Good day all,
I was invited to see my local police this morning. He told me on the pre-meeting call that he needed to chat to me about who was driving my vehicle on a certain day, so that they can consider prosecution. I turned up and the relevant PC wasn't available, quite frustrating of course. Half an hour of waiting later, and in an effort (I think) to make me think it wasn't a waste of my time, two other PCs came out and told me they were reporting ME for several offences, and the prosecutor would decide if I should be charged or not.
It seems to me that they've skipped a step - how can they go from needing to know who was driving (which I still haven't been asked about and hence haven't told them), directly to giving ME a "Notice of Intended Prosecution"?
The incident happened on the 15th of June.
Thanks!
Scotland?I was invited to see my local police this morning. He told me on the pre-meeting call that he needed to chat to me about who was driving my vehicle on a certain day, so that they can consider prosecution. I turned up and the relevant PC wasn't available, quite frustrating of course. Half an hour of waiting later, and in an effort (I think) to make me think it wasn't a waste of my time, two other PCs came out and told me they were reporting ME for several offences, and the prosecutor would decide if I should be charged or not.
It seems to me that they've skipped a step - how can they go from needing to know who was driving (which I still haven't been asked about and hence haven't told them), directly to giving ME a "Notice of Intended Prosecution"?
The incident happened on the 15th of June.
Thanks!
Roger Irrelevant said:
Won't the NIP when/if it comes have the usual bit on it about identifying the driver though? As above, they might just have been saying 'we'll be charging you' in an offhand manner and on the assumption that if in fact it wasn't you then you'd be quite keen to apprise them of that fact at the earliest opportunity. I expect you still will be able to say it wasn't you once you get the NIP; I doubt there's an easy 'out' here.
A further written NIP won't be required if spoken to at the time or since during his visit to the station.Too much missing from the OP's account to make any more guessesmartinbiz said:
A further written NIP won't be required if spoken to at the time or since during his visit to the station.Too much missing from the OP's account to make any more guesses
Assuming that the offences in question are ones which require a section 1 warning, then, if the OP was stopped and verbally warned at the time there is no requirement for a written notice.If he was only told he would be reported when spoken to at the station that would not be a valid section 1 warning and a written notice would still be required.
Cat
Cat said:
Assuming that the offences in question are ones which require a section 1 warning, then, if the OP was stopped and verbally warned at the time there is no requirement for a written notice.
If he was only told he would be reported when spoken to at the station that would not be a valid section 1 warning and a written notice would still be required.
Cat
Only 3 days after the alleged offence, a voluntary interview and maybe Scotland, so I'm not so sure. Although granted the whole thing does seem a bit strangeIf he was only told he would be reported when spoken to at the station that would not be a valid section 1 warning and a written notice would still be required.
Cat
martinbiz said:
Only 3 days after the alleged offence, a voluntary interview and maybe Scotland, so I'm not so sure. Although granted the whole thing does seem a bit strange
What are you not sure about? 3 days after an alleged offence is not at the time of the offence and verbally telling someone at that point they may be prosecuted does not satisfy the requirements of section 1 of the RTOA. Cat
What does seem a little odd is that the police chose to invite the alleged offender in for an interview instead of simply sending a NIP and s172 request to the registered keeper.
If this is in Scotland (as agtlaw suggests it might be) perhaps they fear the recipient might "go unsigned" in response to a s172 request.
But the "interview" certainly doesn't negate the need to serve a NIP (provided the alleged offence requires one). All very odd.
If this is in Scotland (as agtlaw suggests it might be) perhaps they fear the recipient might "go unsigned" in response to a s172 request.
But the "interview" certainly doesn't negate the need to serve a NIP (provided the alleged offence requires one). All very odd.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff