DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61529--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: Dave Green Date: March 9, 2025, 6:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Grumpy_chap link=topic=5461.msg61528#msg61528
date=1741561236]
. Of course it is not enough simply to assert that someone did
not receive the letter; the court will consider all the evidence
and make its findings by reference to the facts which are
established including issues as to the credibility of witnesses.
That is the ordinary way in which a court goes about making
findings of fact.[/i][/quote]
But it probably won't be the police simply saying that they
didn't receive the letters.
The chances are that they will have a team of people whose sole
job is to record all incoming mail and then divert it to the
relevant people or departments so there will be logs of the
received mail.
The link also mentions the credibility of witnesses.
Being honest, who do you think the courts would fine more
credible, your brother, a person who stands to gain by stating
that he posted both letters or the police who in reality have
nothing to gain from lying about not having received the
letters?
Your brother would have a far better argument if they had
obtained a free proof of postage certificate from a post office
but without this, I honestly can't see him winning in court.
#Post#: 61535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: Grumpy_chap Date: March 9, 2025, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave Green link=topic=5461.msg61529#msg61529
date=1741562686]
[quote author=Grumpy_chap link=topic=5461.msg61528#msg61528
date=1741561236]
. Of course it is not enough simply to assert that someone did
not receive the letter; the court will consider all the evidence
and make its findings by reference to the facts which are
established including issues as to the credibility of witnesses.
That is the ordinary way in which a court goes about making
findings of fact.[/i][/quote]
But it probably won't be the police simply saying that they
didn't receive the letters.
The chances are that they will have a team of people whose sole
job is to record all incoming mail and then divert it to the
relevant people or departments so there will be logs of the
received mail.
The link also mentions the credibility of witnesses.
Being honest, who do you think the courts would fine more
credible, your brother, a person who stands to gain by stating
that he posted both letters or the police who in reality have
nothing to gain from lying about not having received the
letters?
Your brother would have a far better argument if they had
obtained a free proof of postage certificate from a post office
but without this, I honestly can't see him winning in court.
[/quote]
A fair and valid point, but however robust their system is, it
is not infallible. So it is not beyond all realms of possibility
that the letters may have been misplaced or not processed - for
the police to suggest otherwise would be absurd. Up until now,
my brother has a squeaky clean record, never been in trouble
with the police before in his 30+ years of life and there's no
reason for him to lie about not sending them in the post either,
other than being a little naive and sticking a first class stamp
on the envelope and putting it in the postbox (twice). So far as
credibility goes, I think he would be considered a credible
witness.
Ultimately, it is his decision to make and I came here for
answers I may not have thought of and experience of how this
might pan out. It seems that the view is there is little chance
of him being found not guilty and that's fine, I'll accept that.
All I can do is give him the information and what he does after
that is up to him. I get the impression that he wants to have
his day in court as he feels he has done what was needed, but
doesn't quite appreciate the hurdles he needs to get over to
convince magistrates that have heard the same story before.
Edit: What's the worst case scenario if convicted, 6 points and
a fine?
#Post#: 61566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: NewJudge Date: March 10, 2025, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What's the worst case scenario if convicted, 6 points and
a fine?[/quote]
Upon conviction following a trial, a fine of 1.5 weeks' net
income, a "victim surcharge" of 40% of that fine, costs of
around £650 and six points. The endorsement code (MS90) will see
considerably increased insurance premiums for up to five years.
There is one other avenue to consider.
Unfortunately he has not been “dual charged” with speeding as
well as the s172 offence. If he had it would have been a
relatively straightforward process to agree to plead guilty to
speeding on the condition that the s172 charge is dropped.
By the time his case reaches court it will be too late to raise
a speeding charge (proceedings must begin within six months from
the date of the offence). He could consider pleading not guilty
so as to ensure a court appearance and then to ask the
prosecutor to raise an “out-of-time” speeding charge.
It is probably unlikely to succeed (it is actually unlawful).
But I believe it has been reported as a success once or twice on
here.
If the prosecutor will not agree he can change his plea to
guilty and so reduce the fine, surcharge and costs.
It’s a long shot and it may cost him some of the one third
discount on the fine to which he would be entitled. As well as
that the prosecution may also ask for a little more than the
standard £90-ish which they request for an early guilty plea.
But the financial consequences of a conviction for a s172
offence are considerable and stretch beyond those imposed by the
court, so he may consider it worth a gamble.
#Post#: 61573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: RichardW Date: March 10, 2025, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if this is another of those wrong stamp cases... OP
ask your brother if he put a barcode stamp on the letters?
