Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes, that is the way to do it.

This arrangement is well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors). It is almost always successful. Since this site has been running there have been no reports of refusals and this site's predecessor (Pepipoo) had knowledge of only one (both, as far as I am aware).

I think the police and their prosecutors recognise that very often the "FtP" charge comes about due to administrative difficulties (lost or delayed post, unnotified change of address, drivers' misunderstanding of their responsibilities, etc). They also understand that the consequences of  conviction for that offence are usually far more profound than for speeding.

So long as they are happy that no advantage is being sought (say, if the actual driver was trying to avoid a "totting up" disqualification) they are content to accept a guilty plea to the underlying offence and will drop the FtP charge (which, if continued, might often involve them in a trial).

The "leverage" that the driver has is that without  guilty plea, a conviction for speeding cannot succeed (the police have no evidence to prove who was driving). An offer to plead guilty secures that conviction with little or no effort and in exchange all the police must do is drop the other charge. he willingness of prosecutors to undertake this agreement is illustrated by the fact that, in circumstances like your wife faces, they almost always raise both charges (speeding and FtP) even though they do not know who was driving and the speeding charge cannot possibly succeed without a guilty plea.

The way I see it, is that your wife filled out the NTP without consulting you, believing she couldn't identify the driver.

When you found out about it, you can confirm you were actually the driver?

I'd explain this to the prosecution on the day, and wish you luck.

The way I see it, is that your wife filled out the NTP without consulting you, believing she couldn't identify the driver.

When you found out about it, you can confirm you were actually the driver?

I'd explain this to the prosecution on the day, and wish you luck.

So you want the defendant (wife) to tell the prosecutor that she now knows her husband was driving but would like the prosecutor to accept a deal where she pleads guilty to an offence she’s just said she didn’t commit?

My wife responded using the paper form, pleading not guilty to both and stating the reasons why. She attached a letter to this form, as a few of you advised, expressing that she is open to considering the plea deal, whereby she changes her speeding plea to guilty and the second charge is dropped.

Just in case the letter was lost in the post or not delivered in time, she also submitted the pleas online the day before. The online form obviously did not provide anywhere to attach the separate 'deal' letter or proposal.

Anyway, so she has now received a response through the post and they have invited her to attend a court hearing for both charges. They have not mentioned anything about the plea deal she proposed. Should she call them up, or write another letter to them? Or should she just wait for the court hearing date and make the proposal again on the day itself? I assume the fines/costs will increase if the deal is only accepted on the court hearing date.

As the online plea was submitted prior to the paper form being sent, it's probable that the online not guilty plea to both offences (without the consideration for the failing to furnish being dropped) is what would have been accepted by the court before the paper plea arrived hence the reason for being called in for a hearing for both offences.

Quote from: helpneeded1 on April 15, 2025, 11:15:22 am

My wife responded using the paper form, pleading not guilty to both and stating the reasons why.

What exactly did she say ?

If her reasons consisted of potential defences to both charges then the expected outcome would be that the case will be listed for trial, as appears to be the case.

She gave defences to both charges, which is what she thought she is required to do. She stated the reasons I wrote in my opening post in this thread, but provided more detail. The SJPN letter mentioned that the reasons should be stated for each not-guilty plea, otherwise a less favourable judgement will be given. We thought this was what she was supposed to do. Was she meant to write the plea proposal into those boxes instead, and leave out any defence of her actions? How can we salvage this in order to obtain the 'plea deal'?

Quote from: AntonyMMM on April 15, 2025, 11:39:29 am

...... the case will be listed for trial, as appears to be the case.

For the avoidance of doubt for the OP, the hearing to which he has been called will not be a trial court.  If the Not Guilty plea is maintained, a trial will be scheduled at that hearing for a later date.

So the letter she has now received is called the 'Summons to Court'. Are you definitely sure that this is just a pre-trial hearing? What should my wife do at this Court sitting in order to obtain the 'plea deal'?

Alternatively, is there anything that can be done to get the 'plea deal' between now and the Court sitting? Should we write another letter to the SJPN address?