Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: MJ007 on September 16, 2024, 10:24:43 pm
-
Please let me know if this is the right approach
Cummulative, from two senior Solicitors
- the hearing on the 21st is because the court has decided your case is not suitable for the Single Justice Procedure (I’m not sure why they have done this).
On the 21st we have the option to plead guilty or not guilty (without attending - even though the summons says you should attend).
On the 21st the case will either be listed for trial or it will be adjourned for a case management hearing. We would deal with the case management hearing via letter.
Between the 22st and the trial date I would be working to persuade the prosecution to drop the case on public interest grounds.
If we haven’t managed to get them to drop the case by the trial date then we would attend the trial and argue that the offence is not made out.
——
This isn’t how these cases work. You have not yet entered a guilty plea because the court has not accepted your guilty plea.
The next hearing would be dealt with via letter confirming a not guilty plea (neither you nor I would attend)
-
Bcos a magistrate has rejected the guilty plea and my
mitigation statement as ‘ inappropriate to be tried under SJP’
As far as I can see, this is the first time you have mentioned the word "tried". Lots of legislation to do with court procedure uses that word to cover all proceedings, but most people understand it to mean proceedings involving a not guilty plea followed by a trial. Is that what you mean and if so, where did you get that idea from?
Easy for you guys to disagree and ridicule me as an alcoholic...
That was me and I apologise. It was not the best term to use. But you must understand that people here are trying to help you and it has been extremely difficult throughout this thread to get any firm and detailed information from you. It is very frustrating when a simple (but very pertinent) question is asked of you and no answer is forthcoming. When, instead, you start rambling on about conspiracies among the police and judiciary to "fit you up" for what is a minor motoring offence which could have been disposed of by way of a fixed penalty had you simply complied with its requirements, not only does it sound ridiculous but it is ridiculous.
"We start anew, facing a proper trial with a three member magistrate bench?"
No we don't. Proceedings against you have already commenced and one hearing, where you entered a guilty plea, has already been held. Furthermore, as above, you don't know whether you face a trial or simply a sentencing hearing.
At least it would answer the million dollar question on why? Why was it inappropriate to try this case under the SJP
We are obviously not going to provide an answer to that question here. But before you consider shelling out £3k to get a solicitor to say "bollox to them all" on your behalf, you might wait to find out why they want you in court. If indeed it is for a trial, that trial will not be heard on the day you attend. Between then and the trial date you can consider your position more rationally.
We are equally as intrigued as you to find out the answer, so would you let us know?
-
Thanks, Andy
-
Generally speaking, there will be something that the SJP can neither accept on face value or ignore. Something that the court will want to hear evidence on and weigh up that evidence, rather than something that can be decided on the papers.
Whether that is mitigation that would lessen the seriousness of the offence if the court accepts your evidence on the matter, or something that could amount to a defence if the court accepts your evidence on the matter, or something else.
Back in the old days when prosecutions were initiated with a summons, when you entered a plea in advance, that was taken to be an indication of you intention to plead - if you turned up on the day, you would be asked to plead/confirm your plea.
If you have been convicted and the case transferred for sentencing, then you would need to ask the court to re-open the case or allow you to vacate your plea if you want to plead not guilty. If your plea has been rejected, then effectively a not guilty plea would have been entered on your behalf.
We can't tell you any more. The court might be able to though.
N.B. There has been a lot of irrelevant noise in this thread. Any further posts bumping the thread or otherwise not adding to it for the purposes of providing advice to the OP are likely to either be removed or have the thread locked.
-
So could I change my plea? Yes or non
A senior Solicitor thinks I can.
A layman like me thinks, why not? Bcos a magistrate has rejected the guilty plea and my
mitigation statement as ‘ inappropriate to be tried under SJP’
So all bets are off? We start anew, facing a proper trial with a three member magistrate bench?
Either way, bull*cks to them all, a person like me
should never trust the establishment.Easy for you guys to disagree and ridicule me as an alcoholic or playing the victim card. I'm not offended in the least.
