Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: mooney11 on September 07, 2023, 08:06:33 pm
-
The court will normally expect the fines to be settled within 12 months.
-
The number of people who pay off fines at £5 a week is staggering, so you should be ok with that (depending on your finances).
To be honest, that seems like the perfect '**** take' amount to pay the fines off. By my calculation, at £20 per month I should fully pay off the fines at roughly the same time as I no longer have to declare MS90's for insurance purposes, which seems like a kind of moral victory of sorts.
Cheers for the info.
-
The number of people who pay off fines at £5 a week is staggering, so you should be ok with that (depending on your finances).
-
@ManxTom
You summary a couple posts up is correct (with the exception that it was an email rather than phone call on the 28th Feb in which I learned of three other charges beyond the one I was dealing with - two of which had been "referred to court" - their words, no details).
Unfortunately I'm as stumped as everyone else as to why my SD was rejected. All I can say is that the LA seemed to take issue with me calling the magistrates on the 17th March and not the 28th Feb. When I told her I was in India she asked "do they not have internet in India?", and seemed puzzled when I said I got in contact within 21 days.
I think I would have been disqualified again. Not on any justified grounds; I simply don't think the court process is equipped at all to deal with a situation like mine and I don't think my argument would have been properly understood or considered on the day. I did briefly get to make a defence for why being disqualified would be unjust after the LA raised the issue of my facing a disqualification if the SD is accepted and as with pretty much every reaction I got from that particular LA, she looked puzzled and skeptical. Maybe I'm doing the courts a disservice - I do think I'd have had a fairer crack had it been the same bench and LA that I had in July. In that instance, the LA was very reasonable, and the lead magistrate was more involved - he addressed me several times, asked questions and actually seemed on my side. I wish I'd pressed on with my defence rather than timidly accept the original COFP. That one I did make a horlicks of! In this instance however, the magistrates never spoke a word to me other than at the end to say that I wouldn't be permitted to perform my SD.
My situation now is basically a bit crap. If I were able to actually perform an SD, I don't have any faith or confidence in the court process to actually recognise that a further disqualification would be unjust. If I do nothing, I've got big fines to pay, 6 points on my licence and MS90 codes to declare for the next few years.
It's quite striking to me that members of this and the other forum have taken vastly more time to understand the situation fully compared to the magistrates court.
I will debate whether to write a letter to the magistrates, requesting the opportunity to perform an SD again, explaining why I feel the decision to deny me that opportunity was wrong and to outline as clearly as possible why a disqualification would be unjust if the SD were permitted (I did of course do this last time around!). Or I may just call it quits - it really depends I think on what payment terms for the fines I can get. If I can make a small monthly contribution over say, 24 months, that wouldn't be the end of the world.
Any clues as to how accommodating courts/SEU's regarding fine repayments can be would be appreciated (if known).
-
I suppose another possibility is that the court did accept that you only learned of the proceedings on 28 February, but for the purposes of the 21 day limit they ignored your initial approach on 17 March to arrange making a SD.
Therefore they simply treated your hearing on 05 January as being out of time and exercised their discretion to reject your application
Without being present and hearing what reasons (if any) they gave for rejecting your SD it's impossible to say.
Good luck whatever you decide to do - or not do...
-
Sorry - duplicate post! :-[
-
Further to my previous post, I suppose it might depend on whether the OP was notified that he'd been convicted in his absence when he received these two communications referred to in his opening post on the pepipoo thread:
"... In mid-January 2023 I received a letter back stating that I owed £100 and would get 3 points due to not responding in time... "
and
"... A few weeks later, in early Feb 2023 I received another letter stating that, having not paid my fine on time, I now owed £816!!... "
The OP hasn't clearly said what these two letters actually told him. Did they tell him he'd been convicted in his absence?
Hi mate - happy to clarify.
The letter in mid-Jan was referring to the 3rd offence (the only one I knew of at the time). It was basically just a reminder letter for my fine (already paid) and licence details (already sent). As I had already complied with the COFP and all post was delayed due to the strikes I wasn't initially concerned by these reminder letters (which were arriving around 10 days or so from their dating in any case). This letter had nothing to do with the convictions I was unaware of.
Then I got the "£816" letter. It did not specify any convictions, and given I was unaware of any other motor offences at that time, my assumption was that I was being fined for not having paid my £100/sent my DL details (even though I had). That's what then prompted me to reach out to the Avon & Somerset police who then put me in contact with the CTO. After a bit of back & forth with the CTO, they then said that having looked into my case, they'd come across other offences which it seemed I was unaware of, two of which had already been referred to court. This was the 28th Feb.
Unless @mooney11 made a right horlicks of telling the court what happened
Whilst I can't rule out this possibility, I don't think I did at all. Firstly I know all the dates of everything that occurred by rote. Not only have I documented it in writing on the PePiPo0 forum, but you can imagine how many times I've explained all of this to friends, family & so on!
Secondly, when I filled in the form for an SD referral (the one linked to in the sticky), I had to detail how/when I became aware of proceedings. So it was in writing and in the court's possession.
Lastly, as mentioned I had prepared a simple written summary of the circumstances, which I gave to the prosecutor who gave it to the LA. I don't know if the LA or the magistrates bothered to read it or give it any more attention than a brief skim. It was given back to me at the conclusion of proceedings.
All I can tell you is that everything I've written across both forums has been 100% truthful, and I believe I relayed that information to the court in both writing and verbally just fine. In court I was asked when I became aware ("28th Feb"), how I became aware ("via email exchange with the CTO regarding a separate matter"), when I contacted the magistrates ("17th March, by phone") and why I didn't call on the 28th Feb ("I was in India volunteering and had read that I had 21 days to contact the magistrates"). I was also asked some more bizarre questions as detailed a couple of posts ago.
