Show Posts
1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: SJP Received - Dual Charge (S172 and Speeding) - Didn't receive my NIP
« on: Today at 07:24:11 pm »
The clean answer is this: if his aim is the usual court-door resolution, he should not do a split plea online. He should respond within the 21-day limit by pleading not guilty to both charges, which gets the case out of the single justice paper process and into open court. GOV.UK says a not guilty response under the SJP means the case goes to court, and the Criminal Procedure Rules treat a not guilty response as a notice requiring listing, whereas written representations and mitigation are tied to a guilty response.
I would not use the online comments box to run the facts. Keep it tight. If the portal allows a note and he feels he must put something, I would keep it to no more than: "I request that this matter be listed for hearing." I would not put in a mini witness statement, and I would not hand the prosecution an online admission that he was the driver. That is just doing their job for them.
Then, when the matter is listed, he attends and speaks to the prosecutor before the case is called on. That is the point at which he can say he is prepared to plead guilty to the speeding if the section 172 count is withdrawn. That preserves his room to manoeuvre. Doing "guilty to speeding / not guilty to s172" online is the risky version because it can leave the speeding effectively conceded while the s172 is still alive. That is how people step on the rake.
The reason this matters is obvious enough. Speeding is the smaller problem. The ordinary minimum penalty for speeding is £100 and 3 points, whereas failing to give driver information under section 172 carries 6 points and a level 3 fine. The Sentencing Council also identifies section 172 as a 6-point offence.
So the practical answer to his questions is: yes, not guilty to both if the object is to force a hearing and try to resolve it properly in court; no, do not put detailed mitigation in the online box; and no, do not leave the response blank or miss the deadline. Respond in time, get it listed, and deal with the prosecutor in person on the day.
I would not use the online comments box to run the facts. Keep it tight. If the portal allows a note and he feels he must put something, I would keep it to no more than: "I request that this matter be listed for hearing." I would not put in a mini witness statement, and I would not hand the prosecution an online admission that he was the driver. That is just doing their job for them.
Then, when the matter is listed, he attends and speaks to the prosecutor before the case is called on. That is the point at which he can say he is prepared to plead guilty to the speeding if the section 172 count is withdrawn. That preserves his room to manoeuvre. Doing "guilty to speeding / not guilty to s172" online is the risky version because it can leave the speeding effectively conceded while the s172 is still alive. That is how people step on the rake.
The reason this matters is obvious enough. Speeding is the smaller problem. The ordinary minimum penalty for speeding is £100 and 3 points, whereas failing to give driver information under section 172 carries 6 points and a level 3 fine. The Sentencing Council also identifies section 172 as a 6-point offence.
So the practical answer to his questions is: yes, not guilty to both if the object is to force a hearing and try to resolve it properly in court; no, do not put detailed mitigation in the online box; and no, do not leave the response blank or miss the deadline. Respond in time, get it listed, and deal with the prosecutor in person on the day.