Offences of causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle should be regarded as being as serious as using a motor vehicle without insurance. 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?

Therefore a driver MUST receive either a verbal warning at the time of the alleged offence or receive a written notice of intended prosecution within 14 days. The warning at the time does not require a specific form of wording so long as the meaning is clear. It is settled, therefore, that being charged with dangerous driving at the time of the incident will also fulfil the purpose of a “section 1 warning”. In practice the police will usually do both – provide a verbal warning of intent to prosecute and caution and charge the driver. What will not suffice, however, is a verbal warning and/or charge delivered, for example, the next day. Such a subsequent warning must be delivered (a) within 14 days (which would be fulfilled in this example) and (b) must be in writing (which would not). So, for example, someone is seen by civilians driving in an allegedly dangerous manner. The civilians report the matter to the police who visit the accused 10 days later. In those circumstances a verbal warning will not suffice. Unless a written notice of intended prosecution is provided, the accused will have a legal defence to the charge. Moreover you can only be successfully prosecuted if you are warned for the correct offence. A warning for careless driving will not suffice in respect of a subsequent prosecution for dangerous driving in Scotland as the latter is a more serious charge than the former. 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.When the exception applies, proceedings must be brought within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings; but, in any event, proceedings must not be brought more than three years after the commission of the offence. A person charged with Dangerous Driving in Scotland cannto be convicted unless, subject to certain exceptions, they have received a timeous warning that such a prosecution may occur. This is made clear in section 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988 which provides: The Act amends road traffic legislation to remove the requirement for individuals to surrender their driving licence to accept a fixed penalty. Since the paper counterpart was abolished in June 2015, all records of road traffic offences and penalty points are now held electronically on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) driver record and the requirement to surrender a driving licence is now redundant. Regulation 110 does not define “hand-held” although 110(6)(a) states that a mobile phone or device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used. The correct interpretation of this is that it is a deeming provision which extends the meaning of “hand-held” (Baretto paragraph 42, which remains good law for these purposes.) “Device” Age prohibitions on driving are set out in section 101 RTA 1988. These are referred to as disqualification of persons under age. Driving whilst under age does not constitute an offence of driving whilst disqualified (by reason of age) under section 103 RTA 1988 by virtue of section 103(4) RTA 1988. A person who drives a vehicle on a road while disqualified by reason of age, commits an offence under section 87 RTA 1988, which prohibits a person driving a vehicle on a road otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to do so. Proof of Disqualification

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: The term 'specified proceedings' refers to a limited range of summary offences for which criminal proceedings may be instituted and conducted by the police. A special reason is one which is special to the facts of a particular offence. It is a mitigating or extenuating circumstance which is directly connected with the commission of the offence and which can properly be taken into consideration by the sentencing court. A circumstance peculiar to the offender, as distinguished from the offence, is not a special reason.If the Section 1 warning is issued late – or not issued at all – then this may be a defence against the charge. There are certain exceptions, the most common of which is that no warning is required is if there has been an accident. See the “learn more” section for more details. These rules apply irrespective of whether the alleged offence is Speeding in Scotland, Careless Driving in Scotland or Dangerous Driving in Scotland. We discuss the issue of the Section 1 warning relative to these three offences in more detail below. A statutory defence is provided by section 143(3) RTA in relation to a driver who unwittingly drives their employer's uninsured vehicle. 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? 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.

It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn. no action should be taken or departure from the standard procedure made where this might prejudice the future interest of any victim The second is where the police have received 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. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No 4) Regulations 2003 amended the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, by inserting Regulation 110 into the construction and use regulations. The Regulations were then further amended by the 2022 Regulations (see above) which effectively overturned the decision in Barreto. Removal operators deal with a range of different vehicles, provide a guaranteed speedy service, specialist equipment, storage and administration.The phone or device does not need to be seized before a prosecution can be brought but it will be necessary for there to be sufficient evidence that it was being used. Recent cases have established that the three methods of identification of a person as described above were not exhaustive but merely examples. The onus of establishing special reasons lies on the defence, and the standard is that of the balance of probabilities.

Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable; c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—When dealing with offences specifically relating to the use of forged documents contrary to section 173(1) RTA 1988 or section 44 VERA 1994, the document concerned must be one of those listed within the relevant section. If the document is not listed, an offence under section 3 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981(which is either way) may be considered. Regulation 110(1) and (2) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 prohibit a person from driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle on a road if the driver is using a held-hand mobile telephone or a hand-held device with an interactive communication function. Regulation 110(3) prohibits a person from using such a mobile telephone or device while supervising a holder of a provisional license (learner driver), whilst the learner is driving.