All of which is academic at this point anyway. I won't be appealing the decision and I had no faith a just solution to my situation was going to be arrived at given they couldn't even recognise that I was unaware of the proceedings. I'm quite confident that I would have been disqualified again, even if that seems completely unfair.
I'm not a lawyer or a magistrate but like NewJudge I'm at a loss to understand why the court refused to accept your SD.
It was within 21 days but, after listening to your answers to the questions put to you by their legal advisor, the court obviously came to the conclusion that - contrary to what you were swearing to - that you had had prior knowledge of the s172 proceedings against you.
Having looked at your two threads on pepipoo and on here, I can only assume (as I posted previously) either that you got your presentation of the dates to the court wrong, or that the magistrates and their legal advisor simply did not grasp the actual sequence of events and dates that you put before them.
My understanding is that you first became aware of the two s172 proceedings against you when you were told during a phone call on 28 Feb 2023 that you had been convicted in your absence and without your knowledge. That 'phone call - as I understand it - was initiated by you with no awareness of the s172 proceedings. You then made contact with Bath magistrates court on 17 March (within 21 days) to arrange to make a SD.
As I posted previously, I can only wonder whether the court was of the opinion that the two letters you had received in mid-January 2023 and in early February 2023 had already informed you of the two convictions, and you were therefore outside 21 days.
However, as I understand it the letter in January was unconnected with the s172 convictions although the letter in February was (or might have been?) in connection with them, but that letter didn't actually tell you clearly what it was about. It simply said "you've been fined £800" but no explanation why - so even after receiving that letter you did not fully understand what it was related to. And that was why you phoned them on 28 February which is when you first realised what had happened. (Is that a fair summary? I can see why the court could have been confused...)
As I said I'm not a lawyer. I can only suggest you follow @NewJudge's advice and write to the court asking them to reopen the hearing in the interests of justice under s142 of the Magistrate's Court Act.
The only other option would be to make a formal appeal through the court system, but both Andy foster and Southpaw are suggesting that that would be prohibitively expensive...
Sorry - can't be of more help.
And in any case, did you ever really resolve the question of whether it's still in your best interests to have the 172 convictions set aside in the first place. Could you still end up getting banned again?
(Personally it would seem daft to me that you could be banned again, but you've seen how the courts don't always do what you want them to do...)
-
Where there is no conventional route of appeal, appeal is by Judicial Review - the appeal of last resort.
Exactly. Not sure the OP fancies a trip to the High Court.
-
Where there is no conventional route of appeal, appeal is by Judicial Review - the appeal of last resort.
-
Any idea if I can request minutes from the hearing?
Unfortunately, with the exception of evidence provided during trials (of which notes are taken near enough verbatim) proceedings in the Magistrates' Court are not formally recorded. The only notes will be a record of the outcome.
-
@Southpaw & @NewJudge - thanks both.
I must say I was surprised that the Magistrates refused to hear your SD. Did they give their reasons?
Sort of, but it made little sense. After the magistrates & LA returned to the court room after breaking to discuss whether I could perform the SD, they told me that they believed the FtF convictions were issued correctly. That was about it (plus they said I could appeal if I felt this was wrong).
Of course I never contended otherwise - I was correctly convicted. My whole point of being there was that I simply didn't know about them! Other than that, the LA asserted on two or three occasions during the initial back and forth in court that I knew about proceedings. I tried to correct her twice, but she didn't appear to be having any of it (I honestly didn't understand her demeanor towards me from the second I walked in - maybe she'd just had a difficult morning, or maybe my request to speak with her prior was taken badly or something. I do not know!). I suspect this is where the issue is.
My best guess is that the LA seemed to not grasp the dates and has told the magistrates that I knew about proceedings (when I did not), and with that in mind, the magistrates didn't see any other reasons as to why the FtF convictions shouldn't stand. I guess that is what they meant when they said I could appeal - somehow it seems to have been interpreted that I felt the FtF convictions were themselves wrong (which of course I never said - indeed this never even came up).
Any idea if I can request minutes from the hearing? I would be good to not have to speculate as to their reasoning, but I'm pretty sure they just failed to understand the timeline.
-
A solicitor won’t enquire into the reasons. They will simply act as a commissioner for oaths and take the declaration. However, when that is sent to the court, the court might well enquire into the circumstances because more than 21 days has elapsed.
-
I also cannot think where it would be heard. I must say I was surprised that the Magistrates refused to hear your SD. Did they give their reasons?
I can think of two avenues which may result in no significant cost (though I'm not sure if either will produced the desired result):
1. Ask the court to re-open your case under s142 of the Magistrates' Court Act. This gives the court the power to set aside any penalties already imposed and revisit the matter. It needs the court to agree to it and it must be "in the interests of justice" to do so. The problem I see with this is that the court must agree and, although you may face a different bench of Magistrates, they may take the same view as those who declined to hear your SD.
2. Make an SD before a solicitor and deliver it to the court. The problem I see with this is the time that has elapsed since your conviction. I'm not sure whether a solicitor hearing your SD is bound by the same rules as a court and they may enquire why there has been such a delay. This might involve you disclosing that a court has declined to hear your SD which may persuade the solicitor to do likewise.
-
It’s not immediately obvious to me where such an appeal would be heard. You might want to have a think about that because costs could become an issue.
-
@ManxTom & @NewJudge
Based on what I've described above, can you see any errors on my part/why I wouldn't be eligible to perform an SD? I believe I was entitled to perform an SD. I did not know about proceedings and they had occurred before I knew about them and I contacted the mags within 21 days of learning about the proceedings.
