Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: docklander on March 07, 2025, 06:19:08 pm
-
So what’s to stop the police officer or cps prosecuting for FTF, Speeding and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
With the s172 now filled out and signed the they have all the evidence they need for the other two charges.
And if they find out about the other incident where this cunning wheeze worked I foresee the op”s brother spending some time at Charlie III’s leisure.
-
Is this standard procedure?
It wouldn't matter if it is or not. The matter would go to court anyway. It is far too late for any other disposal (as it was when you first posted this and as I have been suggesting since post #13).
The only thing that surprises me is that the police accepted such a late nomination from your brother.
-
Is this standard procedure?
Yes.
Fixed penalties offered up to 34mph. 35mph is via court process.
-
My brother completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution, with the agreement of the investigating officer that it was still within time to do so. Today, a letter dated 13.03.2025 was received:
"Thank you for your recent communication relating to the alleged offence involving vehicle XXXXXX on 19/09/2024 at XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXXXX.
Unfortunately, due to the high speed you was travelling at, this offence has been referred to the prosecution team . Court proceedings are being initiated and in due course you will receive a further communication which will explin the options available to you."
Is this standard procedure?
-
35 in a 20 limit is likely to see five points. Whilst not entirely a mathematical exercise, the band of seriousness for which the recommendation is 4-6 points covers 31-40 mph.
-
Does the FTF ever time out?
If you can't answer that yourself from the passage you quoted, try reading the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky.
-
Tell us the speed and limit and we can give you an idea of the likely number of points.
It was 35 in a 20,
"It's not impossible but if one is issued the charge can be defended on the basis that the proceedings were taken too late. Bear in mind that the FTF offence is not committed until 28 days after the first request is issued."
Does the FTF ever time out?
-
1. The police must issue a "written charge" together with an SJPN. This must be done before the six month time limit. Once this has been done it is very unusual for it to be reversed. The court must deal with it one way or another.
2. It's not impossible but if one is issued the charge can be defended on the basis that the proceedings were taken too late. Bear in mind that the FTF offence is not committed until 28 days after the first request is issued.
3. He does not get to "agree" the sentence. The "deal" (to plead guilty to speeding if the FTF is dropped) is agreed between him and the prosecutor. After that the court decides the appropriate penalty. Tell us the speed and limit and we can give you an idea of the likely number of points.
My hunch is that, whatever he has done or plans to do, the police will have begun proceedings by now. There is only eight days to go before the speeding offence times out. If he plans not to defend the FTF charge he must hope he is charged with speeding as well. This will give him the opportunity to offer the deal. Whether it will be agreed in view of his earlier insistence that his car was not involved is anybody's guess.
-
Frankly I’m not surprised the police are suspicious. Writing to say I don’t recognise the location and don’t think my car was there and then many months later, oh and by the way my car was actually on my drive as my ring doorbell camera shows is a bit odd to say the least.
I would have thought the first letter should have said my car was on my drive as shown on my ring doorbell. The police could then have checked the footage themselves via the app and seen your brother was telling the truth.
-
However it doesn't sound like he returned the form at all stating he was not the driver/not his vehicle. More just entered into correspondence instead.
On the face of it, that would make him guilty of failing to respond to the request.
Twaddle. The form is neither here nor there.
The question is whether or not he has told the police that his vehicle was elsewhere/not involved in the alleged offence.
I have already asked the OP what information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement, and he replied
The owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.
Whilst it seems implausible that there wasn't some meaningful explanation or statement accompanying what would otherwise be a random collection of holiday snaps, I am not a qualified dentist.
Andy, when the original letter was received, he wrote to the police explaining that he did not recognise being in that location at that time and asked for advice as to how best complete the form. The police responded by asking for photos of the car.
Over the next 5 months, email and written conversations followed. Recently, he sent in a CCTV image of the car on his driveway. The investigating officer has now referred the matter to prosecutions but said on 10.03 that he could still complete the Notice of Intended Prosecution but that had to be done "asap".
He has not mentioned the previous clone report to another police force (this was for an alleged offence some two weeks prior to the one being discussed now).
