Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Sandy217 on June 09, 2024, 05:32:21 pm
-
Yes, I am a ‘she’. Didn’t want to come across as rude and correct others
Thanks for the valuable response both.
I’m also definitely going to be making a complaint to the IOPC.
-
Phishy still.
Sandy - am I the only one to think you may not be the 'he' they are all referring to?
I think you think this will be made to 'go away' without it being referred to the Court. At this stage it's quite clear that it will be and therefore I'd be requesting a hearing rather than a SJP procedure.
-
...I think the Police (Prosecution Manager who I’m conversing with) is not happy I’ve tried to evade the 3 points.
From what you say, they had the opportunity to impose the three points when you responded to the first COFP. They seemingly blew it and that's scarcely your fault. You are also not to blame for them seeing fit to issue a second COFP when they should have found some other way to rectify the situation. So I shouldn't fret too much about his unhappiness.
-
Hello both,
Thanks for the response. Extremely kind of you both to respond. This is my argument also. If I’m honest, I think the Police (Prosecution Manager who I’m conversing with) is not happy I’ve tried to evade the 3 points.
Does question your faith in the Police…
Sincere thanks again.
-
Police's stance - 1st COFP was never cancelled (I was apparently informed in error by the fixed penalty office it was) and are not budging from this :(
The first COFP and whether or not the police believe it has been cancelled is irrelevant.
It is the second one which prevents them taking court proceedings until its expiry. You were given a COFP dated 10th June. This means no proceedings can be taken until 8th July. The police issued a written charge on 27th June which, to my (admittedly simple) mind makes those proceedings unlawful.
It's no use the police saying "But this isn't really a COFP". It is. If they wanted to allow you to comply with the first one they should have found some other mechanism for you to do so which did not involve issuing a COFP.
-
There is no concept of "cancelling" a COFP in law. Whether they consider it cancelled, not cancelled or a small semi detached house on the outskirts of Basingstoke, is immaterial beyond illustrating their lack of competence and/or communication.
-
Police's stance - 1st COFP was never cancelled (I was apparently informed in error by the fixed penalty office it was) and are not budging from this :(
-
I see, my understanding was recording conversations, was permitted for personal use only. I guess I could have obtained permission from the court to release the recordings, I should have recorded the conversations in hindsight.
Thanks.
You’re thinking GDPR and lawful processing. There is authority (not least from the EAT) that “covert” recordings are admissible in evidence, subject to the court’s power to exclude evidence.
-
@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:
"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).
I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."
But then on 11 June you post an update:
"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…
I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.
Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."
Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?
If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?
Yes, the police contradicted what they said.
There is an internal email to the prosecutions manager heading 'complaint case - urgent' which was forwarded to me, in error. The contents of the email discuss me paying £100.00 payment.
No, not by email. I wanted to record the conversation, but thought it was wise not to do so, without their knowledge...
I don't think you've mentioned that before? Does that internal email show that they actually did receive your details in time and that they cocked it all up?
Do they know you have it? They might want to drop the prosecution out of embarrassment... :)
Thanks - it simply states urgent complaint case and queries making payment. it was from Met Police, to the Fixed Penalty Team.
I'm not regulated by the SRA but I thought it was perfectly legal to record any conversation that you were a party to. And that you didn't need to inform the other party.
What is illegal is recording (or "bugging") a conversation you aren't a party to...
-
I see, my understanding was recording conversations, was permitted for personal use only. I guess I could have obtained permission from the court to release the recordings, I should have recorded the conversations in hindsight.
Thanks.
-
I'm not regulated by the SRA but I thought it was perfectly legal to record any conversation that you were a party to. And that you didn't need to inform the other party.
What is illegal is recording (or "bugging") a conversation you aren't a party to...
What is illegal is intercepting a communication (e.g. phone tapping). Recording a conversation otherwise isn’t a crime (but could amount to e.g. a breach of confidence depending on the circumstances).
-
@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:
"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).
I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."
But then on 11 June you post an update:
"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…
I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.
Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."
Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?
If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?
Yes, the police contradicted what they said.
There is an internal email to the prosecutions manager heading 'complaint case - urgent' which was forwarded to me, in error. The contents of the email discuss me paying £100.00 payment.
No, not by email. I wanted to record the conversation, but thought it was wise not to do so, without their knowledge...
I don't think you've mentioned that before? Does that internal email show that they actually did receive your details in time and that they cocked it all up?
Do they know you have it? They might want to drop the prosecution out of embarrassment... :)
I'm not regulated by the SRA but I thought it was perfectly legal to record any conversation that you were a party to. And that you didn't need to inform the other party.
What is illegal is recording (or "bugging") a conversation you aren't a party to...
-
The law likes to sort issues into pigeon holes, often with the use of a large sledgehammer to overcome the natural resistance to the particular hole.
I have been in the audience when the High Court hearing a JR against refusal to state a case reconvened itself as a Divisional Court (without flinching) to determine the substantive issue.
Either way, the prosecution is (on the face of it at least) unlawful, but the court would need to satisfy itself of the fact before deciding that it cannot continue to try the information. I have it in mind that technically it is an abuse of process - which used to require an application for stay to be lodged at least 14 days before the trial date, but no longer does, but the bottom line is that the issue needs to be communicated to the court and the other party in good time, and the court needs to determine whether it would be lawful to continue the proceedings.
T
Thank you very much - I'll respond to the SJPN by the weekend
-
Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
That's exactly what I believe. I can only think that, since he first COFP was apparently cancelled, there was no mechanism for them the OP to pay the £100 penalty other than issuing a second offer.
I'm not at all clear what the OP has done in response to that offer. If he has paid the penalty and submitted his licence he can suggest to the court that the matter should not be heard because s76(2) of the RTOA says so. If he has not paid the penalty and/or submitted his licence the proceedings should not have been brought until 28 days after the offer was made (Section 76(4)). In either event a SJPN should not have been raised and in the case of the latter, when the 28 days had elapsed it was too late to take proceedings anyway.
The police seem to believe they can issue a COFP for administrative expediency and not be bound by the legislation which governs its issue.
Thank you for your response. Yes, it is the latter.
-
@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:
"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).
I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."
But then on 11 June you post an update:
"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…
I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.
Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."
Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?
If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?
Yes, the police contradicted what they said.
There is an internal email to the prosecutions manager heading 'complaint case - urgent' which was forwarded to me, in error. The contents of the email discuss me paying £100.00 payment.
No, not by email. I wanted to record the conversation, but thought it was wise not to do so, without their knowledge...
-
I would be 'defending it' on the basis that 1/ They messed up with the first CoFP by not accepting it and have now started proceedings during the suspended enforcement period.
This is not strictly a defence (to the legal definition) but arguing that the magistrates court has no jurisdiction to try your case because of this, however pragmatically you submit a not guilty plea and in your reasons state that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case because the Police started the proceedings during the suspended enforcement period. The court will then hold a 'hearing' which will look and feel like a trail but is purely to decide whether it can hear the case or not, if it decides it can you could then change your plea.
In the reasons box I am just suggesting using the second police failing but when you have to put your case at the hearing you should raise both failings.
You WILL need to understand this or you will struggle to put your case across as well as you can do, although the legal advisor should be neutral and assist you with explaining the technicalities to the bench some advisors are less neutral than others.
Yes, I understand this, thank you for the response
-
What have you done in response o this latest Conditional Offer? Have you paid the £100 penalty and submitted your driving licence details?
I paid the £100.... but I did not submit the driving licence details (as I did not think they would issue proceedings during the 28 day period.. / within 6 months of the offence as I was informed the 1st COFP was cancelled)
-
The law likes to sort issues into pigeon holes, often with the use of a large sledgehammer to overcome the natural resistance to the particular hole.
I have been in the audience when the High Court hearing a JR against refusal to state a case reconvened itself as a Divisional Court (without flinching) to determine the substantive issue.
