Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Ghowie99 on May 03, 2025, 04:33:19 pm
-
A good result.
I think you had a good case with a Not Guilty plea (on the basis that you had complied with the fixed penalty) but I understand why you did not want to risk a trial.
Thanks for letting us know the outcome.
-
This wonderful forum deserves some feedback. So I attended court wanting to plead 'not guilty' with my speech practised, polished and ready to go. (thanks andy_foster your input was very helpful, and the precision of your wording is very much appreciated) They had my trial down for last on the list and after I had been waiting for nearly 3 hours the Prosecutor called me into an empty courtroom saying he wanted a chat and, didn't fully understand everything, and there might have been a mistake. I used a few one liners from my prepared defence speech during this chat. It quickly transpired that they did not want this particular trial to go ahead. Instead, it was suggested that so the matter would be resolved today, I should plead guilty, pay the £100 fine (this included a court surcharge this time, but £100 in total) and take the 3 points. This exact scenario was I think outlined by NewJudge above as a possible outcome from a guilty plea, but only if they recognised they were at fault. I then quickly went before a district judge and pleaded guilty after he had kindly explained everything to me. Glad its over due to time taken up and stress, its a good result financially but part of me would have enjoyed giving the defence speech and going for the perfect result which would have been them accepting the prosecution was unlawful. That approach struck me as being quite risky in the circumstances and at the time, so I did not pursue it. I do think the magistrates court has prior experience in processing people who have had problems paying online fines for Conditional Offers, as it was mentioned as a known issue. Many Thanks again especially to Andy Foster and NewJudge for the accurate and timely advice.
-
1. Can you show and explain what the law currently says, as pertains to your case, with chapter and verse?
Assuming that you cannot translate legislation into plain English while stood in front of a potentially hostile legal advisor, have you prepared a simple speech leading the court through the law?
2. Can you show that a COFP was issued, and that you complied with the requirements to accept the COFP as set out in the legislation that you have just walked the court through?
3. Why are you determined to confuse the issue by trying to second guess why the police's systems failed on this occasion, and by leading the court through outdated legislation? Does your evidence not stand up on its own?
If you feel the need to bridge the gap between what the law requires and what the police did, I would suggest simply stating that you don't know how or why the police's systems failed, and that it is not your job to fix their incompetence, but that you would quite like to know, and with respect perhaps the court might also like to know, why they are wasting both yours and the courts time with this unlawful prosecution.
-
Thanks again for the help. My magistrates court date is set for next week. Have printed out ss. 75 & 78 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, highlighted the relevant parts (which Andy kindly referred to in an earlier response) and will present a short defence referring to the law and how it says that they should not be prosecuting me as I fulfilled the conditions of the offer. There doesn't seem to be much else for me to be saying over and above what you kindly wrote, so will keep it short.
I did note that in earlier versions of the Traffic offenders act (see below) it was a requirement that the payment and identification requirements be met 'at the same time' or 'in a single attempt' (an expression used by NewJudge, which made me look for it in the law just in case) and I suspect that their failure to 'match' my payment with identification 'at the same time' on their computer system is a legacy computer program thing which they have not yet updated since they scrapped the 'at the same time' legal requirement. I might also mention this...that it seems I'm probably up for prosecution because of a legacy computer glitch from when the requirement was 'at the same time'....though it might be a waste of breath muddying the waters....they probably only want to know if they can get away with taking my money.
I'll be practising my short speech (I assume my short defence speech is after the prosecutor has his say) and also, will practice a mitigation speech for afterwards in case my short defence fails.
Will be wearing a suit / making good eye contact etc and if anyone has any tips I'd appreciate it - have never been to court before.
Many Thanks.
........
Here is the original act the relevant line is (7) (a)(ii)
Original ACT 1988
(7)A conditional offer must indicate that if the following conditions are fulfilled, that is—
(a)within the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which the offer was issued, or such longer period as may be specified in the offer, the alleged offender—
(i)makes payment of the fixed penalty to the clerk of court specified in the offer, and
(ii)where the offence to which the offer relates is an offence involving obligatory endorsement, at the same time delivers his licence to that clerk, and
(b)where his licence is so delivered, that clerk is satisfied on inspecting the licence that, if the alleged offender were convicted of the offence, he would not be liable to be disqualified under section 35 of this Act,
any liability to conviction of the offence shall be discharged.