I had originally decided to just move on. But yesterday I received the two lots of £816 fines for each FtF conviction in the post (one of them has been bumped up to £1014 which I need to query) and I feel pretty strongly that I'd not been given a fair crack of the whip at the magistrates. I also cannot afford £1800.
As such I am considering whether it's worth appealing against the decision to deny me to perform an SD.
-
Further to my previous post, I suppose it might depend on whether the OP was notified that he'd been convicted in his absence when he received these two communications referred to in his opening post on the pepipoo thread:
"... In mid-January 2023 I received a letter back stating that I owed £100 and would get 3 points due to not responding in time... "
and
"... A few weeks later, in early Feb 2023 I received another letter stating that, having not paid my fine on time, I now owed £816!!... "
The OP hasn't clearly said what these two letters actually told him. Did they tell him he'd been convicted in his absence?
Hi mate - happy to clarify.
The letter in mid-Jan was referring to the 3rd offence (the only one I knew of at the time). It was basically just a reminder letter for my fine (already paid) and licence details (already sent). As I had already complied with the COFP and all post was delayed due to the strikes I wasn't initially concerned by these reminder letters (which were arriving around 10 days or so from their dating in any case). This letter had nothing to do with the convictions I was unaware of.
Then I got the "£816" letter. It did not specify any convictions, and given I was unaware of any other motor offences at that time, my assumption was that I was being fined for not having paid my £100/sent my DL details (even though I had). That's what then prompted me to reach out to the Avon & Somerset police who then put me in contact with the CTO. After a bit of back & forth with the CTO, they then said that having looked into my case, they'd come across other offences which it seemed I was unaware of, two of which had already been referred to court. This was the 28th Feb.
Unless @mooney11 made a right horlicks of telling the court what happened
Whilst I can't rule out this possibility, I don't think I did at all. Firstly I know all the dates of everything that occurred by rote. Not only have I documented it in writing on the PePiPo0 forum, but you can imagine how many times I've explained all of this to friends, family & so on!
Secondly, when I filled in the form for an SD referral (the one linked to in the sticky), I had to detail how/when I became aware of proceedings. So it was in writing and in the court's possession.
Lastly, as mentioned I had prepared a simple written summary of the circumstances, which I gave to the prosecutor who gave it to the LA. I don't know if the LA or the magistrates bothered to read it or give it any more attention than a brief skim. It was given back to me at the conclusion of proceedings.
All I can tell you is that everything I've written across both forums has been 100% truthful, and I believe I relayed that information to the court in both writing and verbally just fine. In court I was asked when I became aware ("28th Feb"), how I became aware ("via email exchange with the CTO regarding a separate matter"), when I contacted the magistrates ("17th March, by phone") and why I didn't call on the 28th Feb ("I was in India volunteering and had read that I had 21 days to contact the magistrates"). I was also asked some more bizarre questions as detailed a couple of posts ago.
All of which is academic at this point anyway. I won't be appealing the decision and I had no faith a just solution to my situation was going to be arrived at given they couldn't even recognise that I was unaware of the proceedings. I'm quite confident that I would have been disqualified again, even if that seems completely unfair.
-
Further to my previous post, I suppose it might depend on whether the OP was notified that he'd been convicted in his absence when he received these two communications referred to in his opening post on the pepipoo thread:
"... In mid-January 2023 I received a letter back stating that I owed £100 and would get 3 points due to not responding in time... "
and
"... A few weeks later, in early Feb 2023 I received another letter stating that, having not paid my fine on time, I now owed £816!!... "
The OP hasn't clearly said what these two letters actually told him. Did they tell him he'd been convicted in his absence?
-
The proceedings had already taken place,....
To save me looking through the thread, were you aware of these proceedings before they took place or did you only learn about them afterwards?
Unless @mooney11 made a right horlicks of telling the court what happened (or unless they've got their dates hopelessly muddled) I don't understand how the court's legal advisor could heve come to either of the two conclusions (1) that @mooney11 had prior knowledge of the proceedings or (2) that they should have contacted the court earlier re making a statutory declaration.
The OP first posted on pepipoo on 04 March and said there that they had only learned of the convictions four days earlier on 28 February. (I assume the OP is telling the truth about that...)
He then contacted Bath mags court within 21 days on 17 March to arrange to make a stat dec. (See post #52 on the pepipoo thread).
Unless the OP presented a significantly different story to the mags from the one he told us here and on pepipoo, I'm not sure how the court reached its decision. Or perhaps the OP didn't present the story sufficiently clearly for the legal advisor to understand the sequence and timing of events(?).
(And none of this helps the OP's underlying question about whether it was worth doing a stat dec to get rid of the two MS90s in the first place, or whether that might lead to him getting banned a second time. He still would have had that dilemma anyway!)
[Edit: Regarding when he learned of the proceedings, this is what the OP said in his first post on pepipoo:
"On or just after the 17th Nov 2022 I received an NIP for doing 48mph in a 40 on the M32 Southbound in August 2022. I've been driving 16 years and never had a single offence in that time, so sent back the form indicating I'd attend a speed awareness course. In mid-January 2023 I received a letter back stating that I owed £100 and would get 3 points due to not responding in time. I'd assumed this was due to the postal strikes and phoned up to clarify. It was explained to me that the original NIP was sent to my old address; turns out I'd completely forgotten to update the V5 certificate, and that the 28 days had therefore long expired by the time I even knew of the offence. A bit gutting to have to skip straight to 3 points & a fine for my first offence, but ultimately my bad for the V5 form... I pay my £100 after the phone call and post off my license details that day. I was concerned the returned details wouldn't arrive on time as I had 14 days to respond at the time the letter was sent to me, but I received it with only a couple of days before the 14 deadline expires. I was told this was fine and a note would be added to my file to reflect this. Obviously postal issues at this time were a factor.
