Under s.96(11)(b) TA 1968 liability also falls upon "any other person (being that driver's employer or a person to whose order the driver was subject) who caused or permitted the contravention". The offences under section 12(3) and 14(3) of the Drugs Act 2005. Such a warning is normally known as a "notice of intended prosecution", or NIP. third party insurance. A useful starting point to determine what rules apply to a particular vehicle on a particular journey is to establish, firstly, whether the Transport Act 1968 applies to the vehicle under s.95(2) TA 1968. They cannot be licensed for use on a road and they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. If the company did have such a system but it didnt work on a particular occasion that might suffice as a defence. The 'prosecutor' for the purposes of section 6 can be the investigating officer or the informant (see [1976] 140 JP Jo., 675; Swan v Vehicle Inspectorate [1997] RTR 187. Whilst the Community Rules (EC Regulations) apply throughout the EC, the legislation which makes it an offence to breach those regulations differs from country to country. what you think by taking our short survey, Reality TV star Stephen Bear has been sentenced to 21 months imprisonment today for voyeurism and two counts of, A Chelsea supporter has been banned from football for three years for a racially aggravated public order offence, The CPS has authorised the @metpoliceuk to charge Constance Marten and Mark Gordon with gross negligence manslau, Coming up in the next edition of our community newsletter: The Notice of intended prosecution or NIP can either be given verbally at the time of the incident or in writing (i.e. If you have been served a Notice of Intended Prosecution then you should contact our road traffic lawyers immediately. Notice of Intended Prosecution. However, a notice is still required if the defendant was unaware that there had been an accident: see Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356. However there is an exemption if the Police cannot reasonably obtain the keeper's details within that time, for example if the DVLA has no keeper details or they are incomplete. For this reason, it is best to seek legal advice before completing a Notice of Intended Prosecution. This penalty notice is called a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). Police across England and Wales will send out many . whether or not it was the driver's intention to drive any further; the road and traffic conditions at the relevant time; and. Driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst disqualified is a serious matter since it will usually involve the deliberate flouting of a court order. You may get 6 penalty points on your licence and a 1000 fine . If a charge under s.2 RTA 1988 is sent to trial on indictment, the issue is for the trial court, unless the prosecutor decides that there has been a fatal non-compliance with the requirement. If you've been caught by a policeman operating a radar . The onus of establishing special reasons lies on the defence, and the standard is that of the balance of probabilities. In DPP v Mansfield [1997] RTR 96 the constable who had arrested the defendant for the current offence, and who was present at court, had also arrested him for a previous offence for which the defendant had been disqualified in the constable's absence. The use of traffic signs is regulated by Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The defence should also give notice that they will be seeking to advance special reasons. Under s.97AA TA1968 a person who, with intent to deceive, forges, alters or uses any seal on recording equipment installed in, or designed for installation in, a vehicle to which section 97 applies, shall be guilty of an offence. It appears to an officer that an offence has been committed under section 99(5) in respect of the vehicle or its driver. within 28 days you must complete the Section 172 notice declaring who was driving the car at the time of the offence. Ordinarily, the notice should indicate that production should be made to the police station originally nominated by the driver when the request for production was first made. London, SW1H 9EA. Other ways to contact the Speed Enforcement Unit. The exceptions include: Section 24 RTOA 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) allows a court which has returned a verdict of 'not guilty' to certain either way and summary offences, to convict for a specified alternative offence, provided that the content of the information or indictment amounts to an allegation of such an offence. It is also subject to the general requirement that any prosecution must be brought within three years of the offence taking place. CPS and court staff are not trained in the detection of fraud. This is an onerous test to pass as it is generally fairly easy for a company to have a system in place which identifies the driver of a company vehicle at any given time, for example a log book kept in the vehicle which allows any drivers to enter the details of his or her journey. The offences under sections 3 , 17(2) , 18(3) , 24(3) , 26(1) and (2) , 29 , 31(1) , 35 , 42(b) , 47(1) , 87(2) , 143 , 163 , 164(6) and (9) , 165(3) and (6) , 168 , 170 and 172(3) RTA 1988. The above cases expanded upon the methods of proof outlined in R v Derwentside Justices ex parte Heaviside in particular allowing the prosecution to rely on similarity of name, date of birth and address. However, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the certificate was invalid as it did not state the date when the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to warrant the proceedings. However, since that offence is summary, if a defendant has been charged with other either way or indictable offences, then charging an offence under s.3 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981(which is either way) is likely to be more appropriate. "Road" is defined at s.142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway or other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes. (g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or Attempting to or producing any document with intent to deceive may result in severe penalties. The offence under section 63B(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The certificate is, therefore, likely to be signed by the appropriate