chopperman

It's a very satisfying experience. We all know the quality of policing in some forces is at an all time low. Take advantage of that. If you can see their not doing their job properly , don't bend over and take it up the bum like they expect you to. Fight it and win.

Frenchwood

Seem to me like the police only "catch" those not actually committing a crime.

Those that do break the law always seem to get away with it!!

chopperman

Sadly it's these "easy nick" lazy incompetent coppers that tar the good coppers with the same brush.
How about that copper who tackled the mad knifeman in a mosque despite being stabbed twice. GC candidate imo. There are some good crime fighting coppers out there , its just the law abiding only come across the petty idiots.

Frenchwood

The problem is that the heroes, the real stand up coppers are in the minority.

I certainly hope the OP makes a fool of this one, simply to make an example!

If he does win, I'm all for making the "news report" go viral. Who's up for some of that?

chopperman

Yeah. Post up all the details and re-post on all other forums and FB pages The copper started the war.

Frenchwood

Damn right. He started it, and the car enthusiast community should finish it!!! Lol

T20Driver

iTrader: (3)

Remember to do this too ?

Hoody2769

There are some valid points raised in this thread and I would definitely be contesting the ticket.
Professionalism in court will get you a long way so go prepared but don't get personal with the PC as it won't sit well with the magistrates. (I totally disagree with an earlier post that the CPS/magistrates sit with the police in such cases)
Unfortunately English law is all about interpretation nothing is black and white I'm afraid! I would however be interested to know where the PC's 'expert' opinion is derived from?? The lack of a roadside noise test would appear to detrimental to his case and as previously mentioned- any kit used by the police can be a potential minefield at court when using evidence derived from such equipment.

Slightly off topic but if you feel you are being persecuted:
Sec 67(6) of the RTA 1988 may be of use to a lot of us.
You would be hard pushed to be prosecuted for anything unless you have been involved in an accident or the condition of your vehicle is so dangerous it should not be allowed to continue (again open to interpretation but we all have a good idea of what dangerous is)


Good luck.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

well no news yet, they haven't even replied to my email asking them to take me to court (PLEASE) maybe because i couldn't resist hinting in my email that i would be using their own rule book in my defence

stu turbo 98

iTrader: (6)

They are growing a set as we speak and building up the courage to say sorry to you and can we forget the whole thing

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

lmfao can't see it myself, they are after all experts at waisting money, another member on here had his fathers car written off by a super plod, said super plod has been called off driving duties, members father offered a hire car untill case resolved which can take up to 5 years, would be cheeper to just admit it was their fault buy the man a new car and compensate him for his injuries and loss

LuckyWelshchap

From the CPS point of view:

This is a very awkward situation. This guy wants us to take him to Court and he's been kind enough to give a good indication of what his defence would be.
Devon & Cornwall Police has given contradictory advice, which means he could claim to have been mislead by it.
The officer - the main Prosecution witness - will not pass the 'level of expertise' test.
If we take it to Court and he is found Not Guilty then it's open house for all drivers with high noise level exhausts.
If he is found Guilty there's the likelihood of not recovering the full costs of the prosecution, and a sentence that could be construed as the Magistrates having some sympathy with him.

"Dear Chief Constable,

We believe that there is some merit in taking this case forward but it has a number of PR risks for your force.
What would you like us to do?"

Risk management this is now.
At a guess they'll want to wait until a much more solid case is found, in order to reinforce D & C Plod's (and that of most forces) policy, rather than risk undermining it with a fragile, even dodgy prosecution.

The NIP is as it says, they can - as I see it - simply leave it lie and do absolutely nothing, including not reply to your letter, if it simply stated a few things and didn't specifically prompt a reply.
In that case you'd simply have to assume after a passage of time that nothing's going to be done.
You haven't been charged, so no formal conclusion is required (ie they officially tell you that the matter is closed).

My advice?
Leave things alone and wait a month (say the end of July), then make an appointment to see the local Inspector and make a semi-formal complaint about the officer's attitude and approach.
The Inspector doesn't want his guys investigated (looks bad on him) and he'll probably take it on board, 'have a word' and then get back to you.
You'll probably find that he'll tell you the 'case' has been dropped as well.

Make him aware that you know all about Professional Standards - citing "Local Resolution" is a good way of showing that - and I reckon they'll get the point, and as long as you're reasonable (though understandably annoyed) about it I think you'll find that you won't be bothered again.

A sort of you scratch my back etc.

