Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP signed by a Chief Constable who was not in post at the time.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
2shelties
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2021
Date of the NIP: - 1 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Marsh House Avenue, Billingham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - NIP received but the Chief Constable named at the bottom of the NIP had left the force prior to the alleged incident occurring. It does not state “office of Chief Constable “ I’ve written to the force to clarify and their reply reads as though the chief constable had left the force between the nip being issued and their reply yesterday. This isn’t the case according to the ex CC’s Twitter.
The reply I received also stated “it is the office of the Chief Constable, not the individual in that office at that time”

I’m aware of the Cutting/Norfolk case from May 2005 and the Police Scotland case which had distinct similarities to mine.


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:56:12 +0000
The Rookie
Well who signs the NIP isn’t relevant.

However the S172 request to name the driver (which is on the same sheet of paper) needs to be made by someone authorised to do so on behalf of the CC, what the paperwork actually says isn’t relevant, it’s whether they are authorised that matters, and the force will almost certainly have carried over to the next, so that same person is almost still authorised to make that request on behalf of the new CC.

(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 [F3or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force], and
notmeatloaf
Sorry but totally disagree with Simon.

S172 is very clear.

QUOTE
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 [F3or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force],


He is no longer Chief of Police for Cleveland and so cannot be issuing demands on behalf of the Chief Constable of Cleveland.

However, there are two complications.

Firstly, AFAIK he is now Chief Constable of Dyffd Powys. The legislation refers to "A chief constable". AFAIK it's never been tested whether a chief constable of another force can issue S172 requests via another force. But the legislation is ambiguous as to whether that would be allowed.

Secondly, the requirement to serve a Notice of Intention to Prosecute does not require it to come from a Chief Constable. Only the S172 is required to be given by or on behalf of the CC. There is precedent that the police cannot issue multiple S172 requests to the same person for the same offence. However, because the NIP is valid you would have to ignore/refuse to fill out the S172 to take advantage of their potential mistake.

After that there is a small chance the police would drop it out of embarrassment. More likely is that they would requisition you on a dual charge of speeding and S172. You could safely plead not guilty to the speeding as they have no evidence of who was driving without the S172. However, you would have to mount a technical defence to the S172 and magistrates are notoriously unreceptive to technical defences. If convicted you would receive 6 points and a larger fine, plus an endorsement that most insurers will load your premium for.

The alternative, zero risk option is to contact your local rag and hope the bad PR (force doesn't bother to update angry letters for six months, drivers advised to seek legal advice etc.) gets them to drop it.

To be honest it would be a punt taking it to court, especially as (if it is Richard Lewis on the letter) he is still a Chief Constable on the failed cops merry-go-round. It would be fighting it on principle rather than pragmatism.
NewJudge
But the legislation says that the recipient must respond to a s172 demand issued "by or on behalf of a chief officer of police". I imagine the demand was not issued personally by the Chief Constable and it might be a hard job to show that whoever did issue it did not do so "on behalf" of the Chief Constable (whoever that is).
The Rookie
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 - 01:38) *
Sorry but totally disagree with Simon.

S172 is very clear.

QUOTE
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 [F3or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force],


He is no longer Chief of Police for Cleveland and so cannot be issuing demands on behalf of the Chief Constable of Cleveland..

That he is no longer isn’t irrelevant is it, the request has to be on behalf of, it doesn’t actually have to say it is (at least nothing in the statute says it has to contain that) so as long as the person is authorised to make the request it’s valid whether it says so, or has an old name, at the bottom. They could leave it off completely and as long as the person is authorised then it’s a valid request.
mickR
It would be an interesting situation if there wasn't actually anyone occupying the CC post at the time the s172 was issued.
if that was the case it couldn't be issued on behalf of a non existent CC
TryOut
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 - 10:48) *
It would be an interesting situation if there wasn't actually anyone occupying the CC post at the time the s172 was issued.
if that was the case it couldn't be issued on behalf of a non existent CC

Cleveland have 4 chiefs of police one of whom is the chief constable. Any of them can issue an S172 or be chief over the post or posts whose job description includes issuing s172 requirements on their behalf. The change of chief is neither significant or embarrassing. There is no issue.
andy_foster
It would be somewhat unjust to have a criminal offence of failing to provide information when so required by or on behalf of the chief officer of police if the requirement did not specify that it was so made.

