In R v Mooney [1997] Crim LR 137) the defendant pleaded guilty but then successfully argued that there was no evidence to prove the previous disqualification; on appeal it was held that the court should have taken into account the admission of previous disqualification implicit in his guilty plea. The registered keeper of a vehicle has a legal obligation to provide details of who was driving at the time of an alleged motoring offence. Contravening a traffic signal. if evidence of excess alcohol has been adduced at the Crown Court trial, it is more than likely that it will have been taken into account for the purpose of sentencing (this will obviously be so in the case of a trial for a section 3A offence); where a defendant has been convicted of an offence contrary to sections 1 or 3A RTA, a summary offence should not normally be restored if the defendant has been disqualified for a period at least as long as the obligatory period for the summary offence; the lapse of time between the date of the offence, the Crown Court trial and the likely date of hearing for the summary matters; if the defendant has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment, restoration of a summary offence will seldom be appropriate. Neither is a 'special reason' a defence to the charge. The prosecution should not seek to secure convictions on both. The law states that unless a notice of intended prosecution is served within the time limit set out that the person concerned will not be convicted - it doesn't state that the process stops . We frequently get asked about going to court for speeding offence, this depends on each individual case. The driver must be given notice in writing specifying the reason for the prohibition and its duration. . An analogy can be drawn from the case of DPP v Hay where it was held that once the prosecution has proved that the defendant drove the motor vehicle on a road, it is then for the defendant to show that he held a driving licence and that there was in force an appropriate policy of insurance, since these are matters that are peculiarly within his knowledge. When notice is given, prosecutors should carefully consider: The courts finding and sentence will be in accordance with sections 34 and 44 RTOA 1988. If the Police do not comply with the rules and time limits, they cannot prosecute. The police must serve the notice on either the driver or the registered keeper. within 28 days you must complete the Section 172 notice declaring who was driving the car at the time of the offence. The driver will then receive a notice of intended prosecution in his/her own name. Driver Identity Section 172 (S172) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Failure to provide the relevant information may result in prosecution and the punishment could be worse than for the speeding offence. On appeal, the court did not accept that a prosecution could not proceed because of a lack of warning of prosecution where police become aware of the offence after 14 days had passed. A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment. Case Study: Speeding . The defendant contributed to that failure by his or her own conduct. If the prosecution is taken by surprise by the issue, an application to adjourn to call a witness can be made - see R on the application of. The notice should also state that production for verification cannot be made at court and that any attempt to do so will result in expense and delay for that person as the court will still require their prior production at the nominated (or locally agreed) police station. It is important to remember, however, that the alternative verdict can only be returned where the jury or magistrates have found the defendant 'not guilty' of the substantive charge. If the vehicle is a company car, the police will send the first notice to . In the . However, to establish this defence, it is not sufficient for the defendant merely to show that the breaking or removal of the seal could not have been avoided by himself; he must show that the breaking or removal of the seal could not have been avoided in itself (Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd [2002] RTR 13). It is essential to check files when powers have been exercised to ensure the material sought to be exhibited has been obtained lawfully in order to rebut any application under s.78 PACE. The prosecution do not have to call evidence that s.1 RTOA 1988 has been complied with unless the defendant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that no effective notice was given. If you have been served a Notice of Intended Prosecution then you should contact our road traffic lawyers immediately. Prosecutors who are dealing with a prosecution for no insurance where the case is based on the driver not meeting some condition of the insurance must be vigilant to check that the exclusion relied upon to make out the offence is not one of those avoided by s.148(2). When you're given a speeding ticket, you receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and a Section 172 notice. Should a defendant attempt to produce documents at court for the first time following a previous request for their production at a police station and it can be shown that the defendant was notified that production should initially have been made at the nominated police station, local arrangements should be agreed for the most effective method for the documents' validation by the police before the court proceeds to deal with any outstanding summonses. Where a substantial proportion of a company's operating records for a given period have been the subject of falsification and management are involved, it is almost always the proper course to recommend that the case should be dealt with on indictment. I was driving a company vehicle Open or Close The registered keeper of a vehicle has a legal obligation under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide the identity of the driver at the time of an alleged offence. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice. A mechanical defect of which the driver was unaware, may amount to a defence (see R v Spurge [1961] 2 All ER 688), as will the loss of control over the vehicle due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver (see Burns v Bidder [1966] 3 All ER 29). The Notice of Intended Prosecution, although issued in terms of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, is often accompanied by a request to confirm the identity of the driver at the time it is alleged a road traffic offence has been committed. The use of traffic signs is regulated by Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Under s.96(11)(b) TA 1968 liability also falls upon "any other person (being that driver's employer or a person to whose order the driver was subject) who caused or permitted the contravention". Assessment of the role played by each person in the company/operator in the case of large scale prosecutions; Whether there has been systematic flouting of the law resulting in widespread falsification of records endorsed by management. We represent drivers throughout Scotland. Additionally it may not be in the best interest of the court to prosecute Directors (solely to get points put on a licence). Section 8 warrants authorised under PACE and s.7 warrants authorised under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. 0. It is important to note, however, that it is only the registered keeper that is required to receive such a warning . A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) / Requirement for Driver details (172) must be completed and returned within 28 days of the date on the form. Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 "invalid carriages". Making enquiries does not extend the 28 day time limit as stated on the NIP. The certificate is, therefore, likely to be signed by the appropriate police officer. The issue of the defendant's conduct and any increased costs involved should be carefully considered and noted, and a departure made from the locally agreed standard costs application, where there has been an increase in prosecution costs. In either case, so long as it arrives at the relevant address within the time limit the . News. The purpose of a notice of intended prosecution (NIP) is to inform a potential defendant that they may be prosecuted for an offence they have committed, whilst the incident is still fresh in their memory. However, a notice is still required if the defendant was unaware that there had been an accident: see Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356. Generally the offence of driving while disqualified should not be withdrawn just because the defendant is pleading guilty to other offences. The prosecution has a duty to assist the court by ensuring that correct and full information, both in law and fact, is given. It is an offence, under s.99(5) TA 1968, for a person to knowingly falsify a tachograph entry made under s.97 TA1968 or entries kept for the purpose of regulations under s.98 TA1968 or under applicable Community rules. There will be occasions where although the offence under section 22A is made out, the charging of one of the less serious offences listed above will be more appropriate. Usually NIPs are used by fixed cameras or the talivan overbridge guys who have zapped you with a laser speed detector. Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) If you were not stopped by the Police and cautioned at the time of the offence, because for example your offence is one where the evidence has been obtained by camera, before any further action can be taken, the Police or Process Department, must serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution, commonly known as a . For pelican/zebra crossings and puffin pedestrian crossings see the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (SI 1997/2400). Motorists, who have been unable to produce their driving documents on demand, following a lawful request by a police officer, should produce them for inspection within the required statutory period at a police station of their choice. Time which he necessarily spends travelling (from a point to take over a vehicle subject to that Regulation) which is not the driver's home or the employer's operational centre; and. 102 Petty France, However under Subsection (6) the company must prove that as well as not being able to identify the driver using reasonable diligence it must show that it did not keep a record of who was driving the vehicle and that the failure to keep such records was reasonable. by Graham Walker | Jan 29, 2013 | Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving | Scotland, Road Traffic Law Scotland, Speed Cameras Latest Advice, Speeding. The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases. If a charge under s.2 RTA 1988 is sent to trial on indictment, the issue is for the trial court, unless the prosecutor decides that there has been a fatal non-compliance with the requirement. Copyright Roadtrafficlaw.com Solicitors Ltd (c), Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window), Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window), Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window), Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window). (e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used, A Notice of Intended Prosecution (also known as a section 1 warning) is a warning issued under section 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988. . Hence time limits are of particular significance since for various reasons substantial