I asked this on the speeding thread, got no replies, I consider that to be because no-one reads that thread, so I'm starting this one.
Can I have the latest understood position regarding the "pace statement" defence.
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2846
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?p=67069#6...9
This is a new one to me just read about it today, trying to help someone out.
Instead of completeng the NIP you attach a statement "not for use as evidence as I am yet to be cautioned for the offence under PACE"
How many people are doing this?
How many are being subsequently cautioned and then asked to complete NIP form - but doesn't the caution give a right to silence?
In general what's happening on this front?
|
|
If you have the time and inclination to become an expert in PACE and CPS/Court procedures go for it. From reading those threads if you know your stuff you will run rings around the CPS to such a point that they will drop the case.
|
The significance of SCP getting the signed 172 name of driver request is that it can be used once obtained to prove the case of speeding against the named driver, evidence of driving being accepatble in Certificate form that 172 complies with.
172 form from the case of Idris Francis has to be signed . I undesrtand that he and a number of others have appealed to the EEC Court on the grounds it infringes their right not to incriminate themselves.
There are a number of cases, one in particular Weh v Austria 2004 at the European Court held that a like request under 172 was for the purposes of obtaining details only of the driver and at that stage not for prosecution where PACE rules applies.
You will note that the Peppoo references are someone dated 2003 and in the later there appears to have been several prodecedural irregularities other than PACE which in themselves would have resulted in aquittal.
I cannot knock the PACE argument as a total urban myth but having been around for a number of years then it has not been shouted from the rooftops as a certain loophole. It would appear in the past some SCP have disengaged when tasked with it and others have proceeded.
We may get a decision from the European Court in due course.
dvd
|
thank you Dvd
They say on the pepipoo forum that whilst the 172 has to be complied with it has been ruled by another court, (can't remember which one or where it says this on the pepipoo) that instead of using the 172 form (if that's the right thing to call it but you know what I mean) you can submit a written statement on a separate piece of paper as a substitute.
Idris Francis didn't sign the form or submit a substitute.
|
I cannot see that making any difference H.
Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - providing CPS can prove proper service of 172 request and that it was made on or behalf of the Chief Officer of Police then if a statement in writing is produced to the Court purporting to be signed by the accused (the person charged with speeding)that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion, the Court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
What one has to do is try and avoid giving any SIGNED evidence that one was the driver at the particular time to stop them using under Sect 12 above.
Virtually IMHO impossible as if you don't sign then you are charged with failing to provide details.
dvd
|
They say that mawdesley Vs the chief constable of Cheshire 2004
says that PACE applies to S-172.
So if you have not been cautioned, any evidence (the attatched statement) cannot be used against you.
It seems lots of people are succesfully getting "time outs"(nothing special IMHO) and dropped cases (very interesting IMHO) because of this statement, The posting dates in the forum are shown on the top line of each post and they go right up to Pg 13 Dec 2005.
But I am yet to see someone who has lost at the magistrates (probably because that is the "success stories" thread).
And of course it would have to go to the high court for appeal to be turned over. Which I doubt has happened yet.
|
but I suppose the reason for giving the attached witness statement is so you let them know in advance that you are protesting not having been cautioned.
I don't undestand if PACE applies then the duly completed s-172 form would be inadmissable anyway. - shrugs shoulders -.
|
I think that, by signing the NIP, you are waiving your right to a caution. Does anyone one have an update on the PACE situation? I have just had my first NIP since 1959 and I might fight, just because I am retired and have time on my hands! Also, today's DT says that out of 3 million trials in magistrates court last year, 784,000 did not go ahead as planned. Of these failures half were caused by mistakes by the defence but the rest were CPS and other bungles. It seems that a bit of delay and correspondence might cause some possibility of a foul up and case failing.
|
tbh pepipoo is probably the best place to discuss this. they have lots of experience with it and have members who know the relevant legislation inside out. they do get results.
be aware that scamera operators are known to join in order to give duff info so watch for the reliable posters, dont take advice as gospel without reading.
Pay to become a full member if you want to see all the details. It takes a long time to go through and understand the basis for the various approaches, too many people just want to drop in get a quick answer and avoid the points.
If you have the time - then you have your weekends reading sorted :)
|
Thanks Mark. I have in fact joined as a paid member for 3 months. Having ploughed thru the pages of court transcripts, judgements made and so on I am happy that I understand the position, up to a point. Basically the validity and acceptability of supplying a PACE statement and attaching it to an unsigned and unfilled in NIP, is being appealed in the UK courts but that hearing is postponed until Feb 2007, pending the outcome of an appeal to the ECHR, featuring Idris Francis.
I am here asking if anyone has, so far, actually had a case dropped as a result of using the PACE statement as a way forward? My insurance company has said they aren't concerned with 3 points, in terms of affecting my premium; a work colleague had to pay an extra £30 a year for 5 years, so I am pleased with my outcome. I have time on my hands and am a bit of a stirrer, I am wondering if it worth the trouble!
|
|
Depends on the offence AS, if you were doing 45 in a 40 on a bright clear Sunday afternoon with not another vehicle in sight then appeal it, if however you "thought you would see what the old girl would do" and were just passing through 100 on the clock with you foot well down when you saw the flash and therefore were pleasantly suprised by three points then pay up and put it down to experience.
|
Thanks Cheddar, if the NIP says 45 in a 40 (for example) you can't appeal it, they have evidence. You can only do a bit of ducking and weaving and using the 'rules' in your favour. I am wondering if anyone here has tried this and 'won'?
|
I went the PACE route 4.5 months ago, and was told 2 months ago that I handn't paid the fine and they gave me an additional 14 days. I didn't reply and haven't heard anything since. It will timeout in early December.
Remember Law is an art, not a science.
|
Many thanks for that Ashok. It seems that a bit of delaying means that either your file gets lost or the whole thing is dropped. The worst that can happen(?) is that you have to pay the fine and take the points a bit later than you expected to. Seems worth a try!
|
|
|