Either way, the prosecution is (on the face of it at least) unlawful, but the court would need to satisfy itself of the fact before deciding that it cannot continue to try the information. I have it in mind that technically it is an abuse of process - which used to require an application for stay to be lodged at least 14 days before the trial date, but no longer does, but the bottom line is that the issue needs to be communicated to the court and the other party in good time, and the court needs to determine whether it would be lawful to continue the proceedings.
-
Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
That's exactly what I believe. I can only think that, since he first COFP was apparently cancelled, there was no mechanism for them the OP to pay the £100 penalty other than issuing a second offer.
I'm not at all clear what the OP has done in response to that offer. If he has paid the penalty and submitted his licence he can suggest to the court that the matter should not be heard because s76(2) of the RTOA says so. If he has not paid the penalty and/or submitted his licence the proceedings should not have been brought until 28 days after the offer was made (Section 76(4)). In either event a SJPN should not have been raised and in the case of the latter, when the 28 days had elapsed it was too late to take proceedings anyway.
The police seem to believe they can issue a COFP for administrative expediency and not be bound by the legislation which governs its issue.
-
I would be 'defending it' on the basis that 1/ They messed up with the first CoFP by not accepting it and have now started proceedings during the suspended enforcement period.
This is not strictly a defence (to the legal definition) but arguing that the magistrates court has no jurisdiction to try your case because of this, however pragmatically you submit a not guilty plea and in your reasons state that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case because the Police started the proceedings during the suspended enforcement period. The court will then hold a 'hearing' which will look and feel like a trail but is purely to decide whether it can hear the case or not, if it decides it can you could then change your plea.
In the reasons box I am just suggesting using the second police failing but when you have to put your case at the hearing you should raise both failings.
You WILL need to understand this or you will struggle to put your case across as well as you can do, although the legal advisor should be neutral and assist you with explaining the technicalities to the bench some advisors are less neutral than others.
Is that correct, that it goes to the jurisdiction of the court to try the offence? That would normally be the case where the prosecution was commenced outside of a relevant time limit, e.g. s 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
Rather, I think that here the argument is that the prosecution could not lawfully be commenced because of the restriction in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - an issue the court has jurisdiction to try.
-
@Sandy217 - in your OP you said that:
"...I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).
I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course..."
But then on 11 June you post an update:
"... Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…
I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.
Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded..."
Are you saying that the police contradicted what they had previously told you and that in fact they admitted that they had received your details in time re the first COFP?
If so I don't understand why they couldn't just have said pay us the £100 again that we mistakenly refunded to you. Issuing a second COFP seems daft and a recipe for confusion.
Have you any record of this exchange with the police? Was it by email? Did you record a converstaion?
-
I would be 'defending it' on the basis that 1/ They messed up with the first CoFP by not accepting it and have now started proceedings during the suspended enforcement period.
This is not strictly a defence (to the legal definition) but arguing that the magistrates court has no jurisdiction to try your case because of this, however pragmatically you submit a not guilty plea and in your reasons state that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case because the Police started the proceedings during the suspended enforcement period. The court will then hold a 'hearing' which will look and feel like a trail but is purely to decide whether it can hear the case or not, if it decides it can you could then change your plea.
In the reasons box I am just suggesting using the second police failing but when you have to put your case at the hearing you should raise both failings.
You WILL need to understand this or you will struggle to put your case across as well as you can do, although the legal advisor should be neutral and assist you with explaining the technicalities to the bench some advisors are less neutral than others.
-
What have you done in response o this latest Conditional Offer? Have you paid the £100 penalty and submitted your driving licence details?
-
Police informed me today (amongst giving me reasons as to why I have received a SJPN) - they will send a request to the court requesting the original fine (which I already paid using the reference for the 2nd COFP) and points on my licence.
What reasons did they give for issuing a SJPN? As far as I can see the only reason to do so is because they realised your offence "times out" on 1st July.
If you have a COFP dated 10h June you had until yesterday to accept it. I believe it was unlawful for the police to issue a written charge on 27th June.
It strikes me that the police have made a ****-up here. They cancelled the original COFP and that should have simply resulted in an SJPN being issued. It seems the only way they could allow you to pay a FP (and it's unclear why they should want to give you that opportunity) was to issue a second COFP. You are now stuck with a SJPN which you have to get resolved one way or another. It's very kind of the police o contact the court on your behalf. But you must still deal with the SJPN.
Can I ask how you would deal with the SJPN if it was you?
thank you
-
It was issued because I did not provide my licence details within 7 days (as opposed to 28 days as per the second COFP) I was never informed it was 7 days!
"You were given 7 days to complete this due to the statutory time limit approaching..."
I believe they allowed me the opportunity to pay because I did submit my licence details on time (1st COFP)- they just failed to process it.
They should be cancelling the Notice not informing the Court to provide me with points!
Yes, I plan to respond with my chronology and quote the legislation provided to me earlier re: proceedings not being initiated against me during the 28 days period to both the Met Police and the Court.
If I still do not receive a favourable outcome i..e SJPN revoked, I will then respond to the SJPN and I think submit a not guilty plea (with my chronology attached).
Thanks so much for taking the time to read my posts and respond.
-
Police informed me today (amongst giving me reasons as to why I have received a SJPN) - they will send a request to the court requesting the original fine (which I already paid using the reference for the 2nd COFP) and points on my licence.
What reasons did they give for issuing a SJPN? As far as I can see the only reason to do so is because they realised your offence "times out" on 1st July.
If you have a COFP dated 10h June you had until yesterday to accept it. I believe it was unlawful for the police to issue a written charge on 27th June.
It strikes me that the police have made a ****-up here. They cancelled the original COFP and that should have simply resulted in an SJPN being issued. It seems the only way they could allow you to pay a FP (and it's unclear why they should want to give you that opportunity) was to issue a second COFP. You are now stuck with a SJPN which you have to get resolved one way or another. It's very kind of the police o contact the court on your behalf. But you must still deal with the SJPN.
-
I have not long arrived home from work - extremely long day.
The second COPF is the same as the 1st COFP (though the date on the letter is different).
I am just starting on a chronology of events.
Police informed me today (amongst giving me reasons as to why I have received a SJPN) - they will send a request to the court requesting the original fine (which I already paid using the reference for the 2nd COFP) and points on my licence.
-
Thank you, I will have a look at this, once home this evening.
-
For the sake of sanity, check your COFP against the stipulations in section 75 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (and have a read of Part III in general).
Here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/75
Please use the Modify button to edit a post so you don't needlessly repeat post.
-
For the sake of completeness, the suspended enforcement period for a COFP is 28 days (or such longer period as may be specified on the notice) from date of issue.
There appears to be a question mark over whether or not proceedings were statute barred in relation to compliance with the first COFP (if you provided the required identification details to the relevant person). The fact that a second COFP was issued too late to lawfully instigate proceedings suggests that they dropped the ball as regards the first COFP and know that they dropped the ball. Whether you can prove this is another matter, but essentially irrelevant.
There is no such thing in law as an administratively issued COFP. A COFP issued for the purposes of enabling points to be endorsed on your licence is a COFP.
For the sake of sanity, check your COFP against the stipulations in section 75 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (and have a read of Part III in general).
-
Charge date - 27 June 24
Date of offence - 1 Jan 24
Second COFP dated 10 June 24 (made payment of £100, not sent licence details)
Emails from Regional Fixed Penalty Office for the South and London | HMCTS - advising COFP (original) was cancelled. They emailed Met last police last week asking for clarification in light of SJPN. Also informed me I have until 17th (?) to accept second COFP.
I await a response.
I’m shattered & up at 6am, please excuse me for not sending full chronology etc any typos etc.
Thanks again all for your valuable assistance.
-
@ManxTom it doesn’t seem to be clear as the police’s actions / information provided by them have been contradictory and I’ve received contradictory information throughout by them.
The summary above is correct.
Thanks for your reply.
-
This is exactly what has happened.
Thank you for your time and kind assistance.