1. Do all matters passed over to prosecutions proceed to court?
2. If the speeding times out, does it become impossible for a SJPN to be issued?
3. If an SJPN is still issued and he uses the strategy of pleading guilty to speeding if the FTF is dropped, can that be agreed on the lower point basis (4 rather than 6) or does a judge still need to determine if its a 4 or 6 point penalty?
Thanks again for the advice and help. I am starting to think maybe I should not have offered to assist him but family eh?!
-
However it doesn't sound like he returned the form at all stating he was not the driver/not his vehicle. More just entered into correspondence instead.
On the face of it, that would make him guilty of failing to respond to the request.
Twaddle. The form is neither here nor there.
The question is whether or not he has told the police that his vehicle was elsewhere/not involved in the alleged offence.
I have already asked the OP what information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement, and he replied The owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.
Whilst it seems implausible that there wasn't some meaningful explanation or statement accompanying what would otherwise be a random collection of holiday snaps, I am not a qualified dentist.
-
So, if he has points on his license already (3 currently, 3 pending), how likely are they to issue 4 points rather than 6, if a sincere, apologetic stance is taken?
Similarly, how likely is a NG defence to succeed with the evidence of a CCTV screenshot and a potential reported clone 2 weeks prior to this alleged offence?
Finally, should he declare the previous potential clone to the existing police force as currently they do not know about it?
-
Only if he replies ticking the 'I was the driver option'. But any other response is likely to see a FTF charge. The police are inviting him to cop for the speeding while there is still chance to prosecute for it. Otherwise they will go for FTF only, which is a nailed on 6 points unless your brother can defend the charge in a NG plea.
However it doesn't sound like he returned the form at all stating he was not the driver/not his vehicle. More just entered into correspondence instead.
On the face of it, that would make him guilty of failing to respond to the request.
-
What is the exact date of the offence and up to what date have the police said they will accept a completed request for driver's details?
If he has existing points, do they look at that when considering what points to issue as I believe the indicator for his speed is 4 to 6 points?
What difference does that make? Either he accepts he was the driver or he doesn't. Since a conviction for failing to provide the driver's details carries six points and the maximum for speeding (whatever the speed) also carries six points it will make no difference. As well as that, his decision should be on the basis of what he knows and accepts.
I think this is becoming a trifle bizarre, especially when you say the police will accept a response with seven days to go before the speeding offence times out.
The original date of offence was 19.09.2024. The problem us that what he knows vs what he accepts are two different things. He is sure/knows he wasnt there but accepting the speeding offence seems the lesser of two evils?
-
No, but depending on how many points he currently has, a successful prosecution may trigger a disqualification under the totting up process.
Would I be right in assuming that he is on 6 points, so 6 points for failure to furnish driver details would put him at 12, versus hoping a magistrate will calculate the original offence is worth less than 6 points even though he and his car wasn't at the location?
Yes, that is pretty much spot on.
Where did this CCTV image come from? A neighbour or a business? It has been mentioned earlier, but the person who provided the CCTV image can attend court in the case of a NG plea and testify to its authenticity. Or is that not possible?
On my brothers driveway.
Edit, the speeding only has 7 days until timeout? He doesn't need a solicitor, he needs to complete the form and make sure it is back to them and acknowledged within that time period otherwise they will prosecute for FTF with no speeding option.
So this confuses me. If he completes the form, he is stating he was the driver?
-
What is the exact date of the offence and up to what date have the police said they will accept a completed request for driver's details?
If he has existing points, do they look at that when considering what points to issue as I believe the indicator for his speed is 4 to 6 points?
What difference does that make? Either he accepts he was the driver or he doesn't. Since a conviction for failing to provide the driver's details carries six points and the maximum for speeding (whatever the speed) also carries six points it will make no difference. As well as that, his decision should be on the basis of what he knows and accepts.
I think this is becoming a trifle bizarre, especially when you say the police will accept a response with seven days to go before the speeding offence times out.
-
No, but depending on how many points he currently has, a successful prosecution may trigger a disqualification under the totting up process.