police officer. It is important to note, however, that it is only the registered keeper that is required to receive such a warning . The expression 'on a road or other public place' is employed frequently in road traffic legislation. It is essential to check files when powers have been exercised to ensure the material sought to be exhibited has been obtained lawfully in order to rebut any application under s.78 PACE. If the document is not listed, proceedings under regulation 7 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 for exhibiting on a vehicle anything which could be mistaken for a licence may be considered. They are normally sent out when there is about 7 days of the original time limit remaining. R. 16; and Olakunori v DPP [1998] C.O.D. An analogy can be drawn from the case of DPP v Hay where it was held that once the prosecution has proved that the defendant drove the motor vehicle on a road, it is then for the defendant to show that he held a driving licence and that there was in force an appropriate policy of insurance, since these are matters that are peculiarly within his knowledge. The vehicle caught speeding . The issue of the defendant's conduct and any increased costs involved should be carefully considered and noted, and a departure made from the locally agreed standard costs application, where there has been an increase in prosecution costs. The prosecution should not seek to secure convictions on both. The police should give consideration to training CPS and court staff in the methods used to produce fraudulent documents and have an agreed method of responding to any such documents that are produced in legal proceedings. Usually NIPs are used by fixed cameras or the talivan overbridge guys who have zapped you with a laser speed detector. Case Study: Speeding . A taxi driver who had a licence to ply for hire in Rossendale and whose insurance covered him for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward under a public hire licence was not guilty of having no insurance in spite of plying for hire in Oldham, to which his licence did not extend. Such a challenge should usually be considered only if the law was wrongly applied or the decision can be shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable. As a result, if an insurance policy contains a restriction (for example) that the driver must be aged over 21, that restriction may be void and a person aged under 21 who would otherwise have been covered to drive the vehicle may not be guilty of driving without insurance. All these offences are summary, non-endorsable and punishable with a fine at level 4, and subject to a time limit of six months from the date of the offence. The offence of driving whilst disqualified, although a summary offence, can be included in the indictment if founded on the same facts or evidence, or if it forms part of a series of offences of the same or similar character as an indictable offence which has also been charged - s.40 (3)(c) Criminal Justice Act 1988. Where a summons or requisition has been issued in respect of an offence mentioned in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule, proceedings for that offence cease to be specified when the summons or requisition is served on the accused unless the defendant is also served with a statement of facts and written statement/s. Failure to specify the date will lead to proceedings being terminated: see David Burwell v DPP [2009] EWHC 1069 (Admin). Proceedings for an offence mentioned in the Schedule also cease to be specified if a magistrates court indicates that it is considering imposing a custodial sentence for the offence. Many factors must be taken into consideration before the court even begins to consider exercising that discretion. Assessment of the role played by each person in the company/operator in the case of large scale prosecutions; Whether there has been systematic flouting of the law resulting in widespread falsification of records endorsed by management. Zholia Alemi forged N, The CPS Areas, CPS Direct, Central Casework Divisions and Proceeds of Crime, Information for prosecuting advocates including Advocate Panels, Annual reports, business plans and strategies, Code for Crown Prosecutors - Public Interest Considerations, Restoration of Summary Offences after Trial on Indictment, Self-balancing Personal Transporters - Segway etc, Driving/Obtaining a Driving Licence Whilst Disqualified, Charging Practice - Forgery and False Information, etc, Offences in Contravention of the Regulations - s.96, Falsification of Driver's Hours and Records - s.99(5), Power to Prohibit the Driving of UK Vehicles - Section 99A, Tachograph Cases and Public Interest Criteria, Annex A: National Protocol for the Production and Inspection of Driving Documents, Annex B: Specified Proceedings (Offences), Road Traffic - Drug and Drink Driving Offences, The prosecution of traffic offences is vital to the enforcement and promotion of road safety and the protection of the public, and. As far as management responsibility is concerned subsection (5) of the act says that where a director or senior manager of the company caused or connived with the failure to identify the driver, that person is also guilty. This is an either way offence; Section 66 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 - the making of a false statement to obtain such a document. . The National Protocol for Production and Inspection of Driving Documents 2002, see Annex A below, provides guidance on production of such documents. Section 6 applies to the following offences under RTA 1988: Section 37 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 amends the time limit in the Theft Act. The prosecution do not have to call evidence that s.1 RTOA 1988 has been complied with unless the defendant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that no effective notice was given. Section 2(3) RTOA 1988 provides that a failure to meet the requirements shall not prevent conviction where the court is satisfied that: R v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2887 was an appeal against a terminating ruling that the requirements of s.1(1) RTOA 1988 were a bar to conviction on a count alleging that the respondent drove a motorbike dangerously. For more information see Mutual Recognition of Driving Disqualification, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.