delay may occur before it is decided to institute proceedings. The offence under section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. To assist victims in any future claim for compensation, a written record should be kept of all relevant details about the driving documents produced to the police. Please note, if the notice is sent to you by post, it should contain the following details: The details of the driving offence (e.g. Under s.145 RTA 1988 the policy must be issued by an authorised insurer and must insure for death or bodily injury to any person, or damage to property, caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road in Great Britain, i.e. Proceedings for an offence mentioned in the Schedule also cease to be specified if a magistrates court indicates that it is considering imposing a custodial sentence for the offence. Errors in date, time, vehicle registration or speed, which are caused through clerical error, will not automatically render the notice invalid. Section 161A Highways Act 1980 (lighting fires so as to injure, interrupt or endanger users of a highway); Section 131(2) Highways Act 1980 (obliterating or pulling down a traffic sign). The time limit for a written warning is 14 days from the date of the offence. Our own firm offers a free online consultation service and this may just save you from 3pp and a possible ban. Acts which breach these sections will often also amount to offences of a more serious nature which carry greater penalties. A person is guilty of an offence if, while disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, he obtains a licence, or drives a motor vehicle on a road s.103 RTA 1988. The time limit applies to the notice of intended prosecution. The time limit for service of the NIP is a very important aspect of a succesful prosecution therefore if there has been a delay you should get in touch with a solicitor and obtain case specific advice. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. There are many decided cases on various aspects of the provisions - see Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 28th Ed. Where the offence is triable summarily only, it will normally be heard by the magistrates' court which covers that area where the offence occurs, but all magistrates' courts have jurisdiction to try any summary offence s.2(1) Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. July 19, 2019. When dealing with offences specifically relating to the use of forged documents contrary to s.173(1) RTA or s.44 VERA, the document concerned must be one of those listed within the relevant section. Uninsured drivers pose a substantial risk to other road users. Self-balancing Personal Transporters can be used on private property with the permission of the landowner. The failure to stop is usually viewed as the more serious of the two. See also the decision in R v J F Alford Transport Ltd [1997] Crim LR 745 in which the Court of Appeal held that a secondary offender had to intend to do the acts which he knew to be capable of assisting or encouraging the commission of the crime, but that it was not necessary that he should have intended the crime to be committed. The offence is equally serious, whether "use" or "causing or permitting" is involved. It is no defence for that person to say that he or she thought the disqualification had expired. 443 DC, it was established that there was no prescribed way that identification had to be proved as this could be proved by any admissible means. The offence under section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Where the police refer a case involving a Self-balancing Personal Transporter to the CPS, the prosecutor should, as is usual, consider the facts of the case, having regard to the licensing considerations set out above, and apply the two stages of the full code test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors when deciding whether or not a prosecution should proceed. For reasons, see DPP v O'Connor [1992] RTR 66. Despite the fact that offences involving falsification of charts have been both investigated and prosecuted as forgeries under the 1981 Act for many years, a combination of this decision and the Osman case demonstrates beyond doubt that false charts can constitute false instruments under that Act. Such a warning is normally known as a "notice of intended prosecution", or NIP. David Barton. We are only a phone call away. Whether such a warning was given "at the time" is a question of degree and the High Court will not interfere in a Magistrates' Court finding on the point if there is evidence to support that finding. Using a mobile phone whilst driving. In essence the Notice of Intended Prosecution is a document that specifies the nature of the offence and the time and place it is alleged to have been committed. A Notice of Intended Prosecution (also known as a section 1 warning) is a warning issued under section 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988. If you do in fact have any documents that would cover your use of the vehicle on the road at the time you were asked to produce them, you must, as soon as possible, take immediate steps to produce them at the police station you originally selected when the police officer asked you to choose one (this police station will be called the nominated police station from now on). driving after making a false declaration as to physical fitness (section 92(10)); failing to notify Secretary of State of onset or deterioration of disability (section 94(3)); driving after refusal of licence under section 92 or 93 (section 94A); failure to surrender licence following revocation (section 99); obtaining driving licence, or driving, whilst disqualified (section 103(1)); using an uninsured motor vehicle (section 143); making a false statement to obtain a driving licence or certificate of insurance (section 174); section 244 RTA 1960 (re offences under section 235 RTA 1960 and section 99(5) Transport Act 1968); section 47(2) VERA 1994 (re offences under sections 29, 34, 35A, 37 or regulations made under the Act); section 73 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1982 (re offences under sections 65 or 66 of the Act). 