3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Grumpy_chap

Pages: [1]
1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: August 11, 2025, 09:11:37 pm »
Evening,

It has been a while as admittedly I completely forgot about his case so the least I could do is provide an update, and fortunately it is a positive outcome. Despite having initial conversations with Northumbria CPS and an attempt to settle the issue before the court hearing, the CPS never got back to him so he took his chance and went to the plea hearing today.

In all of 3 minutes, the prosecutor attending the hearing complimented the witness statement and took the unilateral decision to drop the case, and that was that. Admittedly I did help him with the drafting of his statement to the best of my ability albeit it was short and his defence would have mainly relied on s7 of the Interpretation Act had it gone to a full hearing.

Quote from: RichardW on March 10, 2025, 10:49:07 am
I wonder if this is another of those wrong stamp cases...  OP ask your brother if he put a barcode stamp on the letters?
I did question my brother on this and he said it was possible that the stamp he used could have been the old stamp that's no longer used but could not be 100% certain. In hindsight I suspect he probably did use an expired stamp but that doesn't necessarily mean it was never delivered as he claims to have used the the same set of stamps at the same time for other post which was delivered.

Anyway, in an effort to give back, I am sharing the witness statement used in case it might help others in a similar situation.

Quote

WITNESS STATEMENT
(Criminal Procedure Rules, r. 16.2; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 9)

STATEMENT OF XXXXX
Age of witness: Over 18
This statement (consisting of 3 pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.

PERSONAL DETAILS
1.   My full name is XXXXX and I reside at XXXXX, which is owned by my mother, XXXXX. I am XXXXX years old, and my date of birth is XXXXX.

2.   I currently have one job, and my occupation is a groundworker in construction. This involves preparing grounds before, during and after construction projects. I sometimes do contract work throughout the country.

3.   My contact telephone number is XXXXX.

THE CHARGE
4.   I am charged with the failure to give information under s. 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“RTA”). I believe I have fulfilled my obligation under s. 172 of the RTA and therefore it is my intention to plead not guilty.

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
5.   I have no previous convictions.

ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE CURRENT OFFENCE
6.   On 12 August 2024 I received a letter by post from Northumbria Police which I understood to be a request for further information under s. 172 of the RTA. The letter stated that I needed to complete the requested information on the reverse side of the letter and return it to the address provided.

7.   On or about 14 August 2024 I completed the information identifying myself as the driver of the vehicle at the time in question and posted the letter to the address given in the letter using a first-class stamp. The letter was posted through my local post box at XXXXX.

8.   On 7 October 2024 I received another letter from Northumbria Police which turned out to be another request for information under s. 172 of the RTA. I was surprised to receive this letter because I had already posted the information back to Northumbria Police back in August 2024. Nevertheless, I completed the required information and again identified myself as the driver of the vehicle at the time. I sent the letter by first class post, using the same address provided in the letter and posted it to the same post box as previous on XXXXX.

9.   I did not hear back from Northumbria Police until I received a Single Justice Procedure Notice charging me with the failure to provide information under s. 172 of the RTA.

MITIGATION
I have nothing to say in mitigation because I am not guilty of this offence. For the reasons explained above, I fulfilled my obligation under s. 172 of the RTA by returning the documents via post.

COMMENTS ON THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXX
10.   In her witness statement XXXXX suggests that Northumbria’s mailing system is robust as if the system is perfect, but I would say that the system is not incapable of never failing or making mistakes.

11.   It is a fact of life that post may get misplaced or otherwise lost from time to time and Northumbria Police are no exception. Given the amount of correspondence processed on a daily basis, which I would imagine to be in the hundreds if not thousands, it is not beyond all realms of possibility that the letters I sent to Northumbria Police could have been misplaced or for some reason, not uploaded into the system.

12.   As far as I’m concerned, I have complied with my obligation to provide Northumbria Police with the required information, and the onus is on them to prove that the letters were not received.

13.   I am an honest person and would reiterate that I have no previous convictions as well as a clean driving licence. There is no reason for me not to have sent the letters back to Northumbria Police especially since my mother had already informed them that I was the person driving the vehicle at the time. Since I use the vehicle for work daily, it was in my best interests to confirm to Northumbria Police that I was the driver of the vehicle, which is what I did on two occasions.

Signed:   (witness)
Date: …………………………………………….

2
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: March 09, 2025, 11:53:12 pm »
Quote from: Dave Green on March 09, 2025, 11:24:46 pm
Quote from: Grumpy_chap on March 09, 2025, 11:00:36 pm
. Of course it is not enough simply to assert that someone did not receive the letter; the court will consider all the evidence and make its findings by reference to the facts which are established including issues as to the credibility of witnesses. That is the ordinary way in which a court goes about making findings of fact.[/i]
But it probably won't be the police simply saying that they didn't receive the letters.
The chances are that they will have a team of people whose sole job is to record all incoming mail and then divert it to the relevant people or departments so there will be logs of the received mail.

The link also mentions the credibility of witnesses.
Being honest, who do you think the courts would fine more credible, your brother, a person who stands to gain by stating that he posted both letters or the police who in reality have nothing to gain from lying about not having received the letters?
Your brother would have a far better argument if they had obtained a free proof of postage certificate from a post office but without this, I honestly can't see him winning in court.

A fair and valid point, but however robust their system is, it is not infallible. So it is not beyond all realms of possibility that the letters may have been misplaced or not processed - for the police to suggest otherwise would be absurd. Up until now, my brother has a squeaky clean record, never been in trouble with the police before in his 30+ years of life and there's no reason for him to lie about not sending them in the post either, other than being a little naive and sticking a first class stamp on the envelope and putting it in the postbox (twice). So far as credibility goes, I think he would be considered a credible witness. 

