How Not To Fund Syndicate Criminal Organizations:
“Your Worship, this defendant has fraudulently tried to give false information belonging to a NIP farm..”, continues the prosecutor opening her case, “A what, what did you say?”, interrupts one of the Magistrates, “A NIP Farm, Your Worship”.
What on earth is a NIP Farm? If you have not come across this term before, it is a reference to scam organizations offering to take penalty points on your licence for you in exchange for money. Within the legal community, NIP stands for a notice of intended prosecution, which is a letter sent by the prosecutor prior to taking the charge of an offence to court. An NIP is usually an accused’s last opportunity to respond before the matter proceeds to court. In traffic court, an NIP is usually used for the offence of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which is:
The duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain circumstances.
This offence relates to incidents where an accident has taken place and the police are trying to locate the offender causing the accident to formally bring the charge to them. To do this, the police will write to the registered keeper of the car to the registered address asking them to provide information of the person who drove said car at the time of the accident. There is a duty upon the registered keeper of the vehicle to provide the police with accurate information, the failure of which can cost you 6 penalty points and a Band C fine (150% of your weekly income). The offence is failing to give driver’s identity as required, which corresponds to failing to respond to the letter of NIP. The police will usually send 2 more letters of NIP if no response if received before taking the matter to court, but it is the first one that counts to start counting the days from when no information was provided. The registered keeper has 28 days to respond to the letter, after which, if no response if received, the charge can proceed to court. Alternatively, if the letter is responded to but the information provided is found to be inaccurate or false, this will still count as the offence of failing to give information.
If the accused provides a name with an address that does not exist, or the right address with no one by the name given resides, the offence under section 172 is committed. When a name and address is bought from a NIP Farm to provide to the police, the name and/or address is likely to appear on police records as an address that has been used multiple times for traffic offences. Often times, the address is a location already known to the police for being involved with much more serious crimes, such as that of drugs or arms trafficking.
The only defence that exists in relation to this offence is if the registered keeper did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. A lot of the times defendants will come to court and say that they did respond to the letter. In this case, if the accused is able to provide evidence in court to prove that they did respond to the letter, then they will be acquitted of the offence. Even if the defendant is not able to show a receipt of the response to the letter, the evidence they give under oath in court may be enough if the Magistrates or Judge finds the evidence credible.
In one such case, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence admitting that he had failed to provide the information as required. After pleading guilty, he put forward what is known as special reasons. Special reasons refers to reasons given to the court which amount to special reasons as to why the court can decide not to give the defendant penalty points. While initially suspecting his tenants, this defendant went on explain how all the letters he had been receiving had been stored under his mother’s bed who had recently been diagnosed with dementia.
In the case of the defendant who used a NIP farm to provide false information, the defendant also pleaded guilty and went on to argue what is known as exceptional hardship. Exceptional hardship can be put forward so the courts can take into account hardship that may result if the licence is endorsed with points or if the defendant is disqualified. The hardship has to be exceptional and the court will usually take into account hardship that may be experienced by family or community members who may be impacted as a result of the defendant losing their licence as they rely on the defendant to drive them. This is because the court does not want to cause hardship to someone who was not responsible for the commission of the offence. In this case, the defendant explained how not being able to drive his severely autistic daughter would impact her wellbeing. So, even though this defendant was guilty of fraudulently providing false information from a NIP farm, he was not disqualified from driving as the court found exceptional hardship would be caused to his family.
In both special reasons and exceptional hardship applications, the reasons given in court cannot be used again for 3 years. This means, if either of the defendants is caught committing another endorsable traffic offence within the next 3 years, they will be disqualified on the next occasion.
Leave a comment