-
Finally the OP receives a SJPN and an explanation that the second COFP had no significance other than that it had been sent for administrative reasons to allow him to pay the COFP out of time
If what was sent was a CoFP, then it's not just 'for administrative reasons' it IS a CoFP and has a suspended enforcement period associated with it, that is significant.
-
Very little of this thread makes any sense at all.
First of all the OP sent off their reply naming the driver the day before the 28 days expired...
Then they got a reply from HMCTS confirming that they'd named the driver out of time and would be receiving a SJPN...
The OP then mentions something about the police having made an error and giving him an extension to the deadline over the phone...
Then the OP tells us that he's contacted the police and they appear to have told him that they had received his details in time after all and that they would issue a second COFP that would reset the whole process...
The OP resceives a second COFP...
Finally the OP receives a SJPN and an explanation that the second COFP had no significance other than that it had been sent for administrative reasons to allow him to pay the COFP out of time - which he hasn't done(?).
I wonder if the OP has completely misunderstood or otherwise misinterpreted the conversation they had with the police when they were told that a second CFP would be issued? I'd have to say that for a solicitor the OP is not very good at clearly recounting detail.
-
Sorry I meant the CoFP (doh).
Was the SJPN/written charge written after the CoFP?
Ah right.
I think the issue really is, as Andy suggests, do the police think this latest COFP means they can still go ahead and issue proceedings whilst it remains "live".
I’ve read back through this post to remind myself exactly what has happened.
It seems the OP was issued with a COFP, accepted it by paying he penalty and submitting his DL details, but the details either didn’t arrive or were not acted upon. Meanwhile the police returned his £100 and told him he would be prosecuted.
Since then he has received a second COFP and the 28 days he has to respond to that do not elapse until about 6months and two weeks after the offence. Just for good measure, the police have now raised a SJPN, two days before the six month deadline.
I cannot understand why the police have done this. It may be for “administrative reasons” but the fact remains that he has a COFP and whilst its “suspended enforcement period” had not elapsed, they raised an SJPN. It seems they have taken court proceedings speculatively and my understanding they are not permitted to do that. Section 79 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act:
78 General restriction on proceedings.
(1)Proceedings shall not be brought against any person for the offence to which a fixed penalty notice relates until the end of the suspended enforcement period.
(2)Proceedings shall not be brought against any person for the offence to which a fixed penalty notice relates if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this Part of this Act before the end of the suspended enforcement period.
However, I note the OP says this:
if there’s a slight risk of being in front of a magistrates, I’d rather not take it.
There is now a live SJPN which must be responded to so effectively he is already "in front of a magistrate". I think his decision is whether he wants to plead not guilty in response to that SJPN on the basis of RTOA s79(1) or pay the penalty and take advantage of s79(2).
-
Does this pre-date or post-date the written charge attached to the SJPN?
The two are supposed to be issued "at the same time".
Sorry I meant the CoFP (doh).
Was the SJPN/written charge written after the CoFP?
-
The police appear to be saying that the second COFP doesn't count as they had their fingers crossed behind their back when they issued it.
-
Does this pre-date or post-date the written charge attached to the SJPN?
The two are supposed to be issued "at the same time".
I think the more important issue is the status of the Conditional Offer and that of raising court proceedings. The law says that no proceedings can be taken until the end of the suspended enforcement period. He has an offer which has not yet expired and for which court proceedings have been taken. It's not clear to me what this means:
Police have stated the second COFP was sent to me for administrative reasons - to allow me to make payment for the Fixed penalty...
-
The SJPN was dated about 5 months and 28 days post the date of the offence.
Does this pre-date or post-date the written charge attached to the SJPN?
-
Update - it was the Met Police.
And I have received the SJPN, dated before the expiry of the 28 days of the second COFP.
Police have stated the second COFP was sent to me for administrative reasons - to allow me to make payment for the Fixed penalty and I should have given my licence details weeks ago to them, as requested via email.
The SJPN was dated about 5 months and 28 days post the date of the offence.
The court responded to an email I sent last week & advised me to the original COFP was cancelled but have now informed me, they have contacted the MET police (as they don’t want to give me incorrect information)…
Not sure how to proceed now as i know need to submit my plea.
-
This all seems very phishy? What force is involved?
-
There is nothing to stop the police offering you a fixed penalty (and nothing to stop you accepting it) beyond six months. But there is something to stop them taking court action beyond that time.
-
Thank you, that’s my concern :(
-
then contact the police for confirmation the matter is closed with no further action.
Any you expect a truthful answer?
If they made a hash processing it the honest thing for them to do was to close the case not issue another CoFP, so trusting them now in the face of that seems...well, naïve?
-
I’ve now received the second COFP providing the additional 28 days. And also an email for my driving licence details - front and back to be sent via email.
I think I’m going to wait until the 6 months expires and then contact the police for confirmation the matter is closed with no further action.
If they don’t confirm this I’ll still be within the 28 days and can accept the COFP (don’t want to risk them having commenced proceedings)
Thanks for all your help all :)
-
I'm more than a little surprised that the police would issue a second COFP after the OP had already missed the deadline for the first one.
Well if Sandy had actually fully complied with the first one he would have a defence in court anyway, you can't be prosecuted for the Police making a mistake processing it!
-
I agree, but they were at fault for not processing my driving licence details, despite receiving them on time, maybe that’s why?
Initially they wanted me to email the details across but from what I understand the details have to be in writing / ie not email / electronic form.
I haven’t received the second COFP today… although I was given a second / different reference so they must have raised a second COFP. I will wait and see if it arrives by Friday and if not, contact the Police
-
I'm more than a little surprised that the police would issue a second COFP after the OP had already missed the deadline for the first one.
Particularly if the second COFP will allow the original speeding offence to time out.
It makes no sense that they would issue a second COFP...
-
If what is genuinely a new CoFP arrives you would be free to ignore it as your offence would time out before they could action it it (during the suspended enforcement period), but I'd be quite surprised if they made that mistake. They could be sneaky and raise the charge and SJPN prior to sending the CoFP but that, IMO, is an abuse of process.
-
I’ve been advised this, yes. Although, I’ve not received anything in today’s post…
-
I then received the second conditional offer.
The second offer, expires 2 weeks after the 6 month period (in 4 weeks time) . The 6 month period expires in just over 2 weeks.
Yes, this is the second conditional offer (should receive in the post tomorrow apparently) under a difference reference number / second reference number.
So, you have received a second COFP, which you expect to receive tomorrow?
-
Yes, this is the second conditional offer (should receive in the post tomorrow apparently) under a difference reference number / second reference number.
Thank you both for your valuable comments 😊
I’ll make a decision re accepting the points over the next few days, if there’s a slight risk of being in front of a magistrates, I’d rather not take it.
quote author=NewJudge link=topic=2156.msg25620#msg25620 date=1718130639]
...I then received the second conditional offer.
Are you saying this is a second conditional offer for the same offence? Proceedings cannot be taken until the end of the suspended enforcement period. And they cannot take proceedings more than six months after the date of the offence.
[/quote]
-
No, criminal law was always my weakest area… Thank you for the information 😊
I’m concerned about the letter advising me of the initial commencement of proceedings and whether they can argue this in itself was sufficient
I assume you don’t practice in criminal law? Proceedings are commenced, in respect of a public prosecutor, by issuing a written charge, accompanied by either a requisition or a single justice procedure notice. These need to be sent forthwith.
-
No, criminal law was always my weakest area…
Thank you for the information 😊
-
...I then received the second conditional offer.
Are you saying this is a second conditional offer for the same offence? Proceedings cannot be taken until the end of the suspended enforcement period. And they cannot take proceedings more than six months after the date of the offence.
-
I’m concerned about the letter advising me of the initial commencement of proceedings and whether they can argue this in itself was sufficient
I assume you don’t practice in criminal law? Proceedings are commenced, in respect of a public prosecutor, by issuing a written charge, accompanied by either a requisition or a single justice procedure notice. These need to be sent forthwith.
-
The first conditional offer expired and I received a letter confirming : “… details were not received within the specified period and now the Met Police have commenced proceedings at the magistrates court. This can no longer be dealt with at the fixed penalty stage and you will receive a summons in due course…” I then received the second conditional offer.