-
We have told you what the law says, and where it says it.
Much like your original post, you seem determined to obfuscate the relevant facts and arguments.
What you do or do not write on the SJPN forms (I can only assume that they are the "the forms" you refer to) is not necessarily critical - this is not you only opportunity to put your case forward, but in cases where you have nothing to hide, and no tactical advantage to be gained by not setting out your stall early and giving yourself the best chance of having the matter put to bed at the earliest opportunity.
If I didn't know what the law said, after reading your list of facts, I would still not know what the law said, or why those facts were relevant.
I'm not being prosecuted (lawfully or unlawfully), so it doesn't matter to me whether you set out your defence clearly or whether you go out of your way to hide it. It should probably matter to you though.
-
Many Thanks Andy_Foster and NewJudge
In response to your kind suggestions I had a telephone discussion with a member of the Fixed Penalty Support unit who agreed that their systems were not perfect and that their data does back up / agree with the facts I wrote the below. They also said these system / process issues were known issues and they said to fill in the forms stating the facts and only the facts. I therefore intend to fill in the forms with the facts below and plan to plead not guilty as I met the conditions of the compromise agreement like you both said. There is obviously a risk I will catch someone at the court on a bad day, but do you think the below might work out ok and is there anything you think is wrong / should be changed or added? Many Thanks for your kind input. Guy
Fixed Penalty Notice: XXX306619039XXXX re 03/11/2024 BP7XXXX
3/11/2024 BP7XXXX was observed speeding at 46mph in 40 mph zone
11/11/2024 – Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to The Defendant (Registered Keeper) together with requirement to provide driver details at the time.
Before 20/11/2024 - The Defendant returned Section 172 response admitting to being the driver.
20/11/2024 – Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty sent to The Defendant.
25/11/2024 – The Defendant attempted online payment of £100 amount in relation to conditional offer – this attempt is recorded on the Police System and was confirmed 06/05/2025 by staff at the Fixed Penalty Support Unit. There was no message at the time to say payment failed so The Defendant assumed it was successful.
25/11/2024 – The Defendant Posted Driving License Details as requested.
27/11/2024 – The Defendant’s Driving license details were received by the Fixed Penalty payment department having arrived in the post.
04/12/2024 - A letter was sent to The Defendant from Fixed Penalty Office in relation the Notice XXX306619039XXXX Offence Date 03/11/2024, thanking The Defendant for the license details (also stating Licence details enclosed) but indicating no payment had been received (no payment enclosed) so requesting £100 payment again. This is the first time The Defendant knew that payment attempt on 25/11/2024 was not successful.
09/12/2024 – The Defendant makes second (successful) online payment attempt for £100, and a receipt for this is received via email.
It is at this point, 09/12/2024, that the conditions of the conditional offer sent 20/11/24 had been met by The Defendant.
Factually, driving license details and Payment had been received within 19 days of the 20/11/2024 Conditional Offer being sent to The Defendant. This is why The Defendant has pleaded ‘not guilty’ – because he met the conditions on the conditional offer and demonstrably acted in good faith.
-
Now that the OP has provided the correct information, this seems trivial.
A COFP is "valid" for 28 days from date of issue - so the OP had until 18/12/2024 to accept the offer.
Payment and identification details were both received before this time.
If the offender complies with the statutory requirements (making payment and providing the required identification details) within the 28 days, he cannot lawfully be prosecuted for the offence. If the police want to make up their own "rules" - they can either FRO or prosecute themselves for perverting the course of justice.
As an aside, the requirement for identification details is either that the offenders name, date of birth and driving licence number are provided to the Fixed Penalty Clerk, or that the FIxed Penalty Clerk is otherwise satisfied as to his identity. So, even if the COFP had been re-issued, and the identification details had been provided in response to a previously issued COFP, I think they would struggle to argue that the second part was not satisfied.
