This is an either way offence; Section 115(2) Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 - making a false statement to obtain a parking authorisation. It should state the nature of the offence (for example Speeding) together with the time, date and place . If you do not complete and return the NIP/S172 notice correctly within the 28 day time limit, you face a separate charge of failing to notify driver's details, which is a 6 penalty point offence with a fine of up to 1,000. The Notice must be sent to the registered keeper to arrive within 14 days of the offence. The letter is asking me to provide details of the driver of the vehicle. 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. There are many decided cases on various aspects of the provisions - see Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 28th Ed. Such a challenge should usually be considered only if the law was wrongly applied or the decision can be shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable. Additionally it may not be in the best interest of the court to prosecute Directors (solely to get points put on a licence). In Vehicle Inspectorate v Blakes Chilled Distribution Ltd [2002] 166 JP Jo.118, the Administrative Court held that the intent necessary to prove vicarious liability was established where it could be proved that an employer had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by drivers, provided that such failure was not due to honest mistake or accident. Every effort should be explored to avoid unnecessary adjournments, though this may be unavoidable where there is no convenient nearby police station or the circumstances are such that an adjournment is unavoidable. If you receive a summons or postal requisition or Notice of Intended Prosecution in relation to a motoring offence, it is important to know whether the Police have complied with . 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. For example, such a situation may arise where the outstanding summary offence is a drink/drive allegation where the accused is liable to a three-year disqualification following a previous conviction. We represent drivers throughout Scotland. However, a notice is still required if the defendant was unaware that there had been an accident: see Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356. We can help. 1 of 2000 sub nom R v J T, Times LR 28 November 2000, [2001] 1 WLR 331, [2001] Crim LR 127), against a decision to acquit on the basis that the provision of a false tachograph record did not constitute forgery contrary to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1 and section 9. See also the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994/1519). Liverlad67 Forumite. It is usually not appropriate to challenge the decision as it involves the exercise of discretion as the Administrative (Divisional) Court is unlikely to interfere if all relevant matters were properly considered. The prosecution has a duty to assist the court by ensuring that correct and full information, both in law and fact, is given. In that event the case should not proceed unless the defence agrees to waive the point. 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. . Where the police do not speak to you personally at the time, they can put this warning on paper and send it to you within 14 days. Hence time limits are of particular significance since for various reasons substantial delay may occur before it is decided to institute proceedings. The Exception The prosecution is not required to serve a notice within 14 days if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which . 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). 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. 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 statutory time limit for commencing proceedings is 6 months after the date of the alleged offence. Under current legislation, the Department for Transport considers Segway Personal Transporters as motor vehicles, subject to road traffic laws. The defendant contributed to that failure by his or her own conduct. it arose because the name and address of the accused or the registered keeper could not with reasonable diligence be ascertained within the statutory time; or. The offence of driving whilst disqualified, although a summary offence, can be included in the indictment if founded on the same facts or evidence, or if it forms part of a series of offences of the same or similar character as an indictable offence which has also been charged - s.40 (3)(c) Criminal Justice Act 1988. You must respond to a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 28 days of receiving it. Where a summons is issued for failure to produce, the defendant may attempt to produce his documents at court. Making enquiries does not extend the 28 day time limit as stated on the NIP. Section 97(1) TA 1968 which is summary only, prohibits the use of a vehicle to which the TA 1968 applies in which "recording equipment" as stipulated in the Community Recording Equipment Regulations 3821/85 has either not been fitted or has not been appropriately repaired. An example of this is where BAA has deployed a Segway Personal Transporter at Heathrow airport. pursuant to section 6 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. there was sufficient evidence in my opinion to warrant proceedings against: pursuant to the provisions of section 6 of the said Act. If you have received a notice of intended prosecution you may be wondering what it is, read on. A NIP can be issued verbally to the driver at the time of the offence or in written form 14 days from the date of the offence. (2) The general nature of the offence is . A Notice of Intended Prosecution is exactly what it says - a warning that the driver of the vehicle is being considered for prosecution. See. 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 documents, therefore local arrangements should be agreed for the most effective method for the documents' validation by the police before the court proceeds. 