Free Traffic Legal Advice

As a term of art,  "Notice of Intended Prosecution" does not appear anywhere in s. 1 (or 2 for that matter) RTOA 1988 or s. 172 RTA 1988.

We have seen numerous cases where conflating a written warning and a requirement for information under s. 172 RTA 1988 has caused confusion or issues - mostly the potential for OPs to wishfully think that a late NIP (particularly when they are not the RK or haven't updated the V5C) means they can simply bury their head in the sand and ignore the incorporated s. 172 requirement, but in the context of this thread, this is pure pedantry. If you wish to engage in such pedantry, may I suggest that the next time a motoring case comes before you you ask the prosecution to show you where in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 it prohibits whatever it is the criminal scum before you is accused of doing?

In the alternative, a NIP almost invariably incorporates an s. 172 requirement. Whilst the title of the combined document, which as previously mentioned does not exist as a term of art in the legislation, is descriptive of the requirement under s. 1 RTOA 1988 which the first such notice in the chain frequently purports to satisfy (where such a requirement applies), the combined notice is served in some cases to satisfy the requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988, and in almost all cases to engage the obligation under s. 172(7) RTA 1988 - so the notice was sent "under" s. 172 to the extent that the word "under" is meaningful. S. 172 does not in and of itself "require" a notice to be sent out, unless the police wish to engage the obligation under s. 172(7), in much the same way that s. 1 does not require a NIP (or other form of written warning without that term of art as a title) to be served, unless the police wish to prosecute the driver and have not verbally warned him at the time of the commission of the offence. So, if you wish to engage in pedantry, make sure you get it right - but mostly the Schedule 2 thing.

Well that’s me told! 

I mentioned the discrepancy because the quote was from a letter sent by the police. Whilst I understand that it is common for a NIP and a Section 172 request to be conflated by their recipients, I would not expect the police to be similarly confused – even if they usually do print both of them on the same sheet of paper.

To a lay idiot such as me, the phrase “….sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988” suggests that s172 either requires or provides for the issue of the notice. But it does not. But s1 of RTOA does – assuming, that is, the police want to succeed with a prosecution (and if they don’t there’s little point in them taking enforcement action for offences which have that requirement). The term "Notice of [the] Intended Prosecution" is mentioned and its contents specified.

[mod edit: Admittedly, the capitalisation of the words "Notice", "Intended" and "Prosecution" would tend to indicate that it was indeed a term of art, with or without the word "the". Except that they do not exist in that form (capitalised, as to indicate a term of art) in the statute.]

This thread is exploring possible reasons why the police might have discontinued a speeding allegation. There could be any one of a number of explanations for this including procedural errors on the part of the police.

I’m not for one minute suggesting that the discrepancy I mentioned might lead to such a discontinuation. But rather than being pedantic, I was simply pointing out that – like me – the police do not always get everything right and that may be a reason for the discontinuation.The

NOW we see what has being going on at last.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15386377/Drivers-wrongly-fined-speed-camera-scandal-motorways.html

There was a case on here a few weeks ago, which I cannot immediately find, where the driver was absolutely adamant that he must have been snapped between the time he passed under the gantry (when he says “50” was displayed) and the time the photo was taken a few yards beyond he gantry (when he was accused of breaking a “40” limit). It ran on for a bit.

We were all adamant he was mistaken. He may well one of the victims of this.

The advice given was correct as far as I can see, and the courts that imposed convictions on those who turned up with no evidence to the contrary were not wrong either.

And I somehow doubt that even the most expensive of experts would have found this issue. To prevent something like this from happening, Parliament would need to introduce a right for the defence to audit the source code of the camera software, as I don't see a court ordering disclosure of that code just for the sake of a defendant's fishing expedition.

Well, some bloke called Mick posted a link, earlier in this thread, to a case that was broadly consistent with what we are now being told.

It would be interesting to know who knew what when, and how much of an attempt was made to Hillsborough the issue. Although, the more interesting an issue is based on the perceived likelihood of mendacity on the part of those higher up the food chain, the less likely we'll ever hear the full story.

You do however raise an interesting point (albeit by implication) - if there is a co-ordinated response from police forces nationally, what do the NPCC and RSS Ltd (assuming that unlike ACPO they are still operating under their original name) know and what documents can we obtain under the FOIA?

ISTR RSS claiming not to be a public body for the purposes of the FOIA - how accurate my recollection is and whether that argument went anywhere is another matter. RSS at the time, AIUI, were a wholly owned subsiduary of ACPO Ltd ( a private company), whose purpose (RSS that is, not ACPO) to advise subscribed police forces on matters concerning motoring prosecutions, and providing expert witnesses to impartially argue that the prescribed devices were infallible.

If anyone fancies firing off a few FOIA requests, it is far from certain that we will get anything meaningful back, but the advice presumably given by RSS to the NPCC is likely to be about as full a story as we could conceivably hope to read.

RSS Ltd has been struck off the register of companies: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02457707/filing-history

Think that's a different one - Road Safety Support Ltd are still going - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06176687