Would I be right in assuming that he is on 6 points, so 6 points for failure to furnish driver details would put him at 12, versus hoping a magistrate will calculate the original offence is worth less than 6 points even though he and his car wasn't at the location?
Where did this CCTV image come from? A neighbour or a business? It has been mentioned earlier, but the person who provided the CCTV image can attend court in the case of a NG plea and testify to its authenticity. Or is that not possible?
Edit, the speeding only has 7 days until timeout? He doesn't need a solicitor, he needs to complete the form and make sure it is back to them and acknowledged within that time period otherwise they will prosecute for FTF with no speeding option.
-
Police have emailed, today, to say they will still accept a completed NIP.
Brother is torn as has only the CCTV screen shot and no other evidence.
The alleged offence is now very close to being 6 months old, in around 7 days time.
If he has existing points, do they look at that when considering what points to issue as I believe the indicator for his speed is 4 to 6 points?
-
Six months from the date of the offence.
-
I would suggest it is now too late to complete the s172 request as it getting to the point where the police have insufficient time to prosecute the driver for speeding.
At what point does it become too late to prosecute a driver for speeding after the alleged offence?
-
We haven't see many lawyers on here charge less than £1,000 for representation in court for a straightforward matter.
However, this is far from straightforward.
You began by saying your brother had provided the police with a photograph of his car at a different location to the one where the police allege it was at the time of the offence. But then you say you he may "... possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court."
It is not in his gift now whether or not the matter goes to court. I would suggest it is now too late to complete the s172 request as it getting to the point where the police have insufficient time to prosecute the driver for speeding. They have already extended the deadline (considerably by the sounds of it).
If he really was the driver his best hope is that he is "dual charged" with speeding as well. He can then request the usual "deal" (to plead guilty to speeding on the condition the more serious charge is dropped). This will be complicated somewhat by the evidence he initially provided to prove his car was elsewhere.
Any lawyer will want to get to the bottom of that before he accompanies your brother in court and that will probably add to the bill.
-
I think its ok to post here on the existing thread? (3rd time lucky)
Looking for advice on possible legal representation. If you used someone, please let me know what they cost, did they win and which company or barrister you used?
Thanks all.
-
With the speeding allegation five months old and the extended deadline to respond over a week passed this will almost certainly go to court.
I would be rather surprised if proceedings had not already begun and they will be for "Failing to Provide Driver's Details". They may "dual charge" your brother and if they do he may have the opportunity to plead guilty to speeding (providing he was the driver) so as to avoid the more serious charge.
When he gets the court paperwork he will have to decide how o proceed.
-
What is FTF?
The investigating officer has basically put the fear of god into him and are claiming that CCTV can be manipulated and is not admissible.
Failure to furnish.
CCTV can be manipulated but it would be for the court to decide whether it had been or not. Like all evidence, if it is relevant it is prima facie admissible. Don’t take legal advice from the police. They’re the morons who think they can and should exhibit pages from their pocket notebooks.
-
I don’t understand. Either the owner knows his car was elsewhere and wasn’t speeding,
Or the owner was trying a cunning wheeze to avoid points and a fine.
In the former I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be willing to go to court to clear their name. I’m sure the bench would accept the evidence.
If it is the latter case, you are basically asking can the owner get out of this without consuming porridge? I guess if they don’t present any evidence and plead guilty to FTF (and not guilty to speeding if they’ve been dual charges) the police might ignore their attempt at perverting the course of justice, and they’ll just get the 6 points and hefty insurance premiums for a while.
What is FTF?
The investigating officer has basically put the fear of god into him and are claiming that CCTV can be manipulated and is not admissible.
-
... An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution...
... The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?...
[Edit: cross-posted with @disgruntchelt post #9]
If your brother has genuine and accurately timestamped CCTV images showing his car to be somewhere entirely different from the location on the NIP, why would he want to identify himself as the driver at the NIP location?
