2 NIPs - one with the wrong name on - any advice?
Discussion
Back in July, I was stopped and reported after a jam butty followed me home. A few days later a NIP arrives by recorded delivery, but the first and middle names on it are wrong. I produce documents on the seventh day, then another NIP arrives, this time with my correct name, and still within the 14 days limit. Could I get the case thrown out, on the basis that the police aren't quite sure who they want to prosecute?
OK, the full story. I had been to a local garage where my wife's car is annually serviced. On the way back I took a short cut through some back streets. Unbeknownst to me this area had been designated a "traffic calming zone". As I took a right turn, a pair of newly placed bollards came into view. The junction layout had been completely changed. Rather unhelpfully a large recovery truck was parked half on the pavement no more than six metres from the junction, completely obscuring the bollards until I was almost literally ontop of them. Rather than do an emergency stop, reverse, and go round the left hand side of the bollard, and in view of the fact that there was no other traffic on the road, I proceeded to pass the bollard on the "incorrect" right hand side. I'm half way along the road I turned into when another car appears in my rear view mirror. By the time I turn off, he is right behind me - a jam butty, so I make extra sure I'm only doing 29.5mph all the way home. He eventually puts the blues and sirens on just as I pull up outside my house, so all the neighbours' curtains start twitching. I admitted to making a mistake with the bollards, but he reckoned I was driving dangerously. He said "You must have been doing 40 because I had to do 45 to catch you up, and it's a 20 zone" and about the rest of the journey, "You were doing 30 when there were parked cars at the side of the road - a dog could have run out and you wouldn't have been able to stop". Later that day I went back to have a good look at the area. The first section was indeed a new 20 zone, but there was only one visible 20 sign high up to the left, and out of the main frame of vision. No "20" was marked on the road surface the way I entered the zone - and every other entry to it DID have a "20" on the road, marked in white ontop of that red paint they use all over the place these days. I wasn't doing 40 anyway, but he has put it in his statement, which makes me look bad. The bit where "the dog could have run out" is a 30 zone. Then I get the TWO NIPS. The two alleged offences were dangerous driving, and driving without due care and attention. Now the summons has arrived, but the charge on that is only the latter. No charges for alleged speeding, so I take it that the only thing they can make stick is the mistake with the bollards. Having looked into the law a bit, it would appear that a "single error of judgement" is not enough to make one guilty of driving without due care and attention, so I am seriously considering pleading Not Guilty. Any helpful advice would be greatly appreciated. P.S. I enter my plea tomorrow.
Thanks Batfink, maybe see if I can get it postponed. Last time I used a lawyer though, he charged £400 and didn't say or do anything I couldn't have managed myself. On a whim I thought I'd ring Nick Freeman's outfit in Manchester (he seems to have done a nice bit of motoring defence work for various celebs.) but they wanted £470 up front just to look at the paperwork, and wouldn't be drawn on the price of a court appearance. If I employed him it would likely end up costing a moderate four figure sum. Do you think I would get my full costs if found not guilty? If so I'd give it a go. Maybe the celebs save a few grand on insurance if they avoid the motoring convictions, so it's worth it for them. My insurance would probably go up by a couple of hundred.
The evidence for ignoring the keep left sign would IMO be sufficient for an offence of Failing to conform to a road sign. However it can be effectively aggravated by the presence of other factors at the time and/or specific to the location, hence the impending prosecution for the driving without due care and attention. There appears to be no evidence for Dangerous Driving or for Excess speed. Getting legal advice may assist but they would need to see the statement made by the reporting officer to assess the strength of the prosecution case. Did you get a copy of the statement with the summons ? If not then you are entitled to disclosure of the relevant facts prior to entering a plea. Consider the use of the Duty Solicitor if you are attending court...seek out the Court Usher and tell him you would like to speak to the Duty Solicitor. There may be (probably will be) a cost involved, but they may be able to tell you from the strength of the statement your chances of successfully defending the case...I hope this helps
look at the statement of facts on the summons. See exactly 'the fact' that it is where you were alledged to have been careless.
From reading your post it appears that speed is not the issue although it could be part of the general reasons why you have been summonsed. The whole thing sounds a bit pedantic to me unless there are some sort of aggravating circumstances that you haven't posted.
From reading your post it appears that speed is not the issue although it could be part of the general reasons why you have been summonsed. The whole thing sounds a bit pedantic to me unless there are some sort of aggravating circumstances that you haven't posted.
madcop said: look at the statement of facts on the summons. See exactly 'the fact' that it is where you were alledged to have been careless.
From reading your post it appears that speed is not the issue although it could be part of the general reasons why you have been summonsed. The whole thing sounds a bit pedantic to me unless there are some sort of aggravating circumstances that you haven't posted.