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. In DPP v Mansfield [1997] RTR 96 the constable who had arrested the defendant for the current offence, and who was present at court, had also arrested him for a previous offence for which the defendant had been disqualified in the constable's absence. In interview, the defendant conceded that he could be the rider. They must provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This isn't straightforward and needs to be heavily evidenced. In. The minimum penalty for speeding or running a red-light is a 100 fine and three penalty points added to your licence. CPS and court staff are not trained in the detection of fraud. Police officers had recovered a DVD that had footage of a motorbike ride. Where a defendant raises exceptional hardship as a reason for not being disqualified under the repeated offence provisions of s.35 RTOA 1988 it is appropriate for the prosecutor to question the defendant. speeding) The time & date of offence. The offence under section 63B(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court ruled that under Article 15 of EEC Regulation No: 3821/85 of 1985 a driver's obligation to record all other periods of work extends to: Sections 96 and 97(1) TA1968 create absolute offences for the driver. In this case the appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision that the prosecutor's certificate issued under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 was conclusive and that he could not argue that the prosecution was out of time. But usually charges under RTA 1988 and VERA 1994 should be preferred unless a defendant has committed a series of offences on a substantial scale for personal gain. It is important to note, however, that it is only the registered keeper that is required to receive such a warning . This may be by direct notification to the relevant police process office for transmission to the court or CPS office, and may include a written acknowledgement given to the person making production, which can be produced at court. Driving whilst under age does not constitute an offence of driving whilst disqualified (by reason of age) under s.103 RTA 1988 by virtue of section 103(4) RTA 1988. They cannot be licensed for use on a road and they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. The Notice of Intended Prosecution must specify the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed. This can be communicated verbally to you at the scene of the alleged crime, or it can be posted or served to you. Failure to specify the date will lead to proceedings being terminated: see David Burwell v DPP [2009] EWHC 1069 (Admin). Very exceptionally, a prosecutor may feel it appropriate to verify documents, but: Sections 173 and 174 RTA 1988 and sections 44 and 45 Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA 1994) create a number of offences concerning forgery, fraudulent actions and false statements in connection with various road traffic documents. I cannot prove this ( I do have a couple of texts I sent around the time stating . They are capable of speeds up to 12 mph. A special reason is one which is special to the facts of a particular offence. The above cases expanded upon the methods of proof outlined in R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Heaviside in particular allowing the prosecution to rely on similarity of name, date of birth and address. The time limit for a written warning is 14 days from the date of the offence. You have been summoned to attend court for either not having one or more documents, as required, for using a motor vehicle on a road (or public place). Notice of intended prosecution. 'How did 13 women's testimonies secure the fate of se, A bogus doctor has been jailed today for forgery and fraud costing the taxpayer over 1m. For speeds significantly more excessive than the limit, penalty points and a fine will be issued. 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. Failure to produce your documents at the police station may well result in additional loss and inconvenience to you, and led to an application for additional prosecution costs for the extra work involved. 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. . At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. Motorists will be encouraged to obtain proper documentation before driving a motor vehicle on the road, thereby increasing the safety of other road users. It is a matter for police investigation. 56 Posts. It's often the case that this offence exceeds the penalty for the substantive offence such as speeding that can carry three points or more. You'll need to return this within 28 days, to tell the police who was driving . However, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the certificate was invalid as it did not state the date when the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to warrant the proceedings. (h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. 1503 & 1507. Contravening a traffic signal. Under s.1(3) RTOA 1988 the requirements of that section are deemed to have been met unless and until the contrary is proved. 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. It is also subject to the general requirement that any prosecution must be brought within three years of the offence taking place. The following are the matters listed: (a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle, The Police Sent Section 172 Notice and Notice of Intended Prosecution to the Wrong Address! Failure to provide the relevant information may result in prosecution and the punishment could be worse than for the speeding offence. These include: Failing to comply with a traffic sign. You may have heard that if you get a speeding ticket through the post more than 14 . 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. Any such notice should also warn defendants of the seriousness of producing or attempting to produce any forged or unlawful documentation with attempt to deceive. The driver of the vehicle has failed to comply with a requirement made under s.99(1) TA 1968; or, The driver has obstructed an officer exercising his powers under s.99(2) TA 1968 or s.99(3) TA1968; or, It appears to an officer that in relation to the vehicle or its driver there has been (or will be, if the vehicle is driven on a road) a contravention of s.96 TA1968 to s.98 TA 1968 or of the applicable Community rules; or. 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. 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. As far as alerting persons to any alleged offence, notice can be given by different means. third party insurance. Definition, see Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences (28th edition) 15.52. If an offence has been recorded . This guidance is provided to provide an overview on procedure and charging practice that is not dealt with in the existing road traffic guidance being. Notice of Intended Prosecution; Section 172 notice; They, or in the case of a company vehicle, the company secretary, must return the notice within 28 days telling the police who was . The effect is that the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over the conduct of all criminal proceedings instituted on behalf of a police force will not include a duty to take over specified proceedings. A notice of intended prosecution can be given: Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) offences to which s.1 RTOA 1988 applies include: Section 2 RTOA 1988 states that the prosecution does not have to comply with s.1 RTOA 1988 if, owing to the presence on a road of a vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed, an accident occurred at the time of the offence or immediately afterwards. Then in the first paragraph it lists the incident date as 04/12/22. As a general rule, if you're caught travelling in excess of 45% . This should be done with the approval of the