A few weeks later, in early Feb 2023 I received another letter stating that, having not paid my fine on time, I now owed £816!! Naturally I challenged this via email and was put in touch with the Central Ticket Office, providing evidence of the payment to them. After much chasing and delays, I finally got a proper response on the 28th Feb 2023, and from here everything has spiralled out of of control and I'm feeling quite overwhelmed with everything..." ]
-
The proceedings had already taken place,....
To save me looking through the thread, were you aware of these proceedings before they took place or did you only learn about them afterwards?
Afterwards.
Just checked my licence: convicted of one of the FtF charges on 24th Jan 2023. The other one isn't displaying but I recall seeing it some months ago and as I recall the conviction was dated sometime in 2022. I learned of these on the 28th Feb 2023, after they had occured.
-
The proceedings had already taken place,....
To save me looking through the thread, were you aware of these proceedings before they took place or did you only learn about them afterwards?
-
The one thing I was not aware of during our earlier exchanges was that you were, in fact aware of the proceedings against you before they took place.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something I definitely wasn't aware.
To summarise what happened; I had submitted my licence for the third offence of the four (at that time, it was the only one I was aware of so for me that was my first ever motor offence, even though it later transpired it was actually my third) and paid my fine. I'd received reminder letters about the licence details so had made enquiries to ensure the details had been received. After getting kicked about between departments for a while, I finally had it confirmed to me via email that the details were received. To my horror they also added in that email (28th Feb), that there were three other charges against me (one that was more recent and I was able to deal with), two of which had already been "referred to court" (their words - no mention of convictions or outcomes or even if anything had taken place at court yet) and that I had to contact the magistrates. My understanding was I had 21 days to contact the magistrates about that, which I did upon return to the UK and after posting on the other forum to try and get some understanding of the situation first.
The proceedings had already taken place, and I'd already been disqualified for 10 days when I phoned the magistrates. It was they that told me I'd been disqualified - I had absolutely no idea. Had it not been for that email exchange I'd have never known I'd been disqualified and would have been driving around oblivious until eventually receiving a (what would have been very surprising!) letter from the DVLA. It was pure luck that my learning that there were proceedings (or a 'referral to court') against me and the disqualification coming into effect were basically at the same time.
-
I must say I am disappointed at the way the court treated you. The decision is one thing (that's their prerogative) but there are ways to treat people and it seems you were on the wrong end of some very poor "bedside manner".
The one thing I was not aware of during our earlier exchanges was that you were, in fact aware of the proceedings against you before they took place. I know you were not in a position to properly respond but I think the court is correct in that in that situation you cannot perform an SD. It is applicable when you were unaware of the proceedings and you had been convicted as a result of those proceedings which, it seems, does not apply in your circumstances.
That said, the court had a remedy in the form of s142 of the Magistrates' Court Act. This gives them the power to set aside the outcome of any previous proceedings (including convictions, sentences and other orders) and to revisit the matter. On the one hand I am surprised this was not suggested by the Legal Advisor but on the other, from what you have told us, it was unlikely.
-
I'm guessing but perhaps the Mags/LA were not convinced by the fact you simply didn't bother changing the address on the V5C AND delayed responding whilst in India with no solid reason and these aspects undermined your credibility in their eyes. It does however read like the outcome does represent 'natural justice' in that most folk who manage to rack up 4 offences in a short timeframe would also face a ban?
-
FINAL UPDATE - Court/SD/outcome
First thing I did on arrival at Bath magistrates was ask to speak to the prosecutor. This was granted and he immediately said he was happy to drop the s.172's and that this was normal and basically a given. He was pretty jovial and upbeat about it and seemed a decent bloke. So far, so good. I spoke to him a bit about my circumstances and he was less confident about me evading a ban but stressed this was at the magistrates discretion (which I knew obviously, but wanted to gauge the temperature). I gave him a brief written summary of the circumstances and he took it to the LA (who I was not allowed to speak with having asked).
Once in the court room, I then got quite a grilling from the LA. I was a bit confused as the prosecutor never spoke or participated, and it seemed that the LA was doubling as a prosecutor of sorts and going in quite aggressively on me for reasons I didn't really understand. Despite having the background details to hand from my written summary, and despite me explaining clearly the point at which I became aware of proceedings against me, she seemed to insist that I did in fact know about them. The facts are; I became aware of the proceedings (but not their outcome or implications) on the 28th Feb whilst abroad in India by email with the central ticket office in the midst of enquiring about a separate matter (as I've documented on the other forum). My understanding was I had 21 days in which to contact the magistrates from the moment I found out about proceedings (28th Feb), and I did so on the 17th March by phone. On that call, I was informed I'd actually been disqualified 10 days earlier (7th March). Unless I'd misunderstood something, I'm not sure what I'd done wrong here but this seemed to be a sticking point (though never explained) and the LA/prosecutor (I'm genuinely a bit confused about her role here) kept looking puzzled when I mentioned that I'd contacted the magistrates within 21 days of learning about the court cases, as though the 21 days thing was not a thing. If I'm wrong I'm wrong of course. She challenged my on why I hadn't called the magistrates on the 28th Feb. I explained I was volunteering in India. She shot back "do they not have internet in India?". Again, to my understanding I had 21 days to contact the magistrates, so wanted to get home first, try and research and get the lay of the land and then phone them. I explained this and once again it was met with contorted and skeptical facial expressions. She asked me how much of my disqualification I served ("all of it - 6 months"), she then asked if I drove during it (why??) and I told her "no". Technically that's not actually true - I had driven a few times between the disqualification coming into effect (7th March) and my learning that I was disqualified (17th March), but from the second I learned I'd been DQF'd from driving, I did not get behind the wheel of my van once (luckily I was parked in the business park where I work and it was perfectly fine to leave the car there for the time being until I'd come up with a solution for it).