Madcop - I think it's fairly certain that the point at which the alleged Due Care occurred is when he ignored the keep left sign in full view of the reporting officer. Sure it's pedantic but if you (like me) have a little inside knowledge, then you'll agree that to do this in a zone controlled by a 20mph limit and designated as such, courts punishment by virtue of the fact that the zone has been so designated by the local authority or whomever. There's a chance - slim mind you - that the officer's evidence is weak i.e. no detail. If that is true and our man can argue that what he did didn't cause endangerment then he may be lucky. Don't hold your breath though !
Thanks IJP and Madcop. I think I will plead Not Guilty, and spend a bit of time preparing a statement to read out in court. The reporting officer's statement was included with the summons, along with a clearly incorrect statement from some council engineer. I will dig it out and report back after tea.
go for it, sounds like you may be able to get out of trouble just by explaining as you have done here. I think that you would do well to go to court, suited, and present your case. If you beleive what you did was safe, and the charge a stupid one - challenge it. Suggest that it was perfectly safe, and that it was better to avoid a low speed crunch than to hit the bollard/sign.
Also throw doubt on the coppers notes by asking about the "speeding" ???
good luck.
C
Also throw doubt on the coppers notes by asking about the "speeding" ???
good luck.
C
hertsbiker said: go for it, sounds like you may be able to get out of trouble just by explaining as you have done here. I think that you would do well to go to court, suited, and present your case. If you beleive what you did was safe, and the charge a stupid one - challenge it. Suggest that it was perfectly safe, and that it was better to avoid a low speed crunch than to hit the bollard/sign.
Also throw doubt on the coppers notes by asking about the "speeding" ???
good luck.
C
You can't really challenge the safety aspect - if a road has been restricted to 20mph then I would suggest that it has a reason to be so designated. What you do need to show is that you did not at that time endanger anyone and under the given circumstances perhaps others may have done the same. Whilst this doesn't make what you did lawful, it may help to convince the magistrates on the day that ignoring the keep left sign was at that time a reasonable course of action that others in the same situation may have done. Questioning the integrity of the officer is risky... if you are before a policeman friendly magistrate you may - literally - pay the price. By all means recount what was said to you at the time by the officer as it establishes his frame of mind. BUT let the magistrates decide whether the officer may have embellished the truth.
Pleaded Not Guilty. Took the opportunity to ask the prosecution if they had disclosed all the evidence they were going to use. The answer was "Er, yes I think so. The two statements, copies of which were sent with your summons". So any other evidence they come up with should not be admissible now.
poidal said: Pleaded Not Guilty. Took the opportunity to ask the prosecution if they had disclosed all the evidence they were going to use. The answer was "Er, yes I think so. The two statements, copies of which were sent with your summons". So any other evidence they come up with should not be admissible now.
It doesn't quite work like that.
Evidence can be introduced by either the defence or the prosecution on the day of the hearing under the appropriate rules of disclosure of evidence.
The Queen and Burrell are a point in question.
If you mail me offline with the exact details of what is alledged, then I will be able to give you details of the points which need to be proved for an offence of Sect3 RTA 1988 so that you can rebut them
Given your version of events, I would be very inclined to convict. Don't worry about the cops recollection, maybe (!!) yours needs some work.
Few points first;
1. The charge you face is more serious than speeding but may in fact consist of speeding. From your posts it is alleged you were doing 40, you appear to accept over 30 to some degree. In effect the cop looks set to tell the court you were travelling at DOUBLE the speed limit. That might itself be enough for the more serious charge.
2. The impression from your post is you weren't paying a huge deal of attention, like noticing the new limit. Perhaps not a position I would be inclined to tell a court.
3. You refer to an emergency stop. What emergency. You were driving along, paying attention as you should (??) then noticed some bollards. Where's the emergency, did they sneak up on you or jump out from behind a hedge ? If not, there's no emergency. It would suggest to a court lack of attention on your part. Might want to review your choice of words here.
4. Undue car and attention can be upheld on the basis of overtaking within the speed limit on a clear road if you are on the wrong side of the road when you pass a farm turning. Something most folk have probably done, but the logic of a conviction is that the junction represents a potential hazard and if you don't recognise and take account of this, like check no traffic approaching it, that can amount to lack of attention. Ignoring a keep left sign runs the same risks, depending upon what else is round about, e.g. lowered pavement for a crossing poiint, kids playpark etc. I assume you were aware of and checked these things.