See ss. 75&78 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
However,
On 01/05/2025 the records held by the Fixed Penalty Support Unit were checked, which showed that no driving license details were received and the conditions of the fixed charge penalty had not been met and the fixed penalty was withdrawn
Mostly likely, semi-literate bollox from a CTO tubby, but the only "condition" of a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty is that the driver is not liable to tot up (does not already have 9 or more relevant points). Making payment and providing the required identification details are requirements for accepting the offer, not conditions upon with the offer is made.
If the OP had 9 relevant points at the time of the commission of the offence, then the police could and would legally withdraw the offer when that came to light.
-
Thanks for the replies.
Apologies for the typo on date sent for Conditional offer of a fixed penalty - the witness wrote "20/112024" in the statement and I messed up trying to correct that to 20/11/2024.
New Judge - thanks you understood the key issues perfectly anyway...would definitely be interested to hear if anyone feels the possible not guilty approach would work / be worth the effort and it it fails would they come down harshly on me.
-
Hi - Please can someone kindly give me some advise?
My advice is that if you want meaningful advice, it is helpful to provide meaningful information on which to provide such advice.
Was caught doing 46 in a 40 zone, and received conditional offer.
Usually another step in there somewhere.
The witness statement says, rather confusingly....."The defendant, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle, completed and returned the section 172 response admitting they were the driver at the time of the offence"
Did this not happen? Otherwise, why is this confusing?
"On 2022/2024 a Conditional Offer of a fixed penalty was sent to the same person and address as was on the Notice of Intended Prosecution.
Really?
-
You have two options.
The first is to plead not guilty on the basis that you complied with the conditions of the fixed penalty by paying £100 and submitting your licence details. If the court accepts that you did then a prosecution for the same offence cannot succeed.
The second is to plead guilty and respectfully request that the court sentences you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty. Magistrates have guidance which suggests they can do this in your circumstances:
"Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances."
Depends how much bother you want to go to. I don’t know how the argument supporting the first option would go in court. The law says
“…an alleged offender fulfils the identification requirements if—
(a)the alleged offender provides the appropriate person with identification information, or
(b)the appropriate person is otherwise satisfied of the alleged offender’s identity."
I might be a bit hard for them to argue that you did not provide identification information when they say that they received it. It seems they are treating your first attempt to fulfil the conditions as null and void since your payment was not received and hat both conditions must be met in a single attempt. I believe it is a bit harsh to insist the identity requirement is met again when they already have it.
See what others think.
-
Hi - Please can someone kindly give me some advise?
Was caught doing 46 in a 40 zone, and received conditional offer.
I filled in forms requested and sent back driving license details and also tried to pay online - I thought system was happy with payment at time. Some days later, received another letter saying had not paid so was surprised to find out I hadn't - so paid again and got payment receipt this time via email. I did not receive the payment receipt the first time but there was no indication the first payment had failed at the time. Have no idea why first payment failed but second was successful. Now, 5 months later I get an SJPN letter. The witness statement says, rather confusingly....."The defendant, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle, completed and returned the section 172 response admitting they were the driver at the time of the offence"
"On 2022/2024 a Conditional Offer of a fixed penalty was sent to the same person and address as was on the Notice of Intended Prosecution. On 27/11/2024 the defendants driving license details were received at the Fixed Penalty Payment Department. On 4/12/2024 a letter was sent to the defendant requesting payment and re-submission of Driving License details. On the 9/12/2024 a payment of £100 was received to the file. On 01/05/2025 the records held by the Fixed Penalty Support Unit were checked, which showed that no driving license details were received and the conditions of the fixed charge penalty had not been met and the fixed penalty was withdrawn. A single justice notice was then generated and a refund requested."
You can see they admit they received my driving license details on 27/11....and that I paid the 100 as requested....but I missed the bit about resubmission
Any thoughts on how should I react this please? There computer systems obviously are not brilliant.
Many Thanks