Safe Speed Forums

Letter delay man wins speed case

A man charged with speeding has had his conviction quashed because a postal strike led to his notification letter being delivered too late.

Peter Gidden, 48, of Dodworth, South Yorkshire, received his letter two days late after a postal strike in 2007.

The law states that police must send notice of intention to prosecute within 14 days of an alleged offence.

On Thursday the High Court ruled that the conviction was not legal because the time limit had not been met.

Mr Gidden was caught on a speed camera doing 85mph (137km/h) on the M180 in Lincolnshire in October 2007.

But a backlog of mail caused by a postal strike at the time held up the letter sent by police.

'Matter of principle'

He received it after 16 days had passed.

Following his decision, Lord Justice Elias said the case was relevant to the current postal strikes and said the law may have to be revised to avoid similar issues in the future.

He said: "The authorities must adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.

"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending...the 1988 [Road Traffic Offenders] Act."

Mr Gidden had previously appealed against the conviction at Grimsby Crown Court and Scunthorpe Magistrates' Court.

The High Court quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling £680. They also wiped three penalty points from his licence.

His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds.

"In a way this is a matter of principle", Mr Gidden said.

"Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public."

I thought the evidence of posting was considered sufficient.

I don't think any court or police documentation should be sent out by anything other than recorded delivery. If it is signed for at the other end it reduces the opportunity for people to claim it hasn't arrived too.

I thought the evidence of posting was considered sufficient.

If not, this drives a coach and horses through the law, especially in the content of the current postal strikes.

I agree with teabelly that if these communications are so important, they should send them by recorded delivery.

Arguably, since this is supposedly a criminal offence, the law should require the personal service of a summons by a police officer.

The Postal Dispute gives the Crown Prosecution Service & speed camera partnerships no hiding place regarding NIP delivery
A Court decision (R v Gidden) has reinforced the precedent regarding the duty of care that the CPS & Speed Camera Partnerships must respect, regarding the delivery of NIPs (Notices of Intended Prosecution).

The verdict confirms that the CPS/Camera Partnership must ensure delivery of NIPs, for e.g., speed-related motoring offences, to registered keepers within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Industrial action, such as the current postal workers' intermittent strike actions, cannot be used as an excuse to extend this period beyond 14 days.

Those defendants/registered keepers who can demonstrate a failure on the part of the CPS/ Camera Partnership to effect NIP delivery within the 14-day period will be able to defend the allegation.
*************Be careful though because if you know who was driving you still need to name the driver. A defective NIP is only a defence to the original offence and not a defence to failing to name the driver***************

Those interested in, or potentially affected by, the above developments should contact Emma Patterson at Patterson Law solicitors:
http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk
e.patterson@pattersonlaw.co.uk