The Codes of Practice under PACE apply to offences under this legislation as to any other. 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. 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. . All agencies should be alive to these cases in the interests of justice and respond as required, but no actions should be taken or departure from the standard procedure made where this might prejudice the future interest of any victim. note part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Expert Evidence) and secure expert evidence where the defence expert's statement is incorrect, inconclusive or misleading. The duty to report means 'as soon as reasonably practicable': (Bulman v Bennett [1974] RTR 1). 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 . 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. We frequently get asked about going to court for speeding offence, this depends on each individual case. It requires the keeper to provide the police with the name of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence. Legal aid Scotland may be able to help in your case, one of our lawyers will . It is no defence that the defendant did not think he was driving on a public road. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. 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. 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. Dear Camera and Tickets office, Notice of Intended Prosecution: 0353050313275720 I write to acknowledge receipt of your Notice of Intended Prosecution above-referenced dated 06/08/2021, which mentions the alleged offence dated 26/06/2021 and . A Notice of Intended Prosecution must be served on the vehicle's DVLA registered keeper within 14 days after the date of the alleged offence. 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. It is also subject to the general requirement that any prosecution must be brought within three years of the offence taking place. They are normally sent out when there is about 7 days of the original time limit remaining. However, a notice is still required if the defendant was unaware that there had been an accident: see Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356. When notice is given, prosecutors should carefully consider: The courts finding and sentence will be in accordance with sections 34 and 44 RTOA 1988. Under s.143(1)(a) RTA 1988 "a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that person a policy of insurance ". If that has been served late it does not give the driver an excuse for not replying to the requirement to provide driver details. 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. 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. However, the Divisional Court held that the purported restriction fell within s.148(2)(e) and was therefore void. 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. 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. . Case Study: Speeding . Many road traffic offences are purely summary and in most cases proceedings are taken by way of the laying of an information and the issue of a summons. A Notice of Intended Prosecution puts a legal obligation on the registered keeper of the vehicle. This should be done with the approval of the court and in order to assist in determining the question of disqualification. For more information see Mutual Recognition of Driving Disqualification, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance. A person who drives a vehicle on a road while disqualified by reason of age, commits an offence under s.87 RTA 1988, which prohibits a person driving a vehicle on a road otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to do so. Self-balancing scooters such as Segways, mini Segways, Hoverboards and single wheel electric skateboards) may not be driven on a pavement in England and Wales. In cases of the unauthorised taking of mechanically propelled vehicles, delay can often occur due to the gathering of forensic evidence where the offence is denied. The defence should also give notice that they will be seeking to advance special reasons. The Reminder normally includes a copy of the original Notice in case you mislaid that or did not . 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. It should, however, be remembered that the driver is the 'person at the wheel; Falsification of records usually takes place to enable more journeys to be undertaken than would be possible during lawful working hours, thereby jeopardising road safety. 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. What is the penalty for speeding or running a red-light? The owner of the car will be sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), detailing the offence. All staff, including agents, and magistrates who deal with motoring cases should receive training so that they may be aware of the terms of this protocol. If you've been caught by a policeman operating a radar . etc. In Vehicle Inspectorate v Nuttall [1999] Crim LR 674, the House of Lords held that the Community rules placed a responsibility on employers to use tachograph records to prevent contraventions and to promote road safety. It is important to note, however, that it is only the registered keeper that is required to receive such a warning . A NIP, or Notice of Intended Prosecution, is used to notify you that you may be prosecuted for a road traffic offence that has been committed. Uninsured drivers pose a substantial risk to other road users. I've received a Notice of Intended Prosecution Section 172 Notice. Most motorists are aware that the police have statutory power to require the registered keeper of a vehicle to say who the driver of it was on any specified occasion. It was clear that in requiring the production of a document or the handing over of records Article 14(2) of Council Regulation 3821/85 and s.99 Transport Act 1968 should be interpreted so that it was within the officer's discretion whether he chose to inspect the charts at the operators' premises or take them away for further analysis. However there is an exemption if the Police cannot reasonably obtain the keeper's details within that time, for example if the DVLA has no keeper details or they are incomplete. 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. Other cases on drivers' hours include Vehicle Inspectorate v Southern Coaches and Others [2000] RTR 165. The general time limit for injury litigation is three years, with multiple exceptions and special cases. If you fail to comply within the statutory 28-day period to return the notice, you will be liable to prosecution and receive six penalty points, in addition to a fine of up to 1,000. 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. if you get a ticket from a speed camera) and must be received within 14 days of the offence (or dispatched so that it would reach the driver within the 14 days within the ordinary course of the post). The driver must be given notice in writing specifying the reason for the prohibition and its duration. This will be sent to the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence. Any person who aids and abets, counsels or procures the making of such a false record can be charged under s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. The aim of this protocol is that motorists should be aware of and conform with an agreed national standard for the production of driving documents following a lawful request by a police officer. Where did it happen? The following are the matters listed: (a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle, Furthermore, considerable time will have elapsed since the alleged commission of the offences. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. 3821/85. McCombe LJ said, delivering the judgment of the court: if the restriction is rendered ineffective by the operation of s.148 then the policy is to be read, as it seems to me, as if that restriction was treated as deleted in blue pencil from its wording.. Basically a Notice of Intended Prosecution has to be given to you verbally at the time of the alleged offence, or in writing within 14 days, but see below. 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). Further exceptions to the six-month time limit appear in provisions in other Acts identical in effect to section 6 RTOA 1988. Section 65 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 - the forgery or alteration of a licence, certificate or operator's disc issued under the Act, likewise the use with intent to deceive of anything resembling such a document. It should state the nature of the offence (for example Speeding) together with the time, date and place . The phrase "any person" includes, but is not limited to, limited companies or, depending upon evidential criteria, officers of such a company. 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.