Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?

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?

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.

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?

Quote

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?

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?

Quote from: BertB on March 10, 2025, 06:59:11 pm

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

Quote

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?!

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.