We then got into a little bit about the re-totting should my SD request be accepted and 6 more points be endorsed onto licence. Here I reiterated what was in my written statement (that she had to hand), explaining how fundamentally I had 4 offences each worth 3 points, but that I'd already severed the ban given we were going to set aside the s.172 convictions and that it was only the chronology of events that saw me facing another ban. Once again the LA/prosecutor/angry lady seemed to scoff at this idea. At this point I'd lost confidence in the process completely and it seemed the person addressing me had little interest in really familiarising themselves with the details or considering what might be 'just'. I'd spent months with this hanging over me, getting advice on here (and being annoying as hell in the process!), preparing statements to aid the court and formulating in my mind what I was going to say over and over again - not to mention the worry about being disqualified again etc - but the level of care and attention coming back the other way was almost zero (with the exception of the prosecutor who was fair and kind throughout). The magistrates themselves barely spoke - don't even think I got a "good morning" and I was required to stand in a dock behind perspex panels Hannibal Lecter-style throughout (which differed from where I was placed back in July).
The magistrates and the LA then took a brief break to deliberate on whether I would be allowed to perform the SD. During the interlude I spoke briefly with the prosecutor. He talked me through what they were doing and I asked if I could withdraw at this point. He wasn't 100% sure but said I'd have to inform the magistrates when they came back in if that's what I wished to do. He also told me that they'd had a case sort of similar to mine and that the defendant was given a shortened 3-month ban having already served 6 previously. I doubt his case was exactly like mine but I was taking no chances on a ban. I was confident in my position that I should not be disqualified again and confident that my argument/reasoning was sound, but I was not at all confident that this would be recognised by the decision makers and had decided to hit the eject button.
The magistrates & LA returned and immediately informed me that I was not permitted to perform an SD (so hit the eject button before I could myself). There seemed to be some confusion as to whether I knew about the proceedings against me (as mentioned). I'd love to explain what that confusion was but I simply don't know - I found the process to be a shambles to be honest. The magistrates expressed that they felt the FtF convictions were correct (I never disputed this so didn't really understand the point being made) and informed me of my option to appeal if I disagreed with the outcome today (I do disagree, but have no desire for this to run any longer).
And that was that. I remain where I am: 6 points still on my licence, MS90 codes to declare to insurers and two lots of hefty fines coming my way for each s.172 conviction. I feel pretty aggrieved that this is what I'm left with and that it's taken so long to arrive at exactly where I was when my disqualification ended four months ago. It's also pretty galling that having contacted the magistrates regarding an SD in mid-March, that I've had to wait this long to get a chance to perform the SD only to not be allowed to do it, and to quite probably receive an additional ban even if I did through what simply seemed like a lack of proper consideration or understanding for what might be reasonable or just. I'm sure there are circumstances & cases for which the current court system functions and works pretty well. What I can say from my two appearances at Bath magistrates in the last 6 months is that it seems wholly unfit for purpose on a number of levels. I've no experiences of court to draw upon prior to the last 6 months so maybe things used to be better but I've been left very disappointed in virtually all aspects of the experience on both occasions now. It's essentially a sausage factory with minimal scope to deal with matters that require a little more care. The meat & bones of my own case could have easily been thrashed out with a brief, informal 5-minute conversation with all involved before anything began and I'm sure that's the case for a great many other cases.
Lastly would just like to say a massive thanks to everyone who contributed their knowledge and thoughts both here and the old forum - it was very much appreciated.
-
UPDATE:
I now finally have a date for the SD (5th Jan 2024) and I've secured an in-person slot.
A quick couple of Q's;
1. At what point can I actually get to speak to a prosecutor about whether they would accept the deal (dropping the s.172's for a guilty plea to the underlying offences)? I'm intending to make the very first thing I do when I get into court to speak with the clerk/LA and explain my circumstances and request to speak with a prosecutor before anything begins. Is this normal/acceptable do we know? Or is there a certain point in proceedings in which this conservation can only occur?
2. If possible, I want the prosecutors, LA and magistrates to understand the odd circumstances before anything really begins otherwise I'm setting myself up to fail potentially. My intention was to prepare a brief written summary of the situation (rather than rely on verbally communicating it), so I could offer copies to the LA/prosecutor (depending on what point I get to speak with them). I've no idea if anyone would accept any of this or if such things can be accommodated. Any ideas? I'd have thought it a bit daft if no one was willing to take a few moments to brief themselves of relevant details to a case that's about to be heard, but ultimately I don't know how flexible or accommodating courts are to such things. I realise that maybe no one knows the answer and I'll just have to give it a go on the day and see what happens.
Cheers :)
-
Don't worry - fully understand that the Legal Advisor cannot provide me with actual legal advice and understand their role is limited in terms of how they can assist me.
-
I'm concerned when you refer to the "in-house legal advisor".
Do not get confused between this and the "duty solicitor" (whose services you will not be eligible for). The LA's primary duty is to advise the Magistrates (who are not legally trained) on matters of law. But they also have a duty to ensure that unrepresented defendants understand the court process and what is required of them, and also explain what they can and cannot do. But they cannot provide you with legal advice (as the duty solicitor does). The time you really need the LA is when your prosecutions are considered afresh. You then need the LA to guide the Magistrates through this notion that you have already served a "totting up" ban for what will be (if your "deal" is accepted) four speeding offences. If that is not properly explained, the court will see you arrive with six points, have six more imposed and so believe you are liable as a "totter" to a ban.