court and in order to assist in determining the question of disqualification. The exceptions include: Section 24 RTOA 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) allows a court which has returned a verdict of 'not guilty' to certain either way and summary offences, to convict for a specified alternative offence, provided that the content of the information or indictment amounts to an allegation of such an offence. The prohibition may be removed by any officer if he is satisfied that the reason for imposing the prohibition no longer applies. . In R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Swift, R v Sunderland Justices ex parte Bate [1997] RTR 89 a section 9 statement was admitted in evidence from a constable who stated that he knew the defendant and had been present when he had been convicted and disqualified for two years on a previous occasion. Subsection (4) provides a defence if the Keeper shows that he did not know who the driver was and could not have found out by using reasonable diligence. If the vehicle is a company car, the police will send the first notice to . If the procurator fiscal decides that the case against you should go ahead, you may have to appear in court. evidence of a person who was present in court when the defendant was convicted on an earlier occasion and able to identify him as present in court. Section 99 TA 1968 empowers police and Department for Transport officials to require the production of records and documents, whether or not offences are revealed on the face of them. The offence under section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Once police have received written confirmation from the driver, it is the drivers' choice to either accept: This was confirmed in the case of Oldham BC v Sajjad [2016] EWHC 3597 (Admin). Case Study: Speeding . Age prohibitions on driving are set out in s.101 RTA 1988. 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. Care should also be taken to ensure that sufficient charges are put to enable the gravity of the offence to be reflected in the sentencing process. Further a motorist who fails to produce the documents may commit an offence by their non- production. This protocol recognises that motorists are required to produce driving documents to police officers following a lawful demand and that the documents may be produced at a nominated police station. Section 1 RTOA 1988 provides that a defendant cannot be convicted of certain road traffic offences set out in schedule 1 RTOA 1988 unless he or she has been warned that the question of prosecution would be taken into consideration. If you have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) then the police have evidence that you (or the person driving the vehicle at the time) were travelling in excess of the speed limit. If different issues are in dispute and it is the intention of the prosecution to proceed regardless of the outcome of the Crown Court trial, the prosecution should consider asking for such summary offences to be heard first. Know your possible technical defences to protect your licence. Similar offences can be found in the following Acts: The purpose of the legislation is to regulate the hours of work by the drivers of goods and passenger vehicles in order to protect the public against the risks which arise when such people suffer from fatigue. The expression 'on a road or other public place' is employed frequently in road traffic legislation. When it applies, proceedings must be brought within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings but, in any event, they must not be brought more than three years after the commission of the offence. by Graham Walker | Jan 29, 2013 | Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving | Scotland, Road Traffic Law Scotland, Speed Cameras Latest Advice, Speeding. The failure to stop is usually viewed as the more serious of the two. . The same considerations will thus apply. Because self-balancing Personal Transporters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road. 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. Self-balancing scooters do not currently meet the legal requirements and therefore are not legal for road use. It is important to note, however, that only the registered keeper requires to receive such a warning within 14 days. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'road' as a line of communication for use of foot passengers and vehicles; while in Oxford v Austin [1981] RTR 416 it was said to be a definable right of way between two points. address the court, after the defence, on matters of law and should remind the court that there is a two stage process: first, to determine whether there are special reasons and, second, if there are special reasons, to consider whether to exercise the courts discretion not to endorse or disqualify (or to disqualify for a shorter period that the usual tariff of twelve months), Section 137 Highways Act 1980 (wilful obstruction of the highway), Regulation 103 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 - (causing or permitting a vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause an unnecessary obstruction), Section 22 RTA 1988 (leaving vehicles in a dangerous position), Offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. The prohibition may be applied for a specified period, or without limitation of time. 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. an admission under s.10 Criminal Justice Act 1967; fingerprint evidence pursuant to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1948; and. Following such a demand, no motorist who has not produced his or her driving documents at a police station should produce them to a court in answer to a charge or summons without having previously produced them at a police station for inspection. etc. The offences under sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949. The minimum penalty for speeding is a 100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence. In deciding whether to rely on the extended time limit, the prosecutor should ensure that he/she is able to ascertain the date on which sufficient evidence to warrant proceedings came to the knowledge of a police officer investigating the incident, since this is a requirement of the procedure. 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). 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. For a detailed explanation of the consequences of prosecution and your options for defending a speeding charge, get in touch which our expert road traffic solicitors today. But if an intent to deceive can be proved an either way offence under s.97AA TA1968 or s.99(5) TA 1988 should be preferred instead. News. The prosecution should not seek to secure convictions on both. On 22nd November 2017 a Notice of Intended Prosecution/Section 172 request was sent to Mr Brown that was dated 22nd November 2017 by Royal . 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).