Safe Speed Forums

I have never disputed the fact that a NIP has to be served first.....


You may insist this, but your insistence is meaningless if the law says otherwise.
I think you need to confirm the legal definition of "service".

Oh, I noticed your "personal delivery on the doorstep", so merely blocking the letterbox doesn't achieve the desired effect?
It seems there is another fallibility.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

OK this has to be the wierdest thread I have ever read. Almost as bizarre as the looney who posted about deregistration of your car.

Zulu, I hate to say this, but Greenshed has accuratley identified the legislation that would and could be used with no difficulty if one were to block up ones letter box.

To give an analogy, if I were to brick up my front door would I be immune from prosecution from all offences? I think not!

Like most legal lay-people, you misunderstand the legal definition of a 'service', understand this and then you will understand why your postualtion is silly.

Extract from Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 CHAPTER 53 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53
My bold

1A)A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
(a)by delivering it to him;
(b)by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
(c)by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.]

(2)A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

At the end of the day your nailed-up letter box will not work, the notice will have been deemed to have been served by the posting of said notice.
YOU will have to go to court and YOU will have to give good reasons WHY the notice did not reach you.
I do not think the "It couldn't reach me because the letter box was nailed shut" defence will fly, and YOU will have to pay the court costs....you can safely forget legal aid.
Your 60 quid and three points will translate themselves to court costs of several hundreds, with fines almost the same, and a good chance of 6 points.
Your choice.
Last time I looked this site was campaigning for road safety with speed cameras being regarded as a poor way to ensure safety, and was not a site where anything goes as long as you don't pay for your transgressions.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Jomukuk, I am not advocating people break the law. What I have suggested is what I believe to be a legal loophole. Other legal loopholes have been touted on this site over other issues. At the end of the day anyone reading my posts does not have to do what I say. People can check matters out with a solicitor of their choice.

Just to return to what was said by me earlier. There was in fact a court case not long ago where the judge ruled that the NIP had not been served because, due to a postal strike it arrived beyond the 14 day period.

Also there was the case of the cricketer Mr. Flintoff a couple of years ago. The police had sent out his NIP within the 14 days, but it did not reach him until the 17th day or something. His case was dismissed.

I have already addressed this in an earlier response to you (which I notice was not acknowledged):
"A postal strike confounds matters. That particular result can be deemed to be a special case that doesn’t normally apply.".
I expand upon this below.


Yes the "timeout" rule can be applied if it wasn't served to the RK in time. This can be determined and proven, for example, by examining the date of the date stamp on the envelope.
There's no way a NIP can be deemed to have been served before it has passed through the delivery service, or even given to them. If the date stamp is outside of the 14 day limit then it's a clear timeout and the prosecution is voided; otherwise it isn't.

Like I and others in this thread have repeatedly told you: you need to understand the legal definition of "service".

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This idea comes round every few years. it doesn't work.

If the CPS can produce proof of posting - which they will - that creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery. If the delivery would have arrived within 14 days of the offence in the ordinary course of the post it is considered served. It is then up to the defendant to prove - on oath - that, on balance of probability, the NIP did not arrive. Saying on oath the it couldn't have arrived because you nailed the letter box shut will not work as you will by your own conduct done something intended to prevent a legal process. Which is covered by the Road Traffic Offenders Act.

The postie will usually write on the back of the envelope that delivery was not possible as the letter box was blocked. That could lead to difficult questions as to why it was nailed shut. Facing with an experienced prosecutor who will have seen this before it will be difficult to avoid lying on oath or admitting the truth. Which will not work and may well give rise to new and much more serious offences.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

This covers what is or is not proof of service.

The Interpretation Act 1978 s7 References to service by post.
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Mr Flintoff was not driving his own car, he was driving another persons car.
AND I think that the prosecution COULD have made a case of it because of that, but they bottled it.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Hello fisherman. First of all I would like to say that I respect your opinions and your obvious experience of working in the courts. Secondly I did not start this thread with the intention of winding anyone up. I am not like our friend Greenshed. But there seems to be a presumption here that the authorities will automatically know that someone has deliberately nailed up their box specifically to avoid the NIP. Not necessarily so . Oddballs do exist (and I can understand if some posters think I am one!). There are people who are just antisocial and shun social contact, don't want to receive mail and normally don't need to get any for most of the year. Maybe they are just fed up with the tons of junk mail that comes every day, that cannot be stopped. If they have no credit card or bank account, they don't receive letters from those organisations anyway. Not trying to muddy the waters, but a court cannot prove that someone shut their box just cos of an NIP. They might have had it shut for years.And that, I would suggest is no crime. I think a definitive judgment of the likely outcome of this method could only be made after a case of this sort has actually gone to court, as I am sure it would make news. So far as I can tell, this has not yet been tested in the courts.

regards.

This is not the first time this particular idea has been put forward. I have dealt with a few of them and know of others. They all failed on the question of service. The CPS prove posting using the Interpretation Act. That leaves the defendant to either say nothing and lose the case or to admit to nailing up the letter box and lose the case on the grounds that he or she had, by their own actions, prevented delivery of the NIP.

Magistrates courts cases do not create precedent so it would need somebody to challenge such a decision to allow a higher court to create one. That is the point at which it would be reported widely in the press. Also the point at which the government would change the law to ensure that no one else could use the same idea.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

This article gives some relevant information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8332523.stm

The case relates to notice served during a mail strike, and established the rules which the authorities must follow.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I continue to think that there is a fundamental issue with simple sending notification of a criminal offence through the post !
When people are away and sometimes for a month or more, are they expected to make arrangements in case a 'body' have sent an 'alleged offence', whether through the post, or by courier, or by email or any other devised 'appropriate' means ?

If the crime is so serious to warrant proper notification then far more care needs to be taken to be 'properly served'. For many notifications that I have had to have served, you either send to representatives, like solicitors, or through bailiffs to be served by hand in person.
Does this not make a mockery of the whole Court / legal system when something of such a serious nature as an alleged criminal offence can simply travel by standard postal service ?
If this is to be 'cemented' then all Orders (etc) could simply be sent by mail and the receiving party have to 'prove non-delivery'.
That would be another guilty until proven innocent would it not ?
Might save employing Bailiffs though at £50 a time !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The receiving party does have to prove non delivery but that isn't a simple matter.

It makes you wonder how they cope with the obligatory utility and tax bills....
But then again, if those who truly "shun social contact" to that extent probably wouldn't be driving (and hence be NIPped) in the first place.

Sorry, but I still don't think there is a reasonable way of making your proposal stick, and that's without considering all the extreme life-style compromises I mentioned earlier.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Does this also apply in the reverse ... You have sent the form back and they claim they didn't receive it and you can prove that it was sent .. ?!

tea-drinker

The fact that you have proof of posting is usally achieved by a few clear methods.

When they send the notice to you, they have no such proof as they don't 'have to.
Not a very level playing field.
Your proof of a reply only proves, that an envelope was sent to their address, so unless you have used a solicitor or other recognised independent individual, that can sign that they saw you put the reply in the envelope and that was the one sent, you cannot prove that you sent their document back.
However it would be odd to just send them an envelop and I can't see a Court not belief you if you can show a certificate of posting or recorded delivery etc.

We still think that it is 'wrong' for people to have to admit guilt by signing a document that you have to fill in and sign. It is of great concern that people's right have been eroded in this way.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.