You can get away with driving on the wrong side if you can properly justify it. Usual thing would involve approaching at a safe, slow speed to recognise the actual and potential hazards which might present themselves, considering the risks involved, then making a conscious decision to pass on that side for safety reasons. I would suggest "Oh F@@k, bollards" does quite amount to justification or a safe and considered course of action.
When trying to recollect your version of events, you might want to consider several points.
1. Always try to create the impression you were in full control of the vehilce. Cars under control are steered round hazards. Ones which aren't swerve, or do emergency stops.
2. Don't mention speed unless they do, you seem to accept you were speeding to some degree, let CPS tease it out of you. If you admit this straight away you do get brownie points for honesty, but have just admitted to the court that you are willing to break the law. Thoughts then come to mind that well if you are boasting that you speed, is it a big moral step do go much beyond that and break other laws ?
3. When it does get to the topic of speed, what was distance involved in cop doing 45 ? The shorter the less capable he is of assessing yours and watching the road etc. Does he allege he maintained that for any length of time, or just reached it briefly ?
4. Could it have been that when you seen the lorry, you were preparing for the possibility of someone stepping in front of it so gave as wide a berth as possible, hence on a clear road that may involve using the other side of a clear road to allow you to see them as early as possible. (Sometimes referred to as maximising the safety envelope)
5. Might it be that in recognition of the hazard created by the lorry you modified you speed accordingly. (This is usually good as it implies you slowed down, but that's not what you say - it could mean speed up, or a more cautious way of saying did an emeregency stop)
Given seriousness of charge and your initial postings, I would suggest some legal advice, here or paid for, to reword a few things at the very least. If not, there is a strong risk of conviction, and if your case is poorly put across, more than minimal penalty points.
If you can scan in the officer statement, this would be useful to see to comment further, whether posted here or e-mailed.
Few points first;
1. The charge you face is more serious than speeding but may in fact consist of speeding. From your posts it is alleged you were doing 40, you appear to accept over 30 to some degree. In effect the cop looks set to tell the court you were travelling at DOUBLE the speed limit. That might itself be enough for the more serious charge.
2. The impression from your post is you weren't paying a huge deal of attention, like noticing the new limit. Perhaps not a position I would be inclined to tell a court.
3. You refer to an emergency stop. What emergency. You were driving along, paying attention as you should (??) then noticed some bollards. Where's the emergency, did they sneak up on you or jump out from behind a hedge ? If not, there's no emergency. It would suggest to a court lack of attention on your part. Might want to review your choice of words here.
4. Undue car and attention can be upheld on the basis of overtaking within the speed limit on a clear road if you are on the wrong side of the road when you pass a farm turning. Something most folk have probably done, but the logic of a conviction is that the junction represents a potential hazard and if you don't recognise and take account of this, like check no traffic approaching it, that can amount to lack of attention. Ignoring a keep left sign runs the same risks, depending upon what else is round about, e.g. lowered pavement for a crossing poiint, kids playpark etc. I assume you were aware of and checked these things.
You can get away with driving on the wrong side if you can properly justify it. Usual thing would involve approaching at a safe, slow speed to recognise the actual and potential hazards which might present themselves, considering the risks involved, then making a conscious decision to pass on that side for safety reasons. I would suggest "Oh F@@k, bollards" does quite amount to justification or a safe and considered course of action.
When trying to recollect your version of events, you might want to consider several points.
1. Always try to create the impression you were in full control of the vehilce. Cars under control are steered round hazards. Ones which aren't swerve, or do emergency stops.
2. Don't mention speed unless they do, you seem to accept you were speeding to some degree, let CPS tease it out of you. If you admit this straight away you do get brownie points for honesty, but have just admitted to the court that you are willing to break the law. Thoughts then come to mind that well if you are boasting that you speed, is it a big moral step do go much beyond that and break other laws ?
3. When it does get to the topic of speed, what was distance involved in cop doing 45 ? The shorter the less capable he is of assessing yours and watching the road etc. Does he allege he maintained that for any length of time, or just reached it briefly ?
4. Could it have been that when you seen the lorry, you were preparing for the possibility of someone stepping in front of it so gave as wide a berth as possible, hence on a clear road that may involve using the other side of a clear road to allow you to see them as early as possible. (Sometimes referred to as maximising the safety envelope)
5. Might it be that in recognition of the hazard created by the lorry you modified you speed accordingly. (This is usually good as it implies you slowed down, but that's not what you say - it could mean speed up, or a more cautious way of saying did an emeregency stop)
Given seriousness of charge and your initial postings, I would suggest some legal advice, here or paid for, to reword a few things at the very least. If not, there is a strong risk of conviction, and if your case is poorly put across, more than minimal penalty points.
If you can scan in the officer statement, this would be useful to see to comment further, whether posted here or e-mailed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff