It is an offence under section 41D(b) RTA 1988 to contravene Regulation 110. The penalty imposed will depend upon the type of vehicle driven. Key Definitions “Hand-held”

Disqualifications which have arisen from the accumulation of penalty points – 'totting up' – are not subject to the arrangements. Offences Police forces do not physically manage the removals themselves. Forces instead rely on contracted recovery operators. Finally, it is very important to note that a late Notice of Intended Prosecution in no way removes the legal obligation upon a person to identify the driver of a vehicle when required to do so under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If a driver fails to respond to such a requirement then he can still be charged with a contravention of Section 172 which carries a punishment of 6 penalty points. What if the warning is issued late? A written Notice of Intended Prosecution will usually be issued in one of two circumstances. The first, and most usual, is where a motorist has been captured by a speed camera. In these circumstances a written Notice, issued by Police Scotland, will be sent to the registered keeper outlining the circumstances of the alleged offence. Within the same letter will be a requirement to identify the driver. The second is where the police have receive a report from a member of the public of a relevant offence or the police have witnessed an incident but not warned the driver at the time. In such cases a written warning must, subject to certain exceptions, be issued within 14 days. In the UK, if we recognise a disqualification incurred in Ireland, the disqualification cannot take effect in the UK until a notice under section 57 CICA 2003 has been served by DVLA/DVA on the driver. The notice must state when the disqualification starts and ends in the UK. In practice we are deeming as having been served any period of time from the date the disqualification starts in Ireland to the time it takes effect in the UK. Corresponding ‘re-test’ conditions

Incurring 12 or more penalty points means a minimum period of disqualification must be imposed (a ‘totting up disqualification’) – s.35 Road Traffic Offenders Act (RTOA) 1988. Points are not to be taken into account for offences committed more than three years before the commission of the current offence – s.29 RTOA 1988. If an Irish court imposes a disqualification with a 're-test' condition before the disqualification period is lifted, the UK will also require the driver to re-sit their driving test. If an Irish court imposes any other conditions the UK will only be able to impose the disqualification, and not any conditions. Questions and Answers note part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Expert Evidence) and secure expert evidence where the defence expert’s statement is incorrect, inconclusive or misleading.

A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), also known as a Section 1 warning, is a warning issued under Section 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988. The NIP is simply what the name suggests. It is a warning that a driver may be prosecuted for a certain offence/offences and may be in oral or written form. Written warnings received by drivers caught speeding by speed cameras often cause a high degree of alarm. This is because the letter usually also warns the driver that they may be prosecuted for dangerous driving or careless driving. In the vast majority of cases, such a prosecution will not happen. The letter is simply a base-covering style letter sent out irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged offence. To which offences does it apply?imposed within the three years immediately preceding the date on which the current offence (or most recent of the current offences) was committed. b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or There has, however, been extensive case law on the subject and the main point that emerges is what is known as the reasonable man test as per the following cases: Other vehicles which are not currently lawful for use on public roads unless registered and insured include self-balancing scooters (e.g. Segways), mini-Segways, Hoverboards, and single-wheel electric skateboards. Charge considerations Causing danger to other road users – section 22A RTA 1988 Since 2003, it has been a specific offence under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (“the Regulations”) to use a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held device while driving or while supervising a learner driver. The offence originally applied only where the mobile phone/device was being used for an interactive purpose. This was clarified by the High Court in the case of DPP v Baretto [2019] EWHC 2044 (Admin).

This guidance has been produced to assist Prosecutors in cases involving the use whilst driving, of a hand-held mobile phone or other device, which is capable of performing an interactive function by transmitting and receiving data, whether or not those capabilities are enabled. Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ['RTOA 1988'] provides that a defendant cannot be convicted of certain road traffic offences set out in schedule 1 RTOA 1988 unless they have been warned that the question of prosecution would be considered. Such a warning is normally known as a "notice of intended prosecution", or NIP. The time limits are the same irrespective of the offence. The same time limit applies for Dangerous Driving in Scotland as for Speeding in Scotland or Careless Driving in Scotland. CPS staff, agents or court staff should not ordinarily inspect or verify driving documents. The duty to determine whether any documents produced are valid does not pass to any other agency where a motorist fails to produce the required documents, therefore local arrangements should be agreed for the most effective method for the documents' validation by the police before the court proceeds. If necessary, the case should be adjourned for validation to be carried out by the police. It is a matter for police investigation. Under section 6(3) RTOA 1988 a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor, stating the date on which the necessary evidence came to their knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact. Such a certificate is deemed under section 6(4) RTOA 1988 to have been so signed unless the contrary is proved. Failure to specify the date will lead to proceedings being terminated: David Burwell v DPP [2009] EWHC 1069 (Admin).The police have the power to remove vehicles illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked, broken down or abandoned, including after theft or road traffic collision. The cost of recovering, storing and disposing of such vehicles should not fall to the police and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 included provision for the police to be able to recover their costs by charging a fee payable by the registered keeper of the vehicle. Various subsequent amendments to the 1984 Act have led to a loss of clarity in the charging arrangements and the Act now further amends the 1984 Act to make the position clear. The benefit of being able to hand out a fixed penalty notice instead of a conditional offer of fixed penalty notice is that if a person ignores it, the penalty becomes a registered fine and no court time is required. 4.10 Who will benefit from the change? The police in Scotland can, currently, hand out on the spot penalties to road traffic offenders. They do so by issuing a conditional offer of fixed penalty notice. The recipient of a conditional offer of fixed penalty notice has the option of either paying it or disputing it in court. If a person simply ignores a conditional offer of fixed penalty notice, the next step is to prosecute the recipient in court.

An oral warning can only be issued at the time of the offence. 'Time of the offence' is not defined by statute and whilst a degree of latitude will be allowed, the law makes it clear that such warnings must be issued soon after the alleged offence has been committed e.g. 24 hours after the offence would be too late. A section 1 warning takes two main forms – oral or written. This is usually determined by whether you have been stopped by the police or not. Oral Warning

Procedure

A Notice of Intended Prosecution is a warning issued to persons suspected of certain road traffic offences. It is also know as a “section 1 warning”. This stems from the fact that a Notice of Intended Prosecution is sent under section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This Guide covers what a Notice of Intended Prosecution is, to which offences it applies, what form it has to take and the required timeframes. Some detailed information in respect of certain offences is contained in our “learn more” boxes below. Finally we deal with some frequently asked questions. Is the date of conviction or the date of the offence used to determine if the driver falls within the arrangements? Where an individual attends a court hearing and a court disqualifies him or her, the court can require the individual to surrender their driving licence. Where an individual does not surrender their licence to the court, the court can pass the matter to the DVLA who will take steps to retrieve the licence. Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others. Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 11);