Will fork out 3 k and fight this in court
At least it would answer the million dollar question on why? Why was it inappropriate to try this case under the SJP
D
-
And what are they basing that on? I’ve already set out above how I read the various sections of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 pointing towards your plea having been entered and the rest of the matter adjourned, so I’d be interested to know why they think otherwise.
-
I have an option to plead not guilty and argue that the offence is not made out
Who has told you that?
A Solicitor
-
I have an option to plead not guilty and argue that the offence is not made out
Who has told you that?
-
...the mitigation letter was a long while ago. From memory it wasn't much,...
Not much help then.
--MJ So my mitigation letter wasn't something out of the blue? Still they didn't consider it
What about the letter they sent to you, asking you to attend court? What did that say
MJ- It says
Summmons on Referral to Court
A magistrate has decided that your case should be referred to a full court hearing.
Location and date/time given
REASON: Case inappropriate from the SJP
Attendance: arrive 30 before
Warning:
Cases : Charge initiated by the Chief Constable- Driving without due care and attention. Section 3 of RTA and Schedule 2 of RTOA 1988
The sentence for this offence can be endorsed on your driving record
Referral to Full Court Hearing
Your case was considered by the Court under the SJP. However, owing to the reasons given ( didn't find any F reason tbh) your case has now been referred to a hearing before a full magistrates'' court. For more information of the reason, see below
Advise and help
(overall no actual reason given why it's not suitable for the SJP. Just says
1) Case unsuitable for SJP
2) As unsuitable, now referred to a full Court hearing
Sounds like pure BS to me
---------------------------------
I'd suggest you've been at the bottle.
No Sir, stopped drinking since June 2022.
----------------------------------
My understanding is or take home point is, irrespective of the reason why and how,
I have now to face a full court hearing.
My previous guilty plea doesn't hold water, for the simple reason that the court itself has not accepted my guilty plea
When I do attend court, the case would either be listed for trial or it would be adjourned for a case management hearing
I have an option to plead not guilty and argue that the offence is not made out
D
-
Not to my knowledge. If you are suggesting somebody "had a little chat" with a magistrate, chosen at random from a large contingent, who presided over the Single Justice session where, coincidentally, your case happened to be heard, I'd suggest you've been at the bottle.
More like a perpetual victim.
-
...the mitigation letter was a long while ago. From memory it wasn't much,...
Not much help then.
What about the letter they sent to you, asking you to attend court? What did that say?
Don't know if this is relevant but around the same time, in a separate letter I wrote to the Police, asking for details of the case under the subject access route. Also compared this stop and eagerness, to my car being vandalised/broken on two occasions, where the police gave me a reference number and closed the case. So asked him if traffic offences are the Police ATM or cash cow.
No, it's not relevant.
Don't know if these guys had a 'little chat' and decided to teach me a lesson. They should know each other, meet at golf courses or pubs or in the courts, don't they??
Not to my knowledge. If you are suggesting somebody "had a little chat" with a magistrate, chosen at random from a large contingent, who presided over the Single Justice session where, coincidentally, your case happened to be heard, I'd suggest you've been at the bottle.
As all the Solicitors who I have sought the 'initial free advise' are amazed, that this ended up in court, despite a guilty plea
It ended up in court (the Single Justice Procedure being part of the court process) because you failed to comply with the conditions of the fixed penalty offer you were made. It is too late to fret over the impact a conviction may have on your employment. Whether it results from a Single Justice hearing or from a hearing in the normal magistrates' court, it is the same thing - a conviction.
I am amazed that they are amazed because, from the information you've provided here it is impossible to say why you have been asked to attend.
I don' think we will get any further with that question here and I reckon you will just have to pitch up and find out what they want. Don't drive there though in case you are disqualified and you can't drive home.
-
Groan , does careless driving conviction actually show up on an enhanced DBS check . There goes my weekend
A more pertinent question might be: "Will your employer care about a minor motoring conviction?"
