Free Traffic Legal Advice

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! 

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.

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.

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.

What do these "SJP" forms actually say?

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.

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.

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'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.