Safe Speed Forums

Earlier this week, one of members, Mike Cutting’s S 172 prosecution was dropped in a Norfolk Magistrates’ Court and this link has more details.

In Court Mike showed that the S 172 requests had not been made lawfully, which means that there could have been countless, unsafe convictions in Norfolk.

Statute is quite clear on this point - Section 172 (2) provides:

“Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and”

Therefore, it must be clear from that outset that the request is being made on or on behalf of the chief of police and this is not the case in Norfolk.

_________________
Best regards,

PePiPoo

Were letters sent out to all those who had convictions stating it had been sent on behalf of the chief officer to avoid the backlash of appeals!

I bet that nothing is sent out, and that the story is kept as queit as possible as happened with the incorrectly located/set camera on the M4. Unless you are proactively looking you will not find out about it.

UPDATE 25th May 2005



Speeding forms row continues

_________________
Best regards,

PePiPoo

My wife has two NIPs outstanding at the moment (don’t ask!), from Sussex speed camera partnership, one mentioning the Chief Constable & one not.
I see magistrates in Norwich have thrown out cases against 4 drivers because of this error. Does anyone have more information? Is it worth contacting a solicitor? I can of course give more detail if required.

You might also do well to look at the Pepipoo site for details of the 'PACE LETTER'. It costs nothing to reply to the NiP with this form of wording, you can't be any worse off and you could well win if you keep your nerve when threatened by the CPS.