Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News0 min ago
Beckham's Speeding Fine - And Escape.
76 Answers
The media has got itself into a massive robble about David Beckham's speeding fine, and the fact that he has employed an expensive lawyer who has managed to get the case thrown out.
https:/
The Mail especially has vilified Mr Beckham, criticising his spending on wine, his marriage, his image, and so on - all completely irrelevant to the issue - in a manner that is utterly beyond reason.
Let me declare from the outset - I do not for one moment condone Mr Beckham's offence, which is serious, and irresponsible.
But the fact remains, his case was dismissed on a technicality - he has not broken to law to have his case thrown out, his lawyer has used legal process open to anyone in the same position.
Your thoughts on this?
https:/
The Mail especially has vilified Mr Beckham, criticising his spending on wine, his marriage, his image, and so on - all completely irrelevant to the issue - in a manner that is utterly beyond reason.
Let me declare from the outset - I do not for one moment condone Mr Beckham's offence, which is serious, and irresponsible.
But the fact remains, his case was dismissed on a technicality - he has not broken to law to have his case thrown out, his lawyer has used legal process open to anyone in the same position.
Your thoughts on this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Could you tell me what the procedure is from the point at which you’re ‘caught’ speeding and the issuing of the NIP, and who issues it?”
Sure can, Zacs.
When a vehicle is detected speeding and the driver is not stopped at the time a “Notice of Intended Prosecution” (NIP) must be served on the Registered Keeper (RK) within 14 days. It is deemed to have been served two working days after posting. If (as in DB’s case) the driver disputes this he has the right to “rebut” that assumption but the onus falls on him to show “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not) that it was not served in time. (There are complications with this rebuttable facility if the notice is served by anything other than First Class post, but they need not concern us here). The NIP simply provides an outline of the allegation together with date, time and location. A NIP cannot be “challenged”, “appealed” or “rejected”. It is simply a notice.
Along with the NIP (always in the same envelope and usually on the same piece of paper) a “Request for Driver’s Details” is sent. This is usually known as a “Section 172” notice after the section of the Road Traffic Act that provides for it. Both these documents are sent out by the “Local Camera Partnership” who run the cameras. There is no time constraint on the S172 notice. It must be responded to within 28 days of it being served. If it is not the recipient commits a separate, more serious offence. If the RK was not the driver at the time he must provide details of who was (and again, replying saying “I don’t know” will see him face a S172 charge). The person named then receives his own NIP (there are no time constraints on subsequent NIPs) and S172 request. He has to respond within 28 days confirming that he was driving (or naming someone else). Important to note that any issues with the signature offence (e.g. speeding)such as deficiencies with the NIP do not negate the need to respond to the S172 request. Also important is that if no properly completed S172 declaration is received from the driver no action can be taken for the signature offence (as there is no evidence who was driving).
"[email protected] Good point. In which case perhaps the police should have called upon the Owner of the Bently as soon as Camera evidence was available."
They did (or at least the Safety Camera Partnership did). They went through the process I outlined above. It should be noted that the photographs taken by the “speed” cameras are only used to identify the vehicle. They are not used (either informally or in court) to identify the driver. That’s where Section 172 comes in.
Overarching all of this is the overall time limit of six months to begin a prosecution. Court proceedings must begin (though the defendant not necessarily informed) within six months of the offence. But bear in mind that any offence under S172 will not be committed until 29 days after the request is served so the six months for those offences will expire after the six months for the original speeding offence.
“Beckham could have just said it arrived late but how many folk are aware of the limit?”
Everyone on here (and probably most other places) should by now!
I should add that late "first NIPs" are extremely rare. The software that produces them actually prevents them being produced if they cannot be "served" in time. Manual intervention is needed to override this. But it seems Mr Beckham's was produced - and probably posted - in time. But the court accepted that it was served late.
Sure can, Zacs.
When a vehicle is detected speeding and the driver is not stopped at the time a “Notice of Intended Prosecution” (NIP) must be served on the Registered Keeper (RK) within 14 days. It is deemed to have been served two working days after posting. If (as in DB’s case) the driver disputes this he has the right to “rebut” that assumption but the onus falls on him to show “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not) that it was not served in time. (There are complications with this rebuttable facility if the notice is served by anything other than First Class post, but they need not concern us here). The NIP simply provides an outline of the allegation together with date, time and location. A NIP cannot be “challenged”, “appealed” or “rejected”. It is simply a notice.
Along with the NIP (always in the same envelope and usually on the same piece of paper) a “Request for Driver’s Details” is sent. This is usually known as a “Section 172” notice after the section of the Road Traffic Act that provides for it. Both these documents are sent out by the “Local Camera Partnership” who run the cameras. There is no time constraint on the S172 notice. It must be responded to within 28 days of it being served. If it is not the recipient commits a separate, more serious offence. If the RK was not the driver at the time he must provide details of who was (and again, replying saying “I don’t know” will see him face a S172 charge). The person named then receives his own NIP (there are no time constraints on subsequent NIPs) and S172 request. He has to respond within 28 days confirming that he was driving (or naming someone else). Important to note that any issues with the signature offence (e.g. speeding)such as deficiencies with the NIP do not negate the need to respond to the S172 request. Also important is that if no properly completed S172 declaration is received from the driver no action can be taken for the signature offence (as there is no evidence who was driving).
"[email protected] Good point. In which case perhaps the police should have called upon the Owner of the Bently as soon as Camera evidence was available."
They did (or at least the Safety Camera Partnership did). They went through the process I outlined above. It should be noted that the photographs taken by the “speed” cameras are only used to identify the vehicle. They are not used (either informally or in court) to identify the driver. That’s where Section 172 comes in.
Overarching all of this is the overall time limit of six months to begin a prosecution. Court proceedings must begin (though the defendant not necessarily informed) within six months of the offence. But bear in mind that any offence under S172 will not be committed until 29 days after the request is served so the six months for those offences will expire after the six months for the original speeding offence.
“Beckham could have just said it arrived late but how many folk are aware of the limit?”
Everyone on here (and probably most other places) should by now!
I should add that late "first NIPs" are extremely rare. The software that produces them actually prevents them being produced if they cannot be "served" in time. Manual intervention is needed to override this. But it seems Mr Beckham's was produced - and probably posted - in time. But the court accepted that it was served late.
"Beckham was caught speeding on two days...22nd & 23rd January. NIPs were sent to the Bently firm for both instances.... 22nd arrived within the 14 day period but the 23rd was one day late. Prosecution was only for the 23rd."
You don't know that he was not prosecuted (or offered a course or fixed penalty) for the other offence.
You don't know that he was not prosecuted (or offered a course or fixed penalty) for the other offence.
ZM, from another link, "Colette Hollies, the legal assistant, said she recalled opening the notice of intended prosecution on February 7 because it was the same car and the same driver as an NIP received the week before.
This is to say that Beckham was contacted about being the driver of a speeding vehicle in an incident one day before the one in court today. It is unknown what the outcome of that case was."
Whatever the outcome, the same defence could not have been used.
This is to say that Beckham was contacted about being the driver of a speeding vehicle in an incident one day before the one in court today. It is unknown what the outcome of that case was."
Whatever the outcome, the same defence could not have been used.
for my last ticket the NIP arrived a month after the offence because i had just bought the bike and the RK was in the process of being changed at DVLA. This is ok though because as long as it arrives at the RK address they could reasonably obtain, in 14 days, it still stands. For the motoring evangelists my licence is now spotless!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.