Notice of intended prosecution

[maccie]

Could anyone please answer this question for me.

The CPS are intending to pursue a charge of dangerous driving and no NIP has been served within 14 days of the offence(either orally or written). The police were never at the scene and responded to a complaint. The police had identified the driver within 3 days and had CCTV of the alleged incident already viewed within those 3 days(no further evidence being used or investigated)
The police contacted the driver and asked them to voluntarily attend the police station but not for over another 2 weeks and did not indicate which charges this was in connection with just phrased it as 'come in for a chat '.

The case has now been sent to CPS and when pointed out that no NIP has been served their response is that they can investigate this and then charge.

This seems to go against everything I can find on the Internet (yes I know) so I wondered if anyone on here could let me know why this is ?

Thank you

The 14 day rule applies only if there wasn't an accident at the time.

There was no accident collaborate.

There was no accident collaborate.

If there has been no NIP within 14 days of the offence and the driver was not warned at the time of the offence they cannot now be prosecuted for dangerous driving, careless and inconsiderate driving, leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position or failure to comply with traffic signs or directions. They can still be prosecuted for a range of other offences including causing death by dangerous driving, driving without a licence and so on. Without knowing details of the incident it is impossible to tell whether any of these offences is appropriate but I can only assume the police are hoping they can charge the driver with an offence for which a NIP is not required.

They are pursuing dangerous driving. Driving on a pavement and criminal damage (therefore as I understand it a reckless or dangerous act - cannot be an accident) therefore no accident happened.

Information can be laid ages after though can't it.
6 months

All evidence was known and driver known within 3 days as they then invited driver to voluntarily attend police station whilst at the home address. Already stated they had watched the CCTV

ah don't expect efficiency

Information can be laid ages after though can't it

If the court is satisfied that the driver or registered keeper could not be identified in time for a NIP they can still be convicted. However that does not appear to be the case here.

maccie - If there was damage it was an accident so a NIP is not required. Under your definition of an accident a collision would not be reportable if, say, it was caused by someone driving at 140mph up the wrong side of the motorway. The courts would beg to differ!

is the address with the DVLA the right one?

Yes the address with DVLA is correct.

Okay I understand the motorway analogy it does make sense it's just that the solicitor said that by charging him with criminal damage that the police are the ones saying it was not an accident but an intentional act.

It was a 16 year old on a moped on a pavement clipped a bicycle wheel and damaged it. 16 year old is saying it was an accident but solicitor said by charging him with that instead means no accident occurred. I am confused to say the least

So the person responsible admits the facts of what happened but you would like to get them off on a technicality?

The 16 year old didn't 'clip' anything, did they? He/she collided with the bicycle. Just because it was the outside of the wheel doesn't stop it being a collision

Driver admits clipping a bicycle wheel. Not dangerous driving. He had parked on a pavement used a shop but driven moped on the pavement to get back to the road. This is when he clipped the bicycle

A pavement is not a parking area.

Driving on a pavement is dangerous driving, as he has discovered by having a collision.

I fully believe it was an accident/collision. However he is being charged with criminal damage in relation to that so I am asking how that has a bearing on the NIP and the 14 day notice since he was never made aware of dangerous driving as a possible charge ?

There does not have to be intent for criminal damage. You can be found guilty if you have acted recklessly. The solicitor should take a look at the guidance issued by the CPS which can be found here. In my view the police are not saying the 16 year old intentionally damaged the bicycle. They are saying that he acted recklessly and that the bicycle was damaged as a result.

So the collision still counts as an accident so the dangerous driving charge stands - no NIP needed

The same accident caused damage so he will be charged with reckless criminal damage.

Driving on a pavement will still be a separate offence not covered by either of the above.

I do feel sympathy for the 16 year old. He made a wrong decision to cross the pavement on the moped and I get that he does need to be punished.He immediately offered to compensate the bicycle owner who refused and left. He is a good young man and he will now have to leave the college course he has been on as its over 30 miles from his home and nit do-able on public transport, and he also works 2 jobs and lives in a very rural location so is going to have give those up too. I just think this is going to really ruin his future rather than just punish him for what he did wrong.

It is illegal to drive a moped on a pavement. He should know that.

Maccie, was this young person interviewed at the voluntary attendance ? If so there will be a digital recording of the interview or contemporaneous notes.

If, at some point during that interview, the phrase "i am reporting you for the consideration of the question of prosecuting your for the offence of xxx" was used, this is the verbal form of NIP used by police officers either at the roadside or in interview. It negates the requirement for a written NIP to be sent out by the central ticket and summons unit.

Truffle the voluntary attendance was 16 full days later so was already outside the timeframe for the NIP.

From what's been said above it doesn't matter anyway as there was an accident so it has become exempt from an NIP being needed.

I believed the solicitor when he said that as they were charging him with criminal damage for the accident that it therefore was not an accident anymore. I was mistaken

Truffle the voluntary attendance was 16 full days later so was already outside the timeframe for the NIP.

From what's been said above it doesn't matter anyway as there was an accident so it has become exempt from an NIP being needed.

I believed the solicitor when he said that as they were charging him with criminal damage for the accident that it therefore was not an accident anymore. I was mistaken

Sorry about double posting. Don't know how it's happening.