|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The dreaded Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is often the first indication
that you are about to face proceedings for a road traffic offence. The rules are
complicated and often misunderstood in terms of their application. The correct
legal position is that Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires
that for certain offences either a warning must have been issued at the
time of the alleged offence of the possibility of prosecution or that a notice,
in these terms, is sent to the driver or registered keeper within 14 days.
A Court summons will satisfy the Section 1 requirement although in practice it is very
rare for the matter to be so expeditiously raised.
The requirement for a Notice of Intended Prosecution in Scotland extends to a
variety of offences including speeding offences generally (including temporary
minimum speed limits), speeding offences on motorways, temporary speeding
restrictions in association with road works, dangerous driving, careless driving
and aiding and abetting the commission of any of these offences. It should be
noted that Section 2(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 specifically
exempts the Crown from complying with the NIP requirements if, owing to the
presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed,
an accident occurred at the time of the offence or immediately thereafter.
It is common practice to simply issue the NIP verbally at the time of the
alleged offence. Alternatively the NIP can be sent by post and the legislation
details various acceptable methods of service. These are matters that should be
meticulously checked as a failure to properly serve the NIP can vitiate the
whole proceedings.
The Notice of Intended Prosecution, although issued in terms of Section 1 of the
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, often requests information as to the identity
of the driver. We are regularly presented with the scenario when there is a
degree of dubiety attached to who was driving the vehicle at the time the
alleged offence was detected. This can be common on long journeys when parties
are sharing the driving or alternatively when there has been a chain of NIPs and
a great deal of time has passed since the incident. This is exactly when you
will need the help of a specialist road traffic lawyer in order to ensure you
are kept on the right side of the law.
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides for a specific defence in
these circumstances, namely that a person shall not be guilty of such an
offence, i.e. failing to furnish, if he does not know and could not with
reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was at the
relevant time. It is imperative that you seek sound advice from a reputable
specialist motoring offence lawyer as the communications that take place with
the Safety Camera Partnership will be logged and may be used in evidence in
support of a prosecution under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
We have developed significant expertise in this area and regularly guide our clients
through the NIP procedure to ensure that they stay within the parameters of the
road traffic legislation in Scotland. The statutory defence exists for a reason
and at times it can feel that a great deal of pressure is being exerted by the
authorities in order to get that simple admission regarding who was driving the
vehicle. We always take the view that if there is a doubt attached to the
identity of driver, then further enquiry needs to be undertaken as making a
false admission to a request made under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
is an altogether more serious matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|