If your video hearing is only to consider whether or not they will hear your SD (and perhaps hear it if they agree) then there is little that you can do during that hearing. However, it would be better if you could get the prosecutor's view as to whether your "deal" would be acceptable. If it won't be, there is little point in you performing your SD.
-
It is not unusual at all. However, if you want a hearing in person then you will have to make an application (now or on the day) for the court to do so, with reasons.
-
I sought some clarity from Bath magistrates about the process as I'm awaiting a CVP hearing and didn't really understand why given I thought I was waiting for a date to perform the SD. I also made clear I'd like to attend in person rather than have a CVP. Here's the email I had back from Bath Magistrates:
The first hearing will be via CVP and will be for the Court to consider allowing the making of a statutory declaration only, they will go through the forms you have completed and confirm with you the details of how and when you found out about the case.
If they allow the statutory declaration then the conviction and sentence imposed previously will be removed and the two original offences will be put back to you to enter a plea. If you are intending to plead not guilty to the offences then those offences will be further adjourned to a trial date when you must attend and you will then be able to present your evidence etc.
If I'm understanding that correctly, should they permit the SD then we basically do the next bit there and then via video link (if I plead guilty, which I've said I would on the SD forms), which isn't going to help me because my circumstances really need to be understood by the court prior and I'd have wanted to speak with the in-house legal advisor about this before anything further took place. Being at home on a glorified Zoom call doesn't help!
Procedurally/process-wise, is the above not a bit unusual? Would it be worth responding with a summary of my circumstances, explaining why I wouldn't want a CVP hearing? I'm mindful that I'd be conveying this to a court administrator (who I assume is not the same as the courthouse legal advisor).
-
I really appreciate your input - absolute legend, thanks!
If I am to press ahead with the SD - and I think I may just go for it - then I will certainly be using much of the reasoning you've formulated. Given the difficulty in explaining the muddled chronology, I think I'll prepare the simplest and most concise written statement and use that as the basis for explaining the situation to the in-house legal advisor, and maybe even seeing if they'll read it through themselves to get the lay of the land.
Thank you again.
Unless anyone else has any thoughts to contribute or some unexpected plot twist arises in the meantime, I'm hoping the next time I post here will be to say everything has concluded in "just" way.
Cheers
-
I think at the very least you should establish whether, once you have made your SD, the prosecutor is willing to do the deal. If not, obviously you needn't bother.
As for the rest. Most prosecutors are not bloodthirsty. Doing the plea deal (in normal circumstances) is never generally a problem and I believe there is only one instance on Pepipoo (which goes back a bit) where the deal was turned down. On that occasion the defendant was "less than polite" to the prosecutor, demanded this and that and told the prosecutor what he ought to do. So the prosecutor showed him and he ended up with nine points. In the main, provided they are sure you are not trying to evade your just deserts they simply want to see justice properly done.
I don't believe it will rest on what sort of day the Magistrate has had (and your case will probably be heard by a panel of three lay Magistrates rather than a District Judge alone). It is almost certainly a situation that they will not have encountered before and they will rely heavily on their Legal Advisor (who will probably be in the same position). So it should revert to what is "just."
IMHO, what is just is four lots of three points, a totting up ban (already served) and a licence free of points at the end of that ban. If you had heard about, and responded to each of these allegations in the usual way, that's exactly what would have happened. In fact, you would probably have been offered a course for one of them, but that's by the way. The complication is largely of your own making but an administrative oversight should not see an outcome that is so radically different to what would have occurred normally.
The fly in the ointment as I see it is that when you perform an SD, all the penalties and orders that were made as a result of the convictions you declare you were unaware of are set aside. That's fine when it comes to financial penalties and points - the money can be returned and the points removed from your record. But you served a ban as a result of those convictions and that cannot be reversed. That's why I believe a just solution should be found to take that into account.
I don't think there's much more I can add. Of course all this is only my own opinion, but it's the best I can offer.
-
Thanks.
That certainly seems the most risk-averse option, but also the least palatable (6 points, two MS90 codes & an £816 fine hanging over me).
The other option could (should!) conclude with no points, significantly less fines, no MS90's and no further ban, but is largely at the discretion of a magistrate who might have had a bad week or influenced by a prosecutor who feels particularly blood-thirsty that day.
I think my options are now pretty clear so thank you for that.
One last question: suppose I'm given a date to perform an SD. Once at the magistrates, I assume I should request to thrash these details out with the LA/prosecutor before actually performing the SD? Firstly because I'd need to establish whether the prosecution would accept the deal to drop the s172 convictions, and secondly because I'd have the benefit of explaining the circumstances so everyone is at least on the same page. Should I have doubts or detect reasons to be concerned, can I walk out the door without performing the SD?
Or is that me attempting to have my cake and eat it?
-
I really cannot see how these matters can be put to you again unless you perform an SD. They have been dealt with. You have been convicted of the s172 offences and, presumably, the police "offered no evidence" on the speeding charges.
If you want to leave matters as they are I suggest you contact the court and tell them you no longer wish to make your SDs.
-
The SJP's are the originals that would have been sent to my old address, which I've attached to this post.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What do these "SJP" forms actually say?
-
Thank you.
I'm very tempted by that option as more than anything, I want to move on from all of this.
I am totally baffled why I was told they'd be in touch once a CVP court slot becomes available given then that I've not actually performed the SD. it would have made sense if they'd said they'd be in touch with a date to perform the SD. I looked back through the emails and when they asked me to fill in both the SD forms & SJP, they said about the SJP that "please could you action and sign the attached SJP forms, we do accept just the typing of your name in the relevant section".
