Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all,

Any advice it would be appreciated.

First of all,it happened 6 months ago.

The driver received two speeding offences one on 10th of February, one on 11th of February. Both of the speeding offences were within a few minutes of each other, same day.

Was caught out by speed cameras travelling at 36 miles pe hour, the legal limit being 30 miles per hour, 10 minutes after was caught again travelling at 37 mph, the legal limit being 30 mph because driver thought the legal limit is 40 mph as to website West Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership.

As the driver licence was immaculate and never attended a course before, it was offered a course which has been attended. For the second offence, ( speeding from 30 mph to 37 was offered 3 penalty points straight away and £100, which also all were paid and there is an evidence of the confirmation email.

Two days ago the driver received a single justice procedure where it is stated that HMCTS  have not received licence details.

Can that happend after 6 months?

The driver had to provide driving licence details when was completed the payments.


Thank you for reading.
 

The prosecution has to be started before six months have expired - when was the prosecution started (often the date of the written charge).

Were driving licence details provided or not?

The licence details were provided in the moment of the online payment, name of the driver, driving licence number. How the driver could pay without these details?
 

I supposed the driver should have sent this back the paper 2, where the details of the licence are required?But still, they require the details in the moment of payment. Why is this happening?The driver did not know he has to sent something back as it is mentioned to not send the licence.

There is a difference between the COFP telling the driver what to do and the driver not doing it and the COFP not telling the driver what to do.

Is there a material difference (12 angels dancing on the head of a pin is different to 13 angels dancing on the head of a pin), and in what regard?

N.B. I have been asked to "play nice" for a while, so I will avoid ventilating the obvious immaterial difference.

DPP v Holden (of the previous parish) held that a defective COFP was not a bar to subsequent prosecution after the suspended enforcement period had lapsed, if the defect did not disadvantage the accused. That is not however to say that if the accused was somehow disadvantaged it would necessarily be a bar to prosecution or otherwise a defence.

As regards the prohibition on instigating proceedings when the requirements of a conditional offer has been complied with, either they have been or they haven't.

The statute (s. 75(8A) RTOA 1988) is reasonably prescriptive regarding the information (name, date of birth and licence number) that must be provided to the fixed penalty clerk. I would suggest that the date of birth is effectively redundant where a licence number is provided.

It does not appear to be open to the CTO to insert their own requirements beyond that of providing information necessary for the recipient to provide the identification information to the appropriate person (fixed penalty clerk).

If, as the OP appears to be trying to tell us, he had to provide this information (possibly not including the redundant date of birth) to the appropriate person in order to make payment, unless he provided the wrong information, it is not obvious that he failed to comply withe the requirements set out in the statute.

However, if the OP has managed to fail to comply with the requirements, there is no statutory bar on prosecution. The obvious distinction between not bothering to read the COFP and