1503 & 1507. The offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. A warning as to increased costs should also be given, where appropriate. . Mere passive acquiescence is not enough - see Redhead Freight Ltd v Shulman [1989] RTR 1. Self-balancing scooters do not currently meet the legal requirements and therefore are not legal for road use. When such a point is raised, the prosecution should take into account the reason for the defendant's belief, the distance driven and the degree of risk, if any, to the public when determining whether it is in the public interest to proceed. If the procurator fiscal decides that the case against you should go ahead, you may have to appear in court. No mens rea is necessary (see Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 All ER 193). For this reason, it is best to seek legal advice before completing a Notice of Intended Prosecution. In relation to s172, in general most police forces prosecute the company and not the Directors for failing to identify the driver as this leads to a conviction and fine without any effort. If the notice was served late without a good reason then you can't be prosecuted anyway. 9/ If the S172 notice is valid (ie not sent after the time limit) or perhaps in any case, you should tell the police that you have no idea, after this length of time, who was driving. All who deal with cases where document production is made should be alive to the current sophistication of fraudulently produced material. When deciding whether to restore a summary offence, the following points should be borne in mind: Nevertheless, there will be circumstances where the restoration of a summary offence, usually for excess alcohol, will be appropriate if, for example, each of the factors listed above are outweighed by factors which favour prosecution in a particular case. Other cases on drivers' hours include Vehicle Inspectorate v Southern Coaches and Others [2000] RTR 165. The following points need to be borne in mind: The six-month time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. A taxi driver who had a licence to ply for hire in Rossendale and whose insurance covered him for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward under a public hire licence was not guilty of having no insurance in spite of plying for hire in Oldham, to which his licence did not extend. If the court subsequently considers that you should be disqualified from driving, it will let you know when you should attend court. You should note however, that the production to the police of these documents now will not be a defence to any prosecution for failing to produce the documents within seven days of the date of the original request. The offence under section 11 of the Fireworks Act 2003. The 'prosecutor' for the purposes of section 6 can be the investigating officer or the informant (see [1976] 140 JP Jo., 675; Swan v Vehicle Inspectorate [1997] RTR 187. Section 2(3) RTOA 1988 provides that a failure to meet the requirements shall not prevent conviction where the court is satisfied that: R v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2887 was an appeal against a terminating ruling that the requirements of s.1(1) RTOA 1988 were a bar to conviction on a count alleging that the respondent drove a motorbike dangerously. In that event the case should not proceed unless the defence agrees to waive the point. But where a disqualified person has had his driving licence returned in error by the DVLA, the prosecution should take that fact into account in deciding whether or not to proceed. It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. In either case, so long as it arrives at the relevant address within the time limit the notice is valid. Prejudice to a defendant by the delay and the lack of early notification of the impending prosecution can be addressed by abuse of process proceedings and s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The police must send the notice so that it can be expected to arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence. 08 October 2018 The point must also be borne in mind if it is intended at a later date to add further charges. 3821/85. The police should give consideration to training CPS and court staff in the methods used to produce fraudulent documents and have an agreed method of responding to any such documents that are produced in legal proceedings. These include: Failing to comply with a traffic sign. Ordinarily, the notice should indicate that production should be made to the police station originally nominated by the driver when the request for production was first made. The minimum penalty for speeding is a 100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence. For more information see Mutual Recognition of Driving Disqualification, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance. The notice of intended prosecution is automatically regarded to have been served within the time limit unless it is disputed. received for the purposes of considering whether there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of a conviction under s.35(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988) (disqualification for repeated offences). If the company did have such a system but it didnt work on a particular occasion that might suffice as a defence. If you're caught speeding by a speed camera, you'll be sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and a Section 172 notice within 14 days of the alleged offence. by sending a notice within 14 days of the possibility of prosecution and specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed to the driver, registered keeper of the vehicle or rider of the cycle. Notice of Intended Prosecution lawyers. Know your possible technical defences to protect your licence. For this reason, it is best to seek legal advice before completing a Notice of Intended Prosecution. Note that the 6 month time limit in section 99(6) has no effect on the either way time limit and refers only to charts actually seized under this specific power, not to charts removed under the statutory powers. An allegation of driving without insurance should never be withdrawn as a matter of convenience when pleas of guilty are tendered in respect of other offences. received in proceedings held in the absence of the accused - s.11(1) MCA 1980 proof in absence; read out before the court under s.12(7) MCA 1980 (non-appearance of accused: plea of guilty); or. There has, however, been extensive case law on the subject and the main point that emerges is what is known as the reasonable man test as per the following cases: Personal transporters, such as the Segway Personal Transporter are powered by electricity and transport a passenger standing on a platform propelled on two or more wheels. information online. CPS staff, agents or court staff should not ordinarily inspect or verify driving documents, see paragraph 4 of the Protocol in Annex A. 14 July 2015 at 5:34PM. No member of the Crown Prosecution Service or agent acting for them, or member of the magistrates' court staff should ordinarily be required to inspect or verify a motorist's driving documents relevant to a prosecution before the court. This is a summary offence. So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period. The law relating to tachographs falls into two categories: The rules governing the mechanical operation of tachographs are set out in EEC Regulation 3821/85 and that covering the hours permitted are set out in Regulation (EC) 561/2006. The requires the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. You could be disqualified from driving if you build up 12 or more penalty points within a period of 3 . Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration), Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position), Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals) And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act. If this happens you'll have the chance to challenge the case against you. Offences are either way, punishable by way of fine in the Magistrates' Court or by imprisonment (maximum two years) in the Crown Court. A Notice of Intended Prosecution will be issued to the offender in the post automatically after you've been snapped by a speed camera. Find out about speeding limits and penalties, what to do if you receive a speeding ticket and driver awareness courses. The duty to determine whether any documents produced are valid does not pass to any other agency where a motorist fails to produce the required driving documents to a police officer on demand or at a nominated police station. Section 127 MCA 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise. . In West Yorkshire Probation Board v Boulter [2005] EWHC 2342 (Admin); R v Burns [2006] 2 Cr. A statutory defence is provided by section 143(3) RTA in relation to a driver who unwittingly drives his employer's uninsured vehicle. Where special reasons are put forward in cases of drink and driving, the court must consider the following factors, see Chatters v Burke [1986] 3 All ER 168: In DPP v Bristow [1998] RTR 100 the Divisional Court stated that the key question justices should ask themselves when assessing if such special reasons existed on which they might decide not to disqualify was this: what would a sober, reasonable and responsible friend of the defendant, present at the time, but himself a non-driver and thus unable to help, have advised in the circumstances, to drive or not to drive? The notice of intended prosecution will be accompanied by a Section 172 notice, which you are required to complete to confirm the identity of the driver. I unexpectedly received a letter from the police who at the time intended to prosecute me for driving an electric scooter without insurance, and without a license. This might, for example be a driving licence or certificate of insurance. The offence under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. Service of a notice at the last known address of the accused will suffice for good service. Section 6 applies to the following offences under RTA 1988: Section 37 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 amends the time limit in the Theft Act. The expression 'traffic sign' is defined in section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the colour, size and type of signs are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Disobeying traffic signs. The defence should also give notice that they will be seeking to advance special reasons. The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) will ask the registered keeper of the vehicle to name the driver or rider at the time of the alleged offence; they'll be the same person or a family member in most cases, but sometimes it won't be so straightforward, and it'll be an unknown 'friend of a friend'. Keep your fingers crossed. There are circumstances where you may not have received the NIP within 14 . either orally or in writing at the time the offence was committed. The offence under section 63B(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. You'll need to return this within 28 days, to tell the police who was driving .