Author Topic: Two identical offences one day apart but received in the post on the same day  (Read 400 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

iamthewalrus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I received two NIPs today, each for a speeding offence, each from the same camera but one day apart. For clarity it's a speed trap on the way into Brighton on the A270 where the speed drops from 40 to 30 going downhill on a wide dual carriageway. On Saturday I was photographed doing 41mph, on Sunday 38mph.

My thoughts are that the point of a NIP is to educate the driver - to inform them that this is an area where one is likely to exceed the speed limit and to deter them from doing so in the future. Indeed I will be more careful on that road next time. But it seems that the delay between being unknowingly photographed and being informed you've committed an offence, in this instance 5 days, is unfair. Were I made aware immediately that I'd committed an offence I certainly wouldn't have done the same thing the next day.

Does anyone think I have a case?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
  • Karma: +98/-3
    • View Profile
You do not have a case. We sometimes try the "legitimate expectation" argument for council PCNs, with some occasional success, but it has been specifically held that "legitimate expectation" cannot apply to criminal offences.

Your best bet is to take a driver education course for the first one and a fixed penalty for the second one, assuming you are eligible and are offered these options.

For what it's worth, "going downhill on a wide dual carriageway" is not really mitigation, it could be seen as aggravating: it could mean that you think speeding is OK in those circumstances, or that you are unable to control your vehicle properly when driving downhill.

Are there any issues with the signage?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
My thoughts are that the point of a NIP is to educate the driver - to inform them that this is an area where one is likely to exceed the speed limit and to deter them from doing so in the future.

The purpose of an NIP is to inform the recipient that the police intend to prosecute the driver for the offence specified in it. No more, no less. So, I too donít believe you have a case.

iamthewalrus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
There isn't a problem with the signage, no. And agreed that the wide dual carriageway and downhill issue isn't relevant.

I suppose I'm still hopeful that there's a case for my not being made aware of the offence soon enough to learn from it, and thus committing exactly the same offence the following day. I suppose my perhaps naive hope is that if could in some way argue that if the point of being fined and given points is to teach the driver to behave better as opposed to punish them, then the delay in letting the driver know they've committed an offence and then receiving another NIP in the window between unwittingly committing the offence and being informed you've done, is unfair.

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
As youíve been told - no.

I have heard of the police cancelling a later NIP for the reasons you state but if they choose not to then it amounts to no defence in law.

The purpose of a fine is punishment - rehabilitation doesnít really come into it.

iamthewalrus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
So not worth going to court for, but perhaps no harm in writing a letter when I get my further letters from them telling me of the fine/points etc would you think?

Weasel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
If you are to have any chance of getting  one of these dropped then I would suggest when you reply to the S172 requests, you send them together in a single envelope with a brief accompanying "Begging letter" requesting that one of them is cancelled.  I have heard tale of this approach working, but I would not bet the farm on it and if this approach is unsuccessful, you will just have to take it on the chin

iamthewalrus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Is the S172 request the 'next stage' as it were? I've sent the initial letters back via email (was told this was ok when I telephoned - photographs of both sides) and they were sent together in the same email. Perhaps I should put them in the post too?

NewJudge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
I would assume you've already had the Section 172 requests (they are sent with the NIP - often on the same piece of paper).

You should beware of responding by e-mail. Most forces require a signed "wet" copy to be sent by post (although they will allow the nomination of somebody else by e-mail).

The Slithy Tove

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FWIW, the police have been known to show discretion.

My sister was caught at the same location a little while ago on the day our father passed away, and she was on her way to Brighton to see our brother. Clearly emotions were high, and concentration not so much. But she pleaded such when replying to the NIP. Despite the advice on these forums that such an explanation is more aggravating than mitigating, nevertheless, they dropped it.