Show Posts - a1guv

What else do I need to do to prove we have exhausted all avenues? When I recived the SJP it said they had sent a second letter asking me to review photo's, but I never recived it. I have been asking for a copy ever since I recived the SJP but they have not supplied it. I asked again for it in court and was told they do not need to supply it until nearer the trial, the case notes say they have to supply within 28 days prior to trail. Until I get a copy of that letter I can not even check, so they are actually preventing me from checking.To me it seems the entire process is skewed in their favour.

Sorry first time posting so do not know how to put things or if its too long and too detailed.I got a section 172 and did not deal with it straight away as I was dealing with the death of a 1-month-old in the family. (2 days prior to speeding offence) I did not deal with any post during this time and only dealt with it the day after the funeral. Luckily, I had 1 day left to return the section 172 notice, but, due to doing a lot of running around over those few weeks (my wife and I was doing the running around) neither of us could remember who was driving at that time. The 172 states that making a false declaration is an offence, so rather than fill out, sign and send the 172, I sent it back with a covering letter explaining the situation. I asked If I could receive the ticket, as we are both acceptable for a driver awareness course, and it was probably a 70/30 split of who was most likely the driver.( I did not want to fill out and sign and then find it was not  me and end up in prison like the MP and my wife also then getting done for the speeding)I never heard anything back from them, and forgot all about it, until one day I received a summons to court under the SJP. I filled out the forms and pleaded not guilty to the failure to provide 172 (as I had returned it in time and with a full explanation of the circumstances, and named a driver they could serve the speeding ticket on) and I pleaded not guilty to the speeding, as I cannot be certain beyond reasonable doubt that I was the driver, again worried they would turn round and say it was not me driving and do me for perjury. I also questioned why they were charging me with both charges as each charge negated the other.I then received another summons telling me to attend court (not even my local court) for a pre-trial hearing. I attended expecting it to be in a small room with 1 magistrate court and the prosecutor only to find it was in open court and I had to make a plea, again I went not guilty for both, again giving brief reasons. The prosecutor then dropped the speeding offence and would just carry on with the more serious offence. We then talked about evidence, and I asked why I have not been given the evidence (noted in both summonses, they claim they sent a second letter, which I have never received) that I had asked for and was told they do not need to give it to me until nearer the court case. The magistrate in the centre of the three then asked something of the legal counsel sitting in front of them and was told a speed awareness course was not a punishment they could hand out. The magistrate then told me that if I plead guilty to the speeding offence, they will give me a fine and only 3 points on my licence and would not need to sign anything (I did not understand what this referred to) and the 172 charges would be dropped. Failure to do so would mean a much larger fine and more points under the 172 charges. I refused this offer and will now have to attend a trial, luckily at my local magistrate’s court (the centre magistrate was concerned that I had so far to travel with my disabilities). They then went on to what witnesses we would call, I had none, and the prosecution was calling **** I objected to this as this would increase any costs they may impose as I would not be questioning that the 172 notice was sent, so I saw it as a waste of taxpayers’ money to call a witness unnecessarily. They insisted they needed to be called as a witness.To me the whole thing seems a farce and purely to convict no matter what, I am also concerned that after the prosecution dropped the speeding charge, the magistrates could re-instate it to try and make me plead now for a lesser charge and lesser punishment. I see this as coercion to make me confess to a crime I do not know that I committed, rather than face a more serious charge and harsher punishment.Is what is happening to me legal? I know its not fair and just, like the law is supposed to be, and it seems that I must prove my innocence, rather than the prosecution prove my guilt. (some time during the proceedings the magistrate said I need to prove something, which I replied at the time, I thought it was the other way round)