The police might be correct in saying that CCTV can be manipulated, but presumably your brother got the CCTV images from a source that can verify that the images are authentic and have not been tampered with, and can provide a sworn statement to that effect? I'm sure not everybody is able to provide CCTV images disproving a NIP so why not make the most of it.
Also if this is the second occasion that his car has been wrongly identified - suggesting that it might have been cloned - wouldn't it be more sensible to ty to get to the bottom of it now rather than wait for a third time.
Might seem a bit suspicious to change his mind now...
If your brother was given until 27 Feb (9 days ago) and the police have already said it's going to prosecution I'd have thought it might be a bit late to try to retrieve the situation now. What have the police actually told him and what was the date of that?
-
I don’t understand. Either the owner knows his car was elsewhere and wasn’t speeding,
Or the owner was trying a cunning wheeze to avoid points and a fine.
In the former I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be willing to go to court to clear their name. I’m sure the bench would accept the evidence.
If it is the latter case, you are basically asking can the owner get out of this without consuming porridge? I guess if they don’t present any evidence and plead guilty to FTF (and not guilty to speeding if they’ve been dual charges) the police might ignore their attempt at perverting the course of justice, and they’ll just get the 6 points and hefty insurance premiums for a while.
-
The alleged offence was in October, the deadline for reply was extended until 27.02.2025 due to ongoing communications.
-
Is it now too late to do this?
If the speeding offence was last week, very possibly not. If it was three or four months ago, it almost certainly is.
You need to help us out a bit with that. I'm not pulling any more teeth.
-
No wish to be cyrptic, trying to be direct.
The original ticket was received around October.
The car owner did not believe the car was in that location at the time of the alleged offence. A letter was posted to police explaining that. The police wrote back around December asking for photos of the car from all angles. This was emailed to the police.
The police then wrote back saying that although a small difference had been identified on the number plate, they believed the car was in the time of the alleged offence.
They emailed a photo of the front of the car and a photo of the owner from their driving license. It is not possible to identify the driver from the photo of the car.
An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution.
Another speeding ticket was received two weeks prior to this by a different police force. The same process was followed but that police force accepted that it was 50/50 as to whether or not the car had been cloned and said no further action would be taken. The owner has not let the police force with the current alleged offence about the prior matter.
The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?
I am the brother of the owner of the car and trying my very best to help.
-
What information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement so far?
What form did this questioning take?
Email.
Such an uninformative and cryptic response is unlikely to encourage people to help you
-
The owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.
Presumably the police do not consider that to be a satisfactory response to the request for driver's details.
Matter "has now been sent through to prosecutions for court proceedings". Can this process be stopped or is it now inevitable? Do prosecutions always decide to actually prosecute?
You need to tell us some dates, what has been received, what responses were made and by whom before that can be answered.
You mention "the owner", though don't say whether he is he person who received the request. What is your involvement in this?
This is all so vague that no proper advice can be given.
-
What information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement so far?
The owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.
What form did this questioning take?
Email.
Matter "has now been sent through to prosecutions for court proceedings". Can this process be stopped or is it now inevitable? Do prosecutions always decide to actually prosecute?
Sorry about the incorrect acronym. PNTDIA (promise not to do it again).
-
Received NTP for 35 in a 20.
If you must invent your own acronyms, please provide the full version. But mostly, please don't invent your own acronyms.
Car owner did not recognise being in that location at that time. Questioned and subsequently provided photo of car elsewhere. Police refusing to accept as evidence and now passing on for prosecution.
Is it still feasible to complete the S172? Was given until late February to complete as extension.
What information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement so far?
What form did this questioning take?
Was the car elsewhere at the material time, or did the car owner take legal advice from some bloke down the pub?
Otherwise, if he had until late Feb to provide the information, he might struggle to provide the information in time.
-
Has the recipient of the request suddenly established that the car was in the location alleged?
Need a bit more detail, including dates, etc.
-
Received NTP for 35 in a 20.
Car owner did not recognise being in that location at that time. Questioned and subsequently provided photo of car elsewhere. Police refusing to accept as evidence and now passing on for prosecution.
Is it still feasible to complete the S172? Was given until late February to complete as extension.