Ultimately, it is his decision to make and I came here for answers I may not have thought of and experience of how this might pan out. It seems that the view is there is little chance of him being found not guilty and that's fine, I'll accept that. All I can do is give him the information and what he does after that is up to him. I get the impression that he wants to have his day in court as he feels he has done what was needed, but doesn't quite appreciate the hurdles he needs to get over to convince magistrates that have heard the same story before.

Edit: What's the worst case scenario if convicted, 6 points and a fine?

3
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: March 09, 2025, 11:00:36 pm »
Calladine-Smith v Saveorder ltd:  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2501.html

para. 26 (see underlined)

The second question focuses on the word 'proved' in the phrase 'the contrary is proved.' As I already set out, the question is: is an addressee of the letter required only to show on the balance of probabilities that the letter was not delivered or served or received by him, or does the burden on the addressee go further? Is it a requirement to lead positive evidence as to what happened to the letter? Is there a burden on him to show that the sender of the letter was aware that the letter had not been delivered or served or received? In the absence of authority and basing oneself on the statutory language alone, it seems to me quite clear that the reference to something being proved in this context is a reference to something being proved on the balance of probability. Accordingly, if the addressee of the letter proves on the balance of probability that the letter was not served upon him then that matter has been proved and the section should be applied accordingly. Of course it is not enough simply to assert that someone did not receive the letter; the court will consider all the evidence and make its findings by reference to the facts which are established including issues as to the credibility of witnesses. That is the ordinary way in which a court goes about making findings of fact.

The common law position also applies a rebuttable presumption (a good case on this one is Newcastle NHS Trust v Haywood Court of Appeal decision) but I am yet to see any case law that has accepted a letter has not been received by that individual simply denying receipt of the letter. It usually requires something more.

4
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: March 09, 2025, 10:18:38 pm »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on March 09, 2025, 09:34:17 pm
Quote from: Grumpy_chap on March 09, 2025, 09:28:25 pm
Simply saying that they didn't receive is not sufficient to overcome the rebuttable presumption.

Says who?

The courts say so.

5
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: March 09, 2025, 09:28:25 pm »
Thanks for responding Andy. In short, no he can't he's working away in an area with next to no signal for the next week or so and wants to try and get a head start.

Responding to some of your points:

1. The only charge is s172.

2. I understand the IA creates a rebuttable presumption but can you explain what reason/arguments the Police might give as to why it wasn't received? Simply saying that they didn't receive is not sufficient to overcome the rebuttable presumption. I suppose postal disruptions or strikes might count as rebuttal evidence but have already checked in or around those dates it was posted and nothing occurred.

@NewJudge, you are indeed correct as to the proof of posting. No witnesses were in the car at the time, nor is there any CCTV in the area that he is aware of and even if there was, the alleged offence happed back in September almost 6 months ago. There is a witness statement and it does mention their robust post monitoring system (though it doesn't seem to describe this system except a bit of blurb about how they issue notices) but it reads as if the system is perfect running smoothly 100% of the time. As we all know, things can go missing or get misplaced or otherwise lost so it is not beyond all realms of possibility that processing a substantial number of correspondence, thing could go missing, lost or misplaced. Happens at HMRC, HMCTS and other executive agencies, so why not Northumbria Police?

I appreciate there's an uphill struggle with this one and he now knows if something similar occurs again to ensure it is sent recorded delivery and keep copies of the documents that were sent. As this is outside my area of expertise, if you think the the best course of action is to simply plead guilty then it is what it is and I will let him know.

6
Speeding and other criminal offences / Defence of suppling information in response to S172 RTA feasible?
« on: March 09, 2025, 08:15:55 pm »
Hi,

Hoping for a bit of guidance and assistance on behalf of my brother.

Brother apparently driving 51 in a 40 zone, initially the s172 request to mum as the registered keeper who identified brother as driving the vehicle. Brother received first s172 notice and responded by filling out the forms identifying himself as the driver and posting them via postbox. Didn't hear back from the police and then subsequently received a s172 reminder and did exactly the same by posting to the same postbox but has now received a Single Justice Procedure notice being charged under s172(3) for failing to provide information of the driver's identity.

Obviously the police are going to argue they never received anything back despite sending a reminder and I presume if my brother decides to defend, what's the likelihood of the court accepting what he has said? I presume most magistrates have heard it all before so I would expect them to side with the police on this but wondering if using this as the only defence (even if he is able to describe the date, location of the postbox, time he posted it etc.) is worth it instead of pleading guilty.

Also I have other questions I'd like to understand for my own benefit:

1. The SJP Notice refers to a charge relating to S172(3) RTA, is that the correct section to reference? Would the charge not be under s172(2) instead?

2. What would be the chances of my brother contacting the local CPS and asking them to drop the charge under s172 if he pleaded guilty to the speeding offence and take the speed awareness course? This falls under Northumbria Police and from looking at their website it says you are eligible if driving up to 53 in a 51 zone. This is also his first offence. I think he would be willing to accept the points and fine for the speeding offence if it came to it.

3. Does S7 of the Interpretation Act apply to responding to a s172 notice? S172(2)(b) doesn't explicitly state that the response must be given by post but it does say that the person shall 'give' any information that may lead to the identity of the driver. And s7 of the IA includes the expression 'give' and I'm not familiar with the law to know whether this applies or not, though I'm sure it may have been argued in a court case before.

Pages: [1]