So if I was only minimally required to put my name on them then I'm taking that to mean that they can't really mean very much. Maybe they were sent to me simply because I'd never seen them before and it was more of a box ticking exercise.
-
During the pandemic some courts were accepting SDs by phone (for obvious reasons).
As far as I know, all courts have now resumed normal service and that means an SD must be "sworn" in person, under oath.
The form you have completed provides details of the reasons you want to make the SD and contains the statement you will make orally when you swear your SD. So you don't need to withdraw it as it hasn't yet been made. You can let the court know that you no longer wish to make it, however.
-
Thanks, that super helpful and makes sense.
I think one point I'm maybe confused about is the "perform" part of the SD. All I've done is sent the completed SD forms back via email. Is that considered to be "performed", or does that only occur in person? I was under the impression that performing an SD was something that had to be done in person, given that they told me back in March that I'd be given a date to do it. I ask because if the SD hasn't technically been performed then maybe I could withdraw it (I'm not expecting you to know whether I could actually withdraw it; I'm just giving my thought process in case Andy_Foster gets upset again).
-
Happy to stick to this forum! Pulling my Q's over:
1. Am I definitely unable to withdraw the SD/SJP at this stage?
As I said, I don't understand why you have been sent the SJPNs. The allegations to which they refer have already been dealt with. These resulted in your 2 x s172 convictions. I cannot realistically see how they can try these matters again unless you perform an SD. If they mention both s172 and speeding, you have been convicted of the s172 charges and the speeding prosecutions cannot succeed as they have no evidence that you were driving (this is the "leverage" you have when you offer to do your deal).
2. Can I be dual convicted of both the S172's and the underlying offences? If not, then would one option be to plead guilty to the original s172's (assuming no further punishment could be enforced given I've already served the ban for them) rendering the underlying offences obsolete? (if in fact they would be obsolete).
You can only be convicted of speeding if you provide some evidence that you were driving. Without it the prosecution cannot succeed. The underlying offences are therefore all but obsolete.
Of course the ideal situation is I proceed as planned, explain (with the help of the LA) what the situation is and the magistrates agree that I'm not to be banned again (and then I deal with the DVLA separately to the extent necessary). Am I not left hoping that everyone understand the situation and agrees to proceed with common sense rather than there being something in law I can point to for this unusual circumstance? I suppose the counter would be that this gets thrashed out before the proceedings begin so would have some idea of the position of the prosecution maybe beforehand?
The law cannot deal with every eventuality and I cannot see how it can deal with your situation. This means some discretion (and possibly common sense) is required. Nothing is guaranteed, of course. But I suggest you request a personal appearance so that you can discuss these matters before they come before the Magistrates.
Of course if your deal is declined (to essentially swap the s172 convictions for speeding) then you know where you stand. You simply decline to perform your SD, the s172 convictions remain, you have been sentenced for them and already served your ban. Unfortunately you are stuck with the MS90 endorsements and the six points for the other two speeding offences. But you will be no worse off than you are now.
-
Happy to stick to this forum! Pulling my Q's over:
1. Am I definitely unable to withdraw the SD/SJP at this stage? Generic Google searches suggest that withdrawing from SJP is very difficult (but not necessarily impossible). Given how long it took to perform/be sent the SD forms and the ban being served (+ the unusual SD+SJP's being sent together at the same time), would I really have no way to drop the matter at this stage? Seems odd there wouldn't be some kind of eject button if circumstances have changed from the time a person was referred for a SD to the point at which they either get to perform it and/or a new trial takes place.
2. Can I be dual convicted of both the S172's and the underlying offences? If not, then would one option be to plead guilty to the original s172's (assuming no further punishment could be enforced given I've already served the ban for them) rendering the underlying offences obsolete? (if in fact they would be obsolete).
Of course the ideal situation is I proceed as planned, explain (with the help of the LA) what the situation is and the magistrates agree that I'm not to be banned again (and then I deal with the DVLA separately to the extent necessary). Am I not left hoping that everyone understand the situation and agrees to proceed with common sense rather than there being something in law I can point to for this unusual circumstance? I suppose the counter would be that this gets thrashed out before the proceedings begin so would have some idea of the position of the prosecution maybe beforehand?
-
I figured there's no harm in being on both given it might improve the chances of being responded to.
Indeed not. I wasn't moaning! 8)
I was simply keeping people on here appraised of our exchanges in Pepipoo.
Perhaps we'll stick to this forum as there seems to be more engagement with your problem.
-
It seems the OP has been concurrently conducting two threads on the same issue here and on Pepipoo which I'd failed to notice:
In the month and a half that had elapsed since I'd last posted on the other forum/thread, this new forum had popped up. I didn't know to what extent the old forum was still in use and at the time I couldn't locate my thread in the Speeding sub-forum or from my profile so posted here. I found it the old thread after having posted on here via a Google search.
I figured there's no harm in being on both given it might improve the chances of being responded to.
-
A second totting ban is for 12 months I believe.
Which would be quite unjust.
It seems the OP has been concurrently conducting two threads on the same issue here and on Pepipoo which I'd failed to notice:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=148851
His situation is not straightforward and it seems I managed to grasp it correctly in post #108 on Pepipoo:
- 2 x s172 convictions. Six points each, six months totting up ban (all of which you were not aware of).
- After those convictions, 2 x speeding convictions. Three points each (of which you were aware).
- Current situation: ban ended, six points on your licence. You want to perform a Stat Dec to have the s172 convictions set aside and you hope to be able to do a "deal" to have them dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to the underlying speeding offences. You have been provided with the original SJPNs for those two incidents and are awaiting a hearing to do the SDs and request your "deal."