#Post#: 61617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: andy_foster Date: March 10, 2025, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=5461.msg61566#msg61566
date=1741602460]
He could consider pleading not guilty so as to ensure a court
appearance and then to ask the prosecutor to raise an
“out-of-time” speeding charge.
It is probably unlikely to succeed (it is actually unlawful).
But I believe it has been reported as a success once or twice on
here.
[/quote]
To the best of my knowledge, it was considered to be common
practice at the precise moment it was done for Harriet Harman,
but had never been done previously or since.
#Post#: 85203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feas
ible?
By: Grumpy_chap Date: August 11, 2025, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Evening,
It has been a while as admittedly I completely forgot about his
case so the least I could do is provide an update, and
fortunately it is a positive outcome. Despite having initial
conversations with Northumbria CPS and an attempt to settle the
issue before the court hearing, the CPS never got back to him so
he took his chance and went to the plea hearing today.
In all of 3 minutes, the prosecutor attending the hearing
complimented the witness statement and took the unilateral
decision to drop the case, and that was that. Admittedly I did
help him with the drafting of his statement to the best of my
ability albeit it was short and his defence would have mainly
relied on s7 of the Interpretation Act had it gone to a full
hearing.
[quote author=RichardW link=topic=5461.msg61573#msg61573
date=1741603747]
I wonder if this is another of those wrong stamp cases... OP
ask your brother if he put a barcode stamp on the letters?
[/quote]
I did question my brother on this and he said it was possible
that the stamp he used could have been the old stamp that's no
longer used but could not be 100% certain. In hindsight I
suspect he probably did use an expired stamp but that doesn't
necessarily mean it was never delivered as he claims to have
used the the same set of stamps at the same time for other post
which was delivered.
Anyway, in an effort to give back, I am sharing the witness
statement used in case it might help others in a similar
situation.
[quote]
WITNESS STATEMENT
(Criminal Procedure Rules, r. 16.2; Criminal Justice Act 1967,
s. 9)
STATEMENT OF XXXXX
Age of witness: Over 18
This statement (consisting of 3 pages) is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is
tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have
wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do
not believe to be true.
PERSONAL DETAILS
1.
by my mother, XXXXX. I am XXXXX years old, and my date of birth
is XXXXX.
2.
in construction. This involves preparing grounds before, during
and after construction projects. I sometimes do contract work
throughout the country.
3.
THE CHARGE
4.
172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“RTA”). I believe
I have fulfilled my obligation under s. 172 of the RTA and
therefore it is my intention to plead not guilty.
PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
5.
ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE CURRENT OFFENCE
6.
Northumbria Police which I understood to be a request for
further information under s. 172 of the RTA. The letter stated
that I needed to complete the requested information on the
reverse side of the letter and return it to the address
provided.
7.
identifying myself as the driver of the vehicle at the time in
question and posted the letter to the address given in the
letter using a first-class stamp. The letter was posted through
my local post box at XXXXX.
8.
Police which turned out to be another request for information
under s. 172 of the RTA. I was surprised to receive this letter
because I had already posted the information back to Northumbria
Police back in August 2024. Nevertheless, I completed the
required information and again identified myself as the driver
of the vehicle at the time. I sent the letter by first class
post, using the same address provided in the letter and posted
it to the same post box as previous on XXXXX.
9.
a Single Justice Procedure Notice charging me with the failure
to provide information under s. 172 of the RTA.
MITIGATION
I have nothing to say in mitigation because I am not guilty of
this offence. For the reasons explained above, I fulfilled my
obligation under s. 172 of the RTA by returning the documents
via post.
COMMENTS ON THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXX
10.
Northumbria’s mailing system is robust as if the system is
perfect, but I would say that the system is not incapable of
never failing or making mistakes.
11.
otherwise lost from time to time and Northumbria Police are no
exception. Given the amount of correspondence processed on a
daily basis, which I would imagine to be in the hundreds if not
thousands, it is not beyond all realms of possibility that the
letters I sent to Northumbria Police could have been misplaced
or for some reason, not uploaded into the system.
12.
obligation to provide Northumbria Police with the required
information, and the onus is on them to prove that the letters
were not received.
13.
previous convictions as well as a clean driving licence. There
is no reason for me not to have sent the letters back to
Northumbria Police especially since my mother had already
informed them that I was the person driving the vehicle at the
time. Since I use the vehicle for work daily, it was in my best
interests to confirm to Northumbria Police that I was the driver
of the vehicle, which is what I did on two occasions.
Signed:
Date:
………………………&
#8230;………………….
[/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page