Whenever I've had to have DBS checks, it's been to ensure I won't pose a risk to vulnerable people I may encounter during the course of my work, or to ensure I haven't been convicted of crimes involving breach of trust that would make me unsuitable to handle sensitive information or money, such as fraud convictions for example.
-
Groan , does careless driving conviction actually show up on an enhanced DBS check . There goes my weekend
According to gov.uk
"a standard check, which shows spent and unspent convictions and adult cautions, from the Police National Computer which have not been filtered in line with legislation
an enhanced check, which shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role"
So I guess it depends on the job for which you're being vetted.
-
The issue here is we do not know why you have been asked to attend court.
It could be for sentencing as they may be considering disqualification (the court will no disqualify you in your absence without first giving you an opportunity to attend). It could be because your guilty plea was not accepted because your mitigation indicated you were advancing a possible defence to the charge. It could be for something else. The reason you have been asked to court is important. We don't know what it is.
This is of concern:
In the SJp I pleaded that they be lenient with me and explained the driving conditions
I pleaded guilty to the SJP, precisely to avoid wasting time.
You should not plead guilty for the sake of expediency. If you believe you are not guilty (and you've given an indication within this thread that you believe you are) you should plead not guilty. So, one last time then I'm out: forget the rapists and murderers; what did you say (exactly, word for word) in your mitigation and how did the court respond (exactly, preferably post up their letter)?
If you consult a solicitor they will want to know these things so if you want advice on here the same applies.
Hi NJ
Thanks for the response, the mitigation letter was a long while ago. From memory it wasn't much, very polite pleaded with humility and gave the incident details and time line
Something like after driving for 12 years without any incidents was stopped on the motorway. Explained circumstances, was raining heavily, dark and midnight . I apologised and was given a fixed penalty notice.
Then gave the sequence of events, leading to it being referred to the SJP ( missed post and failed to include driving license details, despite paying the fine)
Explained my work as a agency temp and the only earning member of the family. Plus the job I do
Last para was that I plead guilty and and am willing to accept whatever punishment. Given that the fixed term penalty was missed because of unfortunate events, I would be grateful if the same conditions and fines were maintained. I shall leave that to your discretion and hope for the best.
-------
Don't know if this is relevant but around the same time, in a separate letter I wrote to the Police, asking for details of the case under the subject access route. Also compared this stop and eagerness, to my car being vandalised/broken on two occasions, where the police gave me a reference number and closed the case. So asked him if traffic offences are the Police ATM or cash cow.
Don't know if these guys had a 'little chat' and decided to teach me a lesson. They should know each other, meet at golf courses or pubs or in the courts, don't they??
As all the Solicitors who I have sought the 'initial free advise' are amazed, that this ended up in court, despite a guilty plea
Ps
Groan , does careless driving conviction actually show up on an enhanced DBS check . There goes my weekend
-
My primary concern is about a criminal record, my employer will certainly raise it, if it shows up on an enhanced DBS check.
If it doesn't show up do I still have to declare it?
I have never had a speeding conviction show up on an enhanced DBS check, nor on a BPSS. I also never declared them but some people I have worked with have, usually to be told it isn't a concern. It is a question of whether it's seen as 'withholding information'. Personally I asked first and got told not to bother unless it was an imprisonable offence.
Do you really mean speeding conviction? I can understand accepting a speed awareness course after an FPN does show up but not a conviction for speeding in the magistrates court. I know from personal experience that a conviction for driving without due care & attention does show up on an enhance DBS check
-
The issue here is we do not know why you have been asked to attend court.
It could be for sentencing as they may be considering disqualification (the court will no disqualify you in your absence without first giving you an opportunity to attend). It could be because your guilty plea was not accepted because your mitigation indicated you were advancing a possible defence to the charge. It could be for something else. The reason you have been asked to court is important. We don't know what it is.
