Jaws said:
So what is the useful clause then Nick ?
They have a "sample letter" to use when responding to a NIP.
It's based on the fact that there are still challenges in process to the "being forced to incriminate oneself".
The letter basically refers to a couple of court cases and says that you are responding to the NIP in accordance with the legal requirement to devlare who was driving.
It then makes clear that this is basically under protest and that the information supplied cannot be used in evidence in any court case as it is supplied under threat and without the administration of a caution - the relevent court case to bacik this up is given to be quoted in the letter.
Effectively it says:
1. I'm forced to tell you this under threat of prosecution so I will (but as the statement is not admissable in court there is still no admissable evidence as to who was driving so a prosecution cannot be brought against anyone - a sort of catch22).
2. A written or vebal statement cannot be presented as evidence in court unless a caution has first been given - not the case with a NIP.
The article then goes on to warn that this may not succeed in every case but does say that in cetain areas (MET I think is one) they believe that no prosecution has been continued with following such a letter.
The options for the camera partnership are to try and proceed to court in the hope you back down or send a copper around to knock on your door, give you a caution and ask for a statement....... but of course you don't actually have to say anything.....
The basic line is it's worth a try as it may well get dropped after your response to the NIP..... if it isn't, well your'e no worse off than you were before.
I'd certainly have given it a try if I'd been aware of this one when I got mine..
