NIP for crossing train level crossing **FPN of £50 and no points**

[UKDomains]

Well I've decided that I'm going to refuse the caution today, and hope that either CPS decide not to go further, or I will have to get a lawyer if it goes to court.

[UKDomains]

I've been asked to come in for a formal interview tomorrow. The PC explained that this would help my case when they refer it to CPS as it would contain more info than what the original NIP would if they only sent that.

 

Any tips/suggestions?

[BazzaS]

I've been asked to come in for a formal interview tomorrow. The PC explained that this would help my case when they refer it to CPS as it would contain more info than what the original NIP would if they only sent that.

 

Any tips/suggestions?

 

"It would help your case"?. They sent the NIP, they offered a caution.

They have suggested the caution was to "help you get a speedy resolution", but it also could be because their case was weak.

Is it possible that they are looking to "trip you up" at interview to strengthen their case?. The PC is coming across as wanting to help you, but might not have your interests at heart. On the other hand, at interview, you can get to state what happened (if it strengthens your case).

 

The NIP they have sent includes S2 RTA 1988 : "dangerous driving". I think this is a 'non-starter' in the circumstances, but it does 'open a door' for you.

 

Ask them to provide a duty solicitor (free of charge) for the formal interview or advise on how you can get one free of charge, given the potential charge (S2) they have included on the NIP. If you can get a duty solicitor, but not tomorrow, agree to attend but only when you can be represented.

 

You might not have been entitled to a duty solicitor on the most minor charges, e.g. for the S36 charge, but they've included the S2 as a possibility, so make use of it

 

You didn't put the S2 on the NIP, they chose to do so, though they may now regret it, if it means you can get representation you might otherwise not have had. I hope the solicitor agrees the S2 wasn't a realistic prospect

 

The solicitor can also ask about the S28/29 (cyclists?)

 

I wouldn't go unrepresented : they know how the interview process works, you don't, they know how to trip you up, and shut you down when you are headed towards saying things that look like it would give you a defence. It may be that they are out to help you, but I have my reservations.

 

People usually ask for a duty solicitor when arrested, and you haven't been arrested, but my understanding is that you are still entitled to one free of charge, provided it is "an interview under caution".

 

Is it worth re-contacting some of the solicitors you have previously contacted, noting that you have now been asked to attend for a "formal interview". It would be worth finding out first from the police if by "formal interview" they mean "interview under caution", as this may affect the solicitor's answer.

[UKDomains]

They verbally confirmed they are dropping everything except S36. I have requested this in writing. Would a new NIP not have to be issued if they drop the charge about driving in front of train, and the other offences?

[Conniff]

They hate being shown to be wrong.

[BazzaS]

They verbally confirmed they are dropping everything except S36. I have requested this in writing. Would a new NIP not have to be issued if they drop the charge about driving in front of train, and the other offences?

 

They would only have to issue a new NIP for a new charge, not dropping other charges off the current NIP.

It is a "notice of intended prosecution" : it doesn't mean they then have to proceed with any / all.

 

As the S36 was on the original NIP, they wouldn't need to issue a new one.

However, as far as you are concerned: you have been issued an NIP including S2 and S3, and have been asked to attend for interview (under caution?).

I'd still go down the solicitor route, and may well still find you can get free representation - after all, you havent formally been informed that you no longer face the S2 charge....

 

Even if it isn't free : it might be worth the outlay given what is at stake for you.... your solicitor could be able to find out which sign they are they saying you breached?

the one under the warning triangle for "risk of grounding"?

the rectangular one at the crossing in red and white?

both?

 

you / your solicitor could then check if the relevant sign(s) met its statutory requirements, in order to be able to advise you fully.

[UKDomains]

Can anyone recall what the term is when there is a large cluster of road signs all in one place, possibly causing distraction and confusion?

 

I counted a total of 11 signs all within about 40 yards of the crossing

[UKDomains]

I plan on asking for solicitor for S2

[UKDomains]

Just a quick query: NIP states being charged under Road Traffic Act. Does it help that the sign I think they are referring to, only appears in office rail regulations?

[Bazooka Boo]

Could be a moot point certainly worth a go.

[BazzaS]

Just a quick query: NIP states being charged under Road Traffic Act. Does it help that the sign I think they are referring to, only appears in office rail regulations?

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#P84_4838

 

"Offences against traffic signs and police signals are dealt with in Sections 35, 36, 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The use of traffic signs is regulated by Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. See also the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (S.1.1194/1519)."

 

"The expression traffic sign' is defined in section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the colour, size and type of signs are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002."

 

This points to the relevant legislation, but I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge / expertise to advise on if the sign or signs are compliant.

[UKDomains]

I've just had my official interview under caution, tape recorded.

 

I am not being charged with anything that was originally stated in the NIP, but rather under section 55 Transport & works act: failing to comply with a sign (the red and white rectangular stop sign)

 

The PC who conducted the interview said to me afterwards if it goes to court I should bring it to magistrate's attention what implications it would have on my citizenship application.

[BazzaS]

I've just had my official interview under caution, tape recorded.

 

I am not being charged with anything that was originally stated in the NIP, but rather under section 55 Transport & works act: failing to comply with a sign (the red and white rectangular stop sign)

 

The PC who conducted the interview said to me afterwards if it goes to court I should bring it to magistrate's attention what implications it would have on my citizenship application.