However, the "chief officer of police" for the purposes of s. 172 RTA does not actually mean the chief officer of police in any rational sense. It means anybody of a certain lesser rank - I think this might be chief inspector, but that is not crucial to the point. This does not directly address the narrow point of the person purportedly authorising the issue (or issuer) of the requirement not being in position when the requirement was issued, but does indicate the judiciaries view of the interpretation of the law when the sausage factory is challenged.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 - 11:37) *
It would be somewhat unjust to have a criminal offence of failing to provide information when so required by or on behalf of the chief officer of police if the requirement did not specify that it was so made.

However, the "chief officer of police" for the purposes of s. 172 RTA does not actually mean the chief officer of police in any rational sense. It means anybody of a certain lesser rank - I think this might be chief inspector, but that is not crucial to the point. This does not directly address the narrow point of the person purportedly authorising the issue (or issuer) of the requirement not being in position when the requirement was issued, but does indicate the judiciaries view of the interpretation of the law when the sausage factory is challenged.

But in this case the request was signed by someone not employed by the force. Logically requests can no longer be made by them or on behalf of them, unless you accept that staff in Cleveland can make requests on behalf of a Chief Constable in another force.

As has already been established S172 requests are onerous and often lead to self-incrimination. As such, the requirement for the request to be done by or on behalf of a Chief Constable is presumably so there is an accountable person responsible for the request if it turns out to be erroneous or vexatious. Saying the police can put any old name there seems non-sensical, unless parliament worded the requirement that way for fun.
The Rookie
Erm, no it was signed by someone employed by the force, read again.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 16 Jan 2022 - 07:24) *
Erm, no it was signed by someone employed by the force, read again.

"the Chief Constable named at the bottom of the NIP had left the force"

Assuming the letter was signed at the bottom, as is traditional in letters.
NewJudge
QUOTE
"..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"


From that (with my slight modification), I read it that it is not who asks, but who requires it. Leaving aside the interpretation of "a chief officer of police", Cleveland police obviously had an acting or a replacement Chief after the previous incumbent had left. His or her requirements to issue s172 notices would be the same as the predecessor's and the staff issuing them would be largely the same. I don't think an argument to suggest the request was not valid would succeed.
The Rookie
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 16 Jan 2022 - 22:14) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 16 Jan 2022 - 07:24) *
Erm, no it was signed by someone employed by the force, read again.

"the Chief Constable named at the bottom of the NIP had left the force"

Assuming the letter was signed at the bottom, as is traditional in letters.

Oh dear… the requests say signed or made on behalf of the CC, he doesn’t sign them himself, assuming that person had left the force as well is a bit of a leap of faith.
andy_foster
If there is anything to this line of argument, it is likely to be from a comment in a case like Arnold v DPP.
blackcross
If you choose to run with a technical defence bear the following in mind.

s172 refers to the request being made by or on behalf of A chief officer of police, not to THE chief officer (and does not on its face require the officer to be of that force). It is notable that the s172 provision for BTP restricts the power to THE chief constable of that force.

A chief officer is any officer of at least the rank ACC/Commander. Given that police related legislation typically draws a deliberate distinction between powers exercisable by any of the chief officers and those exercisable only by the chief officer I wouldn’t want to run this argument without proper advice.

I would expect an argument about the signature block being outdated to be unpersuasive. Were the officer so named to drop dead would it really be the case that no valid s172 could be issued until the template was updated by the force’s IT supplier?
cp8759
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 - 10:48) *
It would be an interesting situation if there wasn't actually anyone occupying the CC post at the time the s172 was issued.
if that was the case it couldn't be issued on behalf of a non existent CC

There would be an acting CC.

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 17 Jan 2022 - 17:52) *
If there is anything to this line of argument, it is likely to be from a comment in a case like Arnold v DPP.

And possibly Mohindra v Director Of Public Prosecutions [2004] EWHC 490 (Admin)

2shelties, can you just show us the signature part of the s172 notice?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.