This is of concern:
In the SJp I pleaded that they be lenient with me and explained the driving conditions
I pleaded guilty to the SJP, precisely to avoid wasting time.
You should not plead guilty for the sake of expediency. If you believe you are not guilty (and you've given an indication within this thread that you believe you are) you should plead not guilty. So, one last time then I'm out: forget the rapists and murderers; what did you say (exactly, word for word) in your mitigation and how did the court respond (exactly, preferably post up their letter)?
If you consult a solicitor they will want to know these things so if you want advice on here the same applies.
-
Sorry, been a long day, just got back home or to my room
My case
Basically drove back from a similar late night shift, it was winter, dark and raining. So remained in left lane only, averaging around 40--45 I think
Followed by cops who pulled me over and gave me an earful on how lorries were put in peril because of my low speed. Then got this fixed penalty or course option, paid up but forgot to send the license
The sent a reminder, again misplaced and then the SJP
In the SJp I pleaded that they be lenient with me and explained the driving conditions
Then got this court summons
Nothing exciting
D
-
Were you by chance doing 45 in lane 2 or lane 3 or along the hard shoulder?
I sometimes have to use lane 2 or 3 when I'm driving a bus that may be limited to 45 mph as a lot of town buses are, but I move back over to lane 1 as soon as possible to avoid delaying others. We still don't know what your circumstances were.
As you've already pleaded guilty, in my view you're too late to change your mind unless as others have said, you have special circumstances. Why do people get paranoid about getting a speeding or other traffic offence ticket? Most times the safe driving course or the £100 and 3 points is the cheapest and easiest option. Maybe you'd like to employ expert witnesses, they don't come cheap at about £2k a day.
-
Amongst a lot of semi-coherent noise, you have told us that you entered a guilty plea to the SJPN and included some unspecified mitigation. You have completely ignored NJ's very pertinent question as to what you put in your mitigation, and continued to make a lot of semi-coherent noise.
What did you put in your mitigation?
-
So basically I have been called to court to do exactly what ?
Plead guilty, as before
Same evidence ,as before? The traffic cell, who deal with cases deemed it was worth a course or 3 points/ 100 quid
What else do they want from me?
More dough? extract as much as possible?
yep, easy money to be made, while rapists and murderers walk free, as they are a loss making venture
Netflix Rebel Ridge comes to mind
How would I know? I’m not the one with all the paperwork, though I appreciate it might not contain a reason.
-
So far as I understand matters, your case began to be tried under the single justice procedure. For some reason, the court decided that was no longer appropriate and has adjourned your case. If that is correct, then you do not need to (or get to) enter your plea again. You have pleaded guilty, that plea has (presumably) been accepted but your case is now adjourned.
You can apply to vacate your guilty plea but there are quite strict criteria around doing so. Dropping out of the SJP isn’t a reason.
What else do they want from me?
More dough? extract as much as possible?
yep, easy money to be made, while rapists and murderers walk free, as they are a loss making venture
Netflix Rebel Ridge comes to mind
Whatever you're fined, neither the police, the CPS nor the court get to see a penny of it. Strange money-making plot.
-
So far as I understand matters, your case began to be tried under the single justice procedure. For some reason, the court decided that was no longer appropriate and has adjourned your case. If that is correct, then you do not need to (or get to) enter your plea again. You have pleaded guilty, that plea has (presumably) been accepted but your case is now adjourned.
You can apply to vacate your guilty plea but there are quite strict criteria around doing so. Dropping out of the SJP isn’t a reason.
So basically I have been called to court to do exactly what ?
Plead guilty, as before
Same evidence ,as before? The traffic cell, who deal with cases deemed it was worth a course or 3 points/ 100 quid
What else do they want from me?
More dough? extract as much as possible?
yep, easy money to be made, while rapists and murderers walk free, as they are a loss making venture
Netflix Rebel Ridge comes to mind
-
So far as I understand matters, your case began to be tried under the single justice procedure. For some reason, the court decided that was no longer appropriate and has adjourned your case. If that is correct, then you do not need to (or get to) enter your plea again. You have pleaded guilty, that plea has (presumably) been accepted but your case is now adjourned.
You can apply to vacate your guilty plea but there are quite strict criteria around doing so. Dropping out of the SJP isn’t a reason.
-
I pleaded guilty to the SJP, precisely to avoid wasting time. So if whoever it was, found that inappropriate, then isn't this a whole new ball game?
Most importantly, why is the term used to 'change my plea' . Isn't this starting with a new slate?
If not, why exactly have I been summoned to court? To enter a guilty plea which has been rejected by the SJP? Or to increase the quantum of fines? Doesn't make sense?
If I do make a 'not guilty' plea do I have to inform the court in advance? There is nothing in the letter about that. It just states to be present at so and so time and seek legal assistance, if required in advance
Brief GIST of the letter
A magistrate has decided that your case be referred to a full court hearing
Reason: Case inappropriate for the SJP
Then the charges
Referral to full court hearing
Reason, as above
advise and help-seek with some website link
if you need general help, contact the court office, with a disclaimer
-
So, what if I turn up in court and please no guilty
Charge- Was driving slowly 40-45 mph on the M69
Reason being: Request the prosecution to drop the case, as it's not in the public interest
How will the judge react?
Yes, agree with me and throw the case out ( and I buy a winning lotto)
or
Laughs at me and sentences me to a hefty fine or points or ban?
or
Says fine, let's have a date in the future, to argue why it's not in public interest?
Can I fight the case myself in court? Learn some law , I got an excellent memory and topped my batch of 92
D
Well as you have already plead guilty you shouldn't turn up in court and try and reverse it but at least have the courtesy to not waste court time by doing it in advance.
The bench (probably not a judge for a magistrates court case) will 'laugh at you' (not literally) - you are meant to put it to the PROSECUTION (as what you wrote kind of tells you) and that should be done in advance of any hearing (and after you change your plea), the judge has nothing to do with it, once the full court hearings start the CPS are very unlikely to agree to drop it.
Yes of course you can DIY, whether you should or not still isn't clear.
This highlights why we asked questions and were hesitant to simply answer your question, most people don't understand what they are actually asking for which is why we try and establish what they should be asking (as opposed to are asking) first.
So why were you doing 40-45? How busy was it? Which lane were you in? All these are relevant to whether you SHOULD do what you COULD do.
-
So, what if I turn up in court and please no guilty
Charge- Was driving slowly 40-45 mph on the M69
Reason being: Request the prosecution to drop the case, as it's not in the public interest
How will the judge react?
Yes, agree with me and throw the case out ( and I buy a winning lotto)
or
Laughs at me and sentences me to a hefty fine or points or ban?
or
Says fine, let's have a date in the future, to argue why it's not in public interest?
Can I fight the case myself in court? Learn some law , I got an excellent memory and topped my batch of 92
D
It's difficult to see how it could be in the public interest to turn a blind eye to an (allegedly) blatant case of careless or inconsiderate driving.
BTW it's more likely to be a bench of three magistrates than a judge.
-
Charge- Was driving slowly 40-45 mph on the M69
Is that really the actual charge?
-
So, what if I turn up in court and please no guilty
Charge- Was driving slowly 40-45 mph on the M69
Reason being: Request the prosecution to drop the case, as it's not in the public interest
How will the judge react?
Yes, agree with me and throw the case out ( and I buy a winning lotto)
or
Laughs at me and sentences me to a hefty fine or points or ban?
or
Says fine, let's have a date in the future, to argue why it's not in public interest?
Can I fight the case myself in court? Learn some law , I got an excellent memory and topped my batch of 92
D
-
My primary concern is about a criminal record, my employer will certainly raise it, if it shows up on an enhanced DBS check.
If it doesn't show up do I still have to declare it?
I have never had a speeding conviction show up on an enhanced DBS check, nor on a BPSS. I also never declared them but some people I have worked with have, usually to be told it isn't a concern. It is a question of whether it's seen as 'withholding information'. Personally I asked first and got told not to bother unless it was an imprisonable offence.
-
It depends on whether you want that offered court attendance or not. Advice only to help you in your approach to defend this yourself would be cheaper.
-
Not Leamington based but with an excellent reputation for no-nonsense help and sensible prices is Bobby Bell of BB law. https://www.bb-law.co.uk/
[/quote]
It is unusual for a driver to be prosecuted on the basis they were driving too slowly. I can understand why the police officer thought you had committed an offence of careless driving but it MIGHT be possible to persuade the prosecution to drop the case on the basis it is not in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
My fee to deal with the case would be £2595, which assumes a maximum of 1 x court attendance.
---Ouch ..if 2595 is sensible, then what do the others charge???
-
Depends what you’re asked and who asks you.
-
FWIW, you won’t have a criminal record, as it’s not a recordable offence. You will have been convicted of a crime though (which for many practical purposes is no different to accepting a fixed penalty).
Thanks, South Paw
and everyone else who took the time out to advise me, much appreciated
My primary concern is about a criminal record, my employer will certainly raise it, if it shows up on an enhanced DBS check.
If it doesn't show up do I still have to declare it?
D
-
There's no law against driving slowly
Darren
The law You have been accused of breaking - section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - makes careless or inconsiderate driving an offence.
Careless is defined as driving which is below the standard to be expected of a careful and competent driver. Inconsiderate is self-explanatory.
Before risking a not guilty plea, you should consider carefully whether your driving on that occasion met that test
-
There's no law against driving slowly
Well there is (obvious if you read the HC - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/know-your-traffic-signs/speed-limit-signs), but it wouldn't apply here, but like many things are not against a specific law, they fall under the blanket of driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
For example there is no law against overtaking straight into another car, but it is almost certainly careless or dangerous driving.
-
"Pleaded guilty with a mitigation statement but told that it's not suitable for an SJP"
What did you actually say in mitigation? If the court gained the impression that your mitigation formed the basis of a defence to the charge, your guilty plea would not be accepted. The SJP only deals with straightforward guilty pleas so the reason why you have been asked to attend court may be to clarify your position.
So fine, can't I now plead not guilty and fight it out in court?
Yes you can. But you said you wanted to get a legal opinion. Before you spend money on a solicitor there are people on here who are qualified lawyers and others who, whilst not legally qualified, have a fair idea of the law and the court process. If you tell us what actually happened, what you've been charged with, what the police have based their charge on (you should have the evidence they intend to use to convict you) and in particular what you said in your "mitigation", you may get some free advice which might indicate whether it is worthwhile "fighting it out in court".
There's no law against driving slowly
Indeed there isn't. But similarly there is no law against driving on the wrong side of the road.
What you have probably been charged with is either Careless" or "Inconsiderate" driving.
-
FWIW, you won’t have a criminal record, as it’s not a recordable offence. You will have been convicted of a crime though (which for many practical purposes is no different to accepting a fixed penalty).
-
Is money the only reason we have to base our decisions on?
No, but part of offering people sound advice is making sure they are aware of the potential risks of any course of action, including the financial ones. For many of the people who come here seeking help, the potential that they might lose £1,000+ is a material consideration.
-
Thanks everyone, specially Rookie and Buses and senior
I was stopped for driving at 45 mph on the M69. Hoped would go away if I pleaded guilty and took the 100 quid and 3 point fine. Due to a comedy of errors, mostly on my part, the license details never got across. Pleaded guilty with a mitigation statement but told that it's not suitable for an SJP
So fine, can't I now plead not guilty and fight it out in court? Is money the only reason we have to base our decisions on? What will I lose, 1-3 grand and may be a ban? I just cant stand the idea of having a criminal record, however soft or mild or which may not show up
There's no law against driving slowly
Darren
-
Well, it seems you've been given good advice here. Why waste your money? Typically a motoring solicitor will be between £800-£1000, plus as you pleaded guilty there's nothing to fight as others have pointed out. Whatever you'd like to say in mitigation you can say yourself for free. Plus for the guilty plea you'll get clobbered a bit less that not guilty and being found guilty, plus prosecution costs and victim surcharge. The £100 fixed penalty is sometimes a bargain.