 

I'm confused by the last paragraph : The PC may have been trying to help, but surely the matter of the implication on your citizenship speaks only to mitigation, not defence, UNLESS:

 

If found guilty, the magistrates could decide on a sentence that would have less impact on your citizenship?

 

Did you have / take advice of a solicitor?

[UKDomains]

Meant to say the PC was sympathetic and said if it goes to court it should be brought to magistrate's attention by solicitor about what implications a conviction would mean to me. UK border agency take a blanket view of ANY caution/conviction as automatic 3 year ban on applying.

 

Now what is confusing me is that according to my NIP, I'm being charged according to road traffic act, but I'm actually being charged under transport and works act. Can they change that without the NIP being changed?

 

The train driver's statement mentioned that he saw my car's bonnet (I drive a high SUV) waiting at the crossing and he applied emergency brake and stopped past the level crossing as he thought I was going to cross in front of him. He secured the train and walked back and wrote down my car reg as I was driving away from the level crossing.

 

In my statement I mentioned again all the signage in the area stated in Highway Code that it was applicable to large/slow moving vehicles and that the large red and white rectangular sign was not found in the Highway Code, but rather the office of rail regulations and that this ambiguity of the signage caused confusion and not allowing me to act accordingly.

[UKDomains]

The PC stated on the record that he believed on observing me on two occasions now, that I am level headed and that my statement reflects what the train driver stated and he believes that I did not ignore the signage on purpose and that the signage caused confusion

[Bazooka Boo]

So a bit of 50 50 then it seems?

 

If he applied the emergency brake, then I couldn't begin to imagine what he was thinking and hoping he wouldn't have to witness.

 

And the signs were confusing, you were left non the wiser by them, and used your discretion and driving experience to make a decision.

 

There has been no harm or loss to anyone, what if you agreed to apologise to the driver in a letter, and a bottle of wine by way of an apology, with the BTP's and train drivers agreement?

 

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

If this is just going to be another profit making exercise by the BTP, regarding the financial cost of the ticket, then it will do absolutely nothing.

 

It won't make who ever is in charge of the signage rectify it, and it certainly won't stop the incident from occurring again, and this time with possible fatal consequences.

[BazzaS]

I've just had my official interview under caution, tape recorded.

 

I am not being charged with anything that was originally stated in the NIP, but rather under section 55 Transport & works act: failing to comply with a sign (the red and white rectangular stop sign)

 

The PC who conducted the interview said to me afterwards if it goes to court I should bring it to magistrate's attention what implications it would have on my citizenship application.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/42/section/55

 

55 Offence of failing to comply with sign.

 

(1) A person who fails to comply with any requirement, restriction or prohibition conveyed by a crossing sign lawfully placed on or near a private road or path near a place where it crosses a railway or tramway shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, a crossing sign on or near a private road or path near a place where it crosses a railway or tramway shall be taken to have been lawfully placed there unless the contrary is proved.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

Is the road where the alleged offence occurred a private road? Or a highway maintained at public expense?

 

It reads to me that the alleged S55 offence can only have occurred if it were a private road, else the Act would not have included the word "private".

 

They might try to claim that at all level crossings the road becomes 'private ' : any thoughts on what makes a road private, and if a road must become "private" at a level crossing?

 

If you can argue that it isn't a private road then you could argue that S36 RTA 1998 would have to apply instead for failure to comply with a sign, and there the sign must then comply with the appropriate requirements for prosecution to succeed.

Indeed, you originally received a NIP mentioning S36, so they believed it to be a public road?

 

Was a solicitor present? What (if anything) has one advised?

[Conniff]

I believe a road is classed as private if it is unadopted ie not maintained at public expense.

[BazzaS]

I believe a road is classed as private if it is unadopted ie not maintained at public expense.

 

What if most of the road is public?

Does a road become private at a level crossing, automatically?

[UKDomains]

According to this website, it is classed as a Public highway

 

http://www.abcrailwayguide.co.uk/heath-farm-level-crossing-3298

[BazzaS]

According to this website, it is classed as a Public highway

 

http://www.abcrailwayguide.co.uk/heath-farm-level-crossing-3298

 

Was a solicitor present at your interview?

Have you asked them the implication of it being a public highway?

Have you yet spoken to a solicitor?

 

I know you are keen to save money, but at what point are you likely to feel : spending money on a solicitor now will save me money / trouble later?

[UKDomains]

I have spoken to a solicitor who gave me a free 20 consultation. We hadn't discussed the implication of it being public highway, as we did not know I was being charged under transport & works act until I asked on record what am I being charged with.

 

There was not much point in having a lawyer present at the interview,the police were looking for either a caution or sending it on to CPS. I would benefit more having one at court, which is why I'm trying to gather as much info as possible to give to lawyer if it goes to court.

[Horsen]

From reading the thread and using google earth to see the crossing I have a couple of questions.

Is this crossing used only to reach the farm?

If so then where does the farms property start in relation to the crossing?

I ask because if you are a regular user of this crossing then the authorities might decide that you should be aware of the regs and signage covering this type of crossing.

[Aretnap]

Whether you were aware, or should have been aware, of the restriction *should* not matter. As it's a strict liability offence the only question is whether the signs were adequate. See this case (speeding, but the principle should be the same)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3263.html

[UKDomains]

The road is not only used to reach the farm, in fact don't think it's still a working farm, couple of businesses and houses along the road. First time I used the road. Road leads to another A road. You leave an A road, cross the crossing, drive past farm buildings and businesses and houses and reach another A road at the end of the road (Heath road)