If you don't mind me saying so, I think you've been a tad provocative ('bring it on then'). I say this to point out that things could be contorted to make you out to be some sort of working class hero, intent on taking on the establishment if by some extraordinary way this became a cause celebre.

The objective here was - and I hope still is - to primarily avoid prosecution, with the bonus of showing Plod that you're not prepared to be trifled with.

If you succeed in that, you'll have helped a few of us for some point in the future, because I'm sure there's another plod out there waiting for someone to over-exert their authority with.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

i don't think i was provocative i just pointed out that the rule book (rta1988) had a rule in it that ment another rule di not apply to my car, nothing more i left them to do their homework properly unlike the officer

LuckyWelshchap

bigphilbaby

how it all going? any news

chopperman

No news is good news. They only have 6 months from the date of alleged offence to issue a court summons. After this time period no action can be taken. I wouldn't expect any correspondence from the police or cps if they decide not to pursue this.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

nope still no news. not even a reply to my email all evidence photo's etc in folder now gathering dust

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

I would keep pushing as your not sleeping & worrying all the time thinking about the outcome.

chopperman

I would advise not to do this. cps will prioritise cases as per their importance. This can cause minor motoring offences slip to the bottom of the pile and the 6 month time limit to run out. By leaning on cps it draws attention and could very well see your case move to the top of the pile.
My advise would be to keep quiet and let them sweep it under the carpet. Why kick the dog when it will only wake up and bite you.

LuckyWelshchap

My view is that you're both right - but in the wrong order.

1) Don't give the dog a reason to bite you; and
2) when it's too late for it to do so, complain about the worry you've had wondering if it would.

So wait 6 months + 1 day from the date of the NIP, then write to the issuing office and enquire about the status of it, on the basis that you've heard nothing in more than 6 months.

They will have to reply because you will have asked a closed question ie. it needs a definite answer.

Then use that against 'them' ie. the establishment.

I can understand that it's tempting to prod and poke, but don't !

chopperman

Two points here .
A. It's 6 months from the date of alleged offence not the date of the NIP. There could be up to 2 weeks difference in that date unless informed of the notice of intended prosecution at the time of alleged offence.

B. No need what so ever to enquire about the case status after the 6 month from alleged offence as any summons after this time is null in void.

Sometimes you get what you want because you let people keep face. If you want to be a revolutionary that's fine, just dont expect to come out unscathed. It's easy for people to encourage fighting for principle with no gain other than to humiliate a copper. There not likely to reap the aftermath sat in the comfort of their armchair. That comment was not aimed at you Luckywelshchap.

LuckyWelshchap

I see your point(s).

The OP's objective has to be 'no repercussions' which is in the main no summons/convictions for the alleged offence, and you do always have to allow for a diplomatic solution to avoid the potential for humiliation, and of course there's always bruising (at the very least) after a fight.

What I was trying to provide was a way of getting a response from the authorities that gave the OP a piece of paper (and peace of mind) that there would be no further action (in effect an admission that the whole thing had been wrongly handled) and therefore provide the OP with ammo if they wished to then take up a case of persecution ie. 6 months of worry and a fair amount of work preparing a defence for what proved to be such a weak case.

It would have to be handled well. No complaint could mean the police would try it on again or it would be a case of let sleeping dogs lie and they'd be grateful that things weren't stirred up.
That's why I suggested the local Inspector, an informal chat and hence 'unofficial' way of putting a point over without having to highlight local issues to regional managers.
On the other extreme a very strong complaint through PSD could fireproof the OP or cause the police to target them.

And yes, it is easy to be a general and send someone else up to the frontline. (And I know it wasn't aimed at me, thanks )

I think the moral here though is that the OP has had loads of support, and plenty of very helpful advice, any of which would work. It just depends upon how they want to play it. They (and any future 'victim') have certainly got far more options than they ever considered before the post !

Roll on November.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

court invite arrived today, and this is the 3rd different explnation of offence. can they do this it almost looks like the cps are trying differnt angles after, discovering the previous on wouldn't stick ?

Frenchwood

Stick to your guns matey. If they're chopping and changing like that, and it does go to court, you have empirical evidence that they don't know their **** from their elbow!! Lol

LuckyWelshchap

It now needs to be taken very pedantic step by pedantic step imo.

A NIP tells you that in the opinion of the police/CPS you have commited a breach of a particular (part of) law and that you are liable to be prosecuted for it.

That forms the basis of the charge that you will face.

If the charge and the NIP aren't compatible then I would have thought that the prosecution is flawed.

Eg. if someone is NIP'd for careless driving a subsequent charge of dangerous driving wouldn't have much hope. An extreme example but meant to make it easier to put my view across.