-
A second totting ban is for 12 months I believe.
-
Ah ha! I don't know how I've got into the habit of typing it that way! But... Really? I'm here worried if I'm facing another 6 month disqualification and we're focussing on me mixing up two numbers that make no difference to the understanding of my question.
Now that we've established I'm a muppet... Are you able to help?
-
The fact that you keep on saying 127 when I pointed out that it’s 172 is oddly grating on me.
-
If anyone can tell me whether I'm facing another ban it would be most appreciated. Here's a brief summary of events/current standings:
1. 4 offences last year, knew about none of them (V5C!) and the first two went to court in my absence & I was convicted in each case for failing to name the driver, which meant 12 points & a totting ban.
2. Found out about all four offences in late February this year (the 3rd & 4th had not gone to court), and contacted Bath Magistrates within 21 days regarding the two that had resulted in FtN convictions in my absence (this is when I learned that I was banned).
3. Driving ban for the two s127 convictions began 7th March 2023 and ended earlier this week, on the 6th Sept. I served the full ban.
4. The 3rd & 4th offences were endorsed onto my licence over the last few months, whilst disqualified; 3 points each for speeding - and are on my licence now.
5. In July, after chasing for a response regarding my SD referral regarding the first two FtN proceedings, I was finally sent via email the SD forms & new SJPN's where I pleaded Not Guilty to the FtN & underlying offences, stating I would be willing to plead guilty to the underlying offences if the FtN charges were dropped. I submitted these back via email. I remain waiting to hear back with a trial date etc.
The result of that trial would put 6 points onto my licence from the underlying offences that led to the two s127 convictions, and that would put me back onto 12 points. Am I facing a ban again, or would having served a 6 month ban for convictions/charges that are dropped via the plea deal mean no further ban?
Thanks
-
As in singular? No, I had two offences in April & May last year which I didn't know about (V5C!) and I was convicted without knowing for each. Then in August & November two offences (again that i didn't know about at the time, but learned of quick enough to avoid further FtF issues), that were eventually endorsed whilst I was disqualified.
-
Do you mean s 172?
-
So will I be facing another ban once the s127 convictions are dropped/'swapped' and 6 more points applied to licence? Not clear that previous advice still applies due to different chronology/assumptions so urgently seeking clarity.
-
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 45A(3) says:
An endorsement ordered on a person's conviction of an offence remains effective (subject to subsections (4) and (5) below)—
(a) if an order is made for the disqualification of the offender, until four years have elapsed since the conviction, and
(b) if no such order is made, until either—
(i) four years have elapsed since the commission of the offence, or
(ii) an order is made for the disqualification of the offender under section 35 of this Act.
The points must have been endorsed prior to disqualification.
Given then that 6 points were added whilst disqualified, and another 6pts will be added once there's a trial date in which the s127's will be "swapped" for the underlying offence after having already served the ban, will this then be interpreted as a new round of "totting" and a ban is back on the table?
Had everything happened in chronological order I fully understand how I would not have "re-banned" etc, but given the chronology of the endorsements etc is all over the place, will this effect the outcome? Or, as before, will the ban served be taken into account given that it was the result of convictions that have been (will be) overturned/dropped?
Thanks, appreciate the help. I had hoped I was out of the woods with all of this!
-
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 45A(3) says:
An endorsement ordered on a person's conviction of an offence remains effective (subject to subsections (4) and (5) below)—
(a) if an order is made for the disqualification of the offender, until four years have elapsed since the conviction, and
(b) if no such order is made, until either—
(i) four years have elapsed since the commission of the offence, or
(ii) an order is made for the disqualification of the offender under section 35 of this Act.
The points must have been endorsed prior to disqualification.
-
Short answer - a totting up ban wipes the points already on your licence (that lead up to the totting up ban). Any points earned after the ban started were not already on your licence when the ban started - which was almost certainly explained to you in your PePiPoo thread.
Are points "earned" on date of offence, date of conviction, or the date they actually sppear on the licence? In this case the offence dates were before the ban started, conviction date after.
-
Thank you for the information. No, I had not been told this on the other forum (and I had not asked this in any case), and didn't wish to revive a convoluted thread for one question given most of te info in that thread is now redundant anyway.
At some point when the s127 charges are dropped and the underlying offences are endorsed, that will be another 6 points onto the licence. I was told that any ban time already served would be deducted from the total when I 're-tot'. Is that definitely the case? Having now already served 6 months I assume/bloody well hope(!) that there is no further ban. When I sought an answer to that previously, I was asking under a different set of assumptions (no reason to re-hash them here).
-
Trying to follow your narrative already being familiar with your thread on PePiPoo is difficult enough. For anyone walking into this thread cold, I would suggest it would be nigh on impossible.
Short answer - a totting up ban wipes the points already on your licence (that lead up to the totting up ban). Any points earned after the ban started were not already on your licence when the ban started - which was almost certainly explained to you in your PePiPoo thread.
-
Hi,
Last year I had four offences against me, none of which I was aware of due to having not updated my v5C when moving house. The first two of those offences ultimately resulted in a 6-month totting ban for two s127 convictions. That ban ended two days ago. The other two offences were eventually endorsed onto my licence in June & July (whilst I was serving the ban), though the offences themselves took place several months before the ban for the s127 convictions came into force. The chronology of events is a total mess! My question...
I understand that when a ban has been served, all points on that licence are wiped along with it. However, the 6 points from the two offences finally endorsed this summer presently remain on the licence. Is this an error (or maybe even just something that has yet to be updated), or are points endorsed onto a licence whilst that licence is disqualified treated differently (not wiped)? I cannot find an answer to that online elsewhere.
Many thanks