The second offer, expires 2 weeks after the 6 month period (in 4 weeks time) . The 6 month period expires in just over 2 weeks.
I’m concerned about the letter advising me of the initial commencement of proceedings and whether they can argue this in itself was sufficient
-
I am very close to 6 month period
How close to the 6 month timeout? If the expiry date of the Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty is after the 6 month TIMEOUT then you could just ignore it as no, proceedings would not have commenced, that would have to be raising the written charge and attendant Single Justice Procedure Notice (not really a summons).
-
Update:
Contacted the police who confirmed receipt of driving licence details…
I will be receiving a new conditional offer which will allow me to return to the fixed penalty stage.
Will also make payment of £100 as previous amount was refunded.
I am very close to 6 month period - though not sure whether the previous letter received last week informing me proceedings were being issued as I failed to provide driving licence within specified period would be valid and classed as proceedings commencing. Any ideas?
Although, I’m telling myself I should just be pleased I will not to obtain a conviction and stop looking for loopholes!
-
Thanks, that was very kind of you
-
Have a read of this (https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/corporate-strategy/sra-enforcement-strategy/enforcement-practice/criminal-offences-outside-practice/). Whilst a conviction for speeding is (on a reach) a breach of Principle 1, the SRA is not investigating and referring thousands of solicitors to the SDT for speeding.
-
Thanks, is there a reason why you think the SRA won’t care?
Re promptly, I think I will self report upon receiving the SJPN
-
It’s the SRA - I work in law.
So do I, albeit I’m not regulated by the SRA. Para 7.6 of the Code for Individuals says:
You notify the SRA promptly if:
you are subject to any criminal charge, conviction or caution, subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
The SRA won’t care (unless you don’t report it, when they very much will). If you’re a solicitor you should know this.
-
Thanks, it’s also worrying as well as embarrassing having to disclose a criminal conviction to my employers.
I was hoping the police made an error with their dates and I could use this as a defence. (I received an extension over the phone to provide my defence and hoping that they overlooked this).
-
Is there any defence I could use? Do the magistrates have any discretion so that I can obtain a fixed penalty and not a criminal conviction?
They can sentence you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty but it remains a criminal conviction.
You may do well to enquire precisely what your regulators "frown on". You may find your fears are unfounded.
-
Is there any defence I could use? Do the magistrates have any discretion so that I can obtain a fixed penalty and not a criminal conviction?
They san sentence you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty but it remains a criminal conviction.
You may do well to enquire precisely what your regulators "frown on". You may find your fears are unfounded.
-
It’s the SRA - I work in law.
-
Thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately, my regulators are very strict and a criminal offence will be frowned upon.
;(
Which regulator is it? None I’ve ever seen care about a speeding conviction.
-
Do the magistrates have any discretion so that I can obtain a fixed penalty and not a criminal conviction?
Being found guilty or pleading guilty results in a criminal conviction.
-
Is there any defence I could use? Do the magistrates have any discretion so that I can obtain a fixed penalty and not a criminal conviction?
-
Thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately, my regulators are very strict and a criminal offence will be frowned upon.
;(
-
It would be a conviction for a criminal offence but speeding is not a recordable offence, so it ought not to show up on a DBS. In any case, I’m aware of very few jobs that will brook no convictions whatsoever.
-
Hi, I obtained a conditional offer 3 points 100 fine for speeding. It was on the a20 sidcup and I considered appealing.
I choose not to appeal and accepted the 3 points and paid £100.
I returned the letter the next day. I believe it was within 28 days (possibly sent on 27th day as I was intending to appeal / obtaining evidence re signage not sufficient).
I received the form I completed with my licence details from hmcts to say it has been returned to me as it was not within the prescribed time and will receive a summons in due course.
I’m very stressed about this and worried as my job requires a clean DBS and no criminal convictions.
Am I correct receiving a conviction would result in a criminal conviction?
I really need some help.
Thank you for reading.