-
Well it would help if you explained exactly what you are trying to achieve first.
1/ mitigation to reduce the sentence based on your guilty plea - in which case doing yourself is usually best as you a professional is unlikely to save what they cost you
2/ reverse your guilty plea and defend the allegation, in which case what defence do you think you have?
3/ something else
Do you even know (as opposed to thinking you know) why you want help?
Not Leamington based but with an excellent reputation for no-nonsense help and sensible prices is Bobby Bell of BB law. https://www.bb-law.co.uk/
Thanks a ton, Rookie
-
Is there any Solicitor in this area? Leamington Spa, Coventry et
There are almost certainly solicitors in that area.
There are almost certainly bakeries in that area as well.
As regards whether or not they are any good, I have no idea why you would think that we would know.
-
Well it would help if you explained exactly what you are trying to achieve first.
1/ mitigation to reduce the sentence based on your guilty plea - in which case doing yourself is usually best as you a professional is unlikely to save what they cost you
2/ reverse your guilty plea and defend the allegation, in which case what defence do you think you have?
3/ something else
Do you even know (as opposed to thinking you know) why you want help?
Not Leamington based but with an excellent reputation for no-nonsense help and sensible prices is Bobby Bell of BB law. https://www.bb-law.co.uk/
-
Thanks, to all those who replied
Is there any Solicitor in this area? Leamington Spa, Coventry etc
Please do lemme know
D
-
As above, there is nothing to "fight out" unless you are thinking of changing your plea. Are you considering doing that? If so, what has changed between the time you entered a guilty plea in response to the SJPN and now? Before you consider shelling out what will be a tidy sum for a solicitor, you need to think through what it is you are trying to achieve.
Yes, court hearing for a traffic offence...
You've already had one court hearing. The Single Justice procedure is part of the court process. If you visit your local Magistrates' Court you will find they have at least one day a week where one courtroom is set aside solely for traffic offences where defendants are asked to attend - usually dozens in a day. There is nothing at all unusual about it.
-
If you plead guilty what exactly are you going to ‘fight it out in court’, the court hearing will be for sentencing only. Legal representation costing £500 plus doesn’t really look like value for money on that basis.
What you would have been sent was a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) not some other concocted title you make up. If you were sent that I’m wondering what you put in ‘mitigation’ that has suggested to them your case isn’t suitable for sentencing by the single justice, it seems unlikely they would be considering a ban if you were offered a COFP, but hard to tell.
As for comments about other cases, you are accused of committing a crime which you agreed you committed (unless the ‘mitigation’ you presented amounted to a defence) which isn’t imprisonable (so no early releases to get you a bed for the night), so doesn’t seem at all relevant unless you just wanted to rant?
-
Hi there,
Wish every one good night's rest and sleep. Could someone please recommend me a good traffic Solicitor in the above region.
Basically I have been charged for driving too slowly on the motorway. Under section 3 of the RTA and schedule 2 of the road traffic offenders act.
Initially I was stopped and sent a fixed term penalty notice. Which got misplaced in the post x2 times and this led to a SJP notice. Despite pleading guilty and accepting the fine, been now refereed for a court hearing, reason stated ' not suitable under SJP' Yes, court hearing for a traffic offence while rapists and murderers are let off early, as prisons are overflowing.
I wish to get legal opinion and possibly fight it out in the court. Please do advise me on a good Solicitor in the above region because the court attendance is at Leamington Spa. So thought a local Solicitor would be better suited?
Please do advise me
Thanks
Darren