NIP advice

[fladavid]

Hi.
My daughter received a NIP in Wandsworth before Christmas stating she was driving in a manner that could cause danger to the public. She duly replied to the NIP asking if she could see the video evidence the police say they had as she could not recollect doing anything wrong at all and she was worried.
The police replied that unless she was going to court she was not allowed access to the video but they would allow her to take a road safety course instead. She phoned the police and once again asked why she couldn't see the video so she could at least either defend herself or admit the offence and was told once again that she could only see it if she went to court. The lady did play the video and described what had happened to her down the phone.
Apparently she had overtaken a cyclist wearing a cam and she had made him nervous and he skimmed the kerb. He then reported her to police and gave them the footage.
I thought that you would have the right to defend yourself when accused of a crime but how can she defend herself if she can't see what's she's accused of? The police are acting as judge and jury here and it's not right.
Does anybody know if this procedure is correct?
Many thanks.
David.

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: NIP advice

Hi.
My daughter received a NIP in Wandsworth before Christmas stating she was driving in a manner that could cause danger to the public. She duly replied to the NIP asking if she could see the video evidence the police say they had as she could not recollect doing anything wrong at all and she was worried.
The police replied that unless she was going to court she was not allowed access to the video but they would allow her to take a road safety course instead. She phoned the police and once again asked why she couldn't see the video so she could at least either defend herself or admit the offence and was told once again that she could only see it if she went to court. The lady did play the video and described what had happened to her down the phone.
Apparently she had overtaken a cyclist wearing a cam and she had made him nervous and he skimmed the kerb. He then reported her to police and gave them the footage.
I thought that you would have the right to defend yourself when accused of a crime but how can she defend herself if she can't see what's she's accused of? The police are acting as judge and jury here and it's not right.
Does anybody know if this procedure is correct?
Many thanks.
David.

I'm new here, so you may wish to await corroboration from others, but given the urgency (see below) I thought I would at least give you some information. It is generally true that the police do not have to provide any evidence prior to a not guilty plea. That may seem unfair, but it is the way the system works. Frankly, I am surprised that the police even offered to describe the video evidence to your daughter--she must have charmed them!

The danger here is that your daughter fails to observe the strict time limit for responding to the police request under s.172 RTA 1988 and inadvertently turns an opportunity to avoid prosecution by attending a potentially educational road safety course into a criminal conviction, six points on her driving licence for failing to identify the driver, a hefty fine and insurance loading for the next five years.

To clarify, there is a two step process: First, the police write to the keeper of the vehicle identified as having been driven by the offender and require the keeper to unequivocally identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Second, once identified (i.e., a person admits to having been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence) the defendant is then able to choose one of the options she is offered. In some cases, there will be three options (a course, a fixed penalty, court), but only the last one is guaranteed.

"Having your day in court" for a traffic offence in the UK has been made intentionally (in my view) quite a risky option. Despite the "innocent until proven guilty" rhetoric, the fact is that winning in court for most minor offences will be a Pyrrhic victory, and losing in court will cost the defendant much more than taking any of the other available options.

--Topolino di Chiesa

[fladavid]

Re: NIP advice

No she fully admitted that she was the driver and replied to the NIP in time and was offered the course instead of prosecution,albeit that any further driving offence in the next three years would be fully prosecuted without another course being offered.
It just riles me that she has had to take the police's word for it that she's committed an offence without the chance to defend herself by seing the evidence against her. That to my mind isn't innocent until proven guilty that is guilty because we say so and don't dare challenge it or you'll end up in court.