DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63881--------------------------------------------------
How specific must a NIP be?
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 23, 2025, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been having a discussion elsewhere about the specific
details a NIP must provide. It arose when someone received a
s172 request and a NIP for an alleged mobile phone offence. The
discussion turned to him possibly being prosecuted for Careless
Driving or "not in proper control".
Although, of course, a NIP is not required for a mobile phone
offence, he has been served with one. The debate is whether that
NIP would suffice if the allegation was changed.
The RTOA states that the NIP must specify the "nature of the
offence and the time and place where it occurred". My view is
that the NIP for a phone offence would suffice.
I can't find any case law, so does anybody have any views?
#Post#: 63886--------------------------------------------------
Re: How specific must a NIP be?
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 23, 2025, 5:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The legislative purpose of the requirement to serve a NIP is to
enable the accused to identify and recall the incident in
question while it is still relatively fresh in his mind, and to
potentially enable him to gather and preserve any evidence that
might assist any defence.
Whilst the requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days (where
applicable) is mandatory, the required details are merely
directory.
The above is mostly my synopsis of Pope v Clarke - before the
RTA exception was added to the statute, driver hit a lorry,
spoken to by the police but not warned he might be prosecuted,
subsequently received a NIP describing the nature and location
of the incident but with the time several hours out.
Whether the nature of the offence was adequately identified
would be a matter of fact and degree, and should be determined
with regard to the above. N.B. the nature of the alleged offence
does not need to include the specific offence being prosecuted
(and in some cases, it would appear to be arguable that a
specific offence such as careless driving would be too vague to
convey the nature of the allegation).
If the nature of the offence is using a hand-held mobile phone
while driving, and that is conveyed by the NIP, job done.
#Post#: 63889--------------------------------------------------
Re: How specific must a NIP be?
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 23, 2025, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Andy. I'm in agreement and I also made the point that
being warned of a phone offence rather than a vague "careless
driving" accusation actually is an advantage to the recipient.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1