In your case you've mentioned the 'illegally modifying the exhaust' aspect and the 'too loud' one.
Have you been NIPed for one and charged with the other by any chance?
Or NIPed for more than one but only charged with one?

Following on from Fw's advice (which I fully support), I'd suggest entering all the NIPs as evidence on your behalf, to show that if the police/CPS aren't consistent then how can their evidence be relied upon?

And of course, as previously stated by a few, you just ask the 'wrong' questions of the officer.

But before that you really start the ball rolling by turning up, pleading Not Guilty and getting the case scheduled. That'll call any bluff.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

ok i need to speek to you about this luckywelsh, but the jist of it is this
nip at roadside states 54(2) con + use exhaust system/silencer not standard
2nd letter states the same with invite to pay £30 fixed or go to court
3rd letter states used a motoe vehicle fitted with a exhaust system which was not maintained in good and efficient working order, contary to section 54(2) of the road vehicles (construction and use) regulaions 1986 section 42 of the road traffic act 1988
can they keep changing the description of the offence like this,? secondly the officer has been conservative with the truth in his statement to the court or should i say inacurate

chopperman

The police will have to prove " a exhaust system which was not maintained in good and efficient working order, contary to section 54(2)". As you car was not inspected by a qualified engineer i can't see how they can prove it. The police officers "opinion" is not proof. They have realised they cant get a conviction for a modified exhaust on your car so they are now trying to say its faulty.
What you should do now it make a request in writing to CPS for a copy of their case file so you may form a defence to the specifics of their case. If they fail to do this by the time your case is due to be be heard, or in a realistic time before hand. Plead not guilty and ask for an adjournment on the grounds you were unable to prepare a defence due to the charge changing and no case file was submitted on request.

thenewgalaxy

The way I see this case is that the OP has an aftermarket exhaust that fits within the guidelines set out by contributed posts earlier in the thread.

It would appear that there is a lack of understanding on what grounds to push the case through as, yet they are keen to do so. This has raised suspicion by the OP that this case is a personal attack based on a previous disagreement. I'm sure we can all recall the case recently of an officer who was implicated in a harassment case by a woman who received several fines over a period of time for driving offences after they ended their relationship.

Even if it could be technically proven that there was a minor infringement of law here - which on my understanding is not the case - then I do wonder at what cost this is being pursued and whether it is really in the public's interest. If there is any personal component to this then the OP has to get heavy regardless of the outcome.

LuckyWelshchap

54(2) of the 1986 Regs is the clearer of the rules (S 42 RTA 1988 is very nondescript);

It reads:

"Every exhaust system and silencer shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not be altered so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases."

* It is the responsibility of the CPS to prove that the noise made by the vehicle's current exhaust system exceeds the noise made by what it would have to claim (and prove) to be the original OEM one.

* To do that it would have to provide evidence of the noise levels of both types - and on the same car.
ie. it would have to measure the level of the existing one, replace with OEM and then measure again.

* It then has to further prove that those same conditions applied at the time the op was stopped.

The police don't as yet have a Tardis.

Now, there's a typo in the post (it says "regulaions" not what should be "regulations").
Shortly after that it says "1986 section 42 of the road traffic act 1988".
Is that a typo and the word "and" is omitted, so it should say 'contrary to Reg 54(2) and RTA 1988' ?

If so, then by virtue of failing to prove the breach of Reg 54(2), CPS will have failed to prove anything because they are after you for breaching BOTH.

Being pedantic doesn't come into it.
That's why laws are framed so carefully (and wordily).

They haven't charged you with two offences, only 1.

I will say however, that this is only a small help - appearing pedantic doesn't often help. In this case however, it does build on the shoddy way the case has been constructed and then prosecuted.

Hopefully the magistrates won't take kindly to unprofessional presentation etc. and give the CPS a flea in the year by throwing the case out.

Plenty of advice has been given about how to make plod look a fool.
Add CPS to it and then overrun the pair of them with a studied measured argument and don't forget to make an application for your costs.

Don't forget though - your best prospect is that it never gets to Court, so heed the other good bits of advice as well, let CPS see what they are up against because of an over-zealous plod.

I'll drop the op an PM later (perhaps tomorrow) because some strategies aren't best aired in public. It's always good to give a big show of strength but never reveal all.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

they have sent me the case file, and have changed their minds from the nip, it's now as you say not maintained and efficent, i think the easy route is a letter from garage stating it doesn't blow or leak is not rusty and is under the 101db limit applied to jdm cars as per section 44 rta 1988