Notices of Intended Prosecution and Section 172 requirements (requirements to identify the driver of a vehicle) are entirely different things. However, in our experience, the terms are often mixed up and/or used interchangeably even by the courts and specialist lawyers. There are countless occasions that someone will say they have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (a “NIP”) when – in fact – they have received a requirement to identify the driver of a vehicle. I therefore thought it would be useful to clarify the (very important) differences between the two.
What are ‘Notices of Intended Prosecution’?
We explain this fully in a separate Guide. Briefly, Notices of Intended Prosecution are warnings that you may be prosecuted for an offence in respect of an incident which has occurred. The most typical example is being caught on a speed camera but they are relevant to a number of offences.
What are ‘Requirements to Identify the Driver’?
Requirements to identify the driver are issued under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is a legal requirement that can be made of any person to identify the driver of a vehicle who is alleged to have committed an offence. Again the most typical example is being caught on a speed camera. They can be made in writing or a police officer (acting under authorisation from the Chief Constable) can verbally require you to provide this information.
Why are they Mixed Up?
These are clearly different things so the obvious question is why they are mixed up so often. Why is that people who have received requirements to identify the driver say they have been given “NIPs”? I think the reason is that – in most cases – the two things are received at the same time in the same letter. The letter is almost always headed “Notice of Intended Prosecution” and will indeed contain such a warning. However, about halfway down the letter, there will also be a requirement to identify the driver of the vehicle alleged to have committed the offence. It is for this reason that I think the two very different things are conflated.
What are the Differences between ‘Notices of Intended Prosecution’ and ‘Requirements to Identify The Driver’?
Here are three of the most basic differences:
- Notices of Intended Prosecution, subject to certain exceptions, must be issued within 14 days of the alleged offence. There is no time limit on a requirement to identify a driver. In theory it could be made months or even years after the alleged offence and still be perfectly valid.
- You must respond to a requirement to identify the driver of a vehicle or you could be prosecuted. There is no requirement to respond to Notices of Intended Prosecution. However please remember that the two things are often contained in the same letter.
- They are used for different evidential reasons by the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution will most commonly rely upon a response to a requirement to identify the driver as evidence that the person in the dock is the person alleged to have committed the offence. The defence will most commonly rely upon the failure of the authorities to issue timeous Notices of Intended Prosecution to defend alleged offences such as dangerous driving.
The Main ‘mistake’
Perhaps the most important of these differences is the first one. This is because many people seem to believe that the “NIP” they have received is “invalid” because it has been received outwith 14 days. What – in most cases – has been received is both an actual NIP and also a requirement to identify the driver. This leads to a second mistaken assumption – because the “NIP” is invalid, there is no requirement to respond to it.
As we have tried to explain in this article, you never have to respond to Notices of Intended Prosecution but you always have to respond to a requirement to identify the driver (even if you do not know who the driver was). If you do not respond to the latter, you may be prosecuted for this failure.
Do not make this mistake. If you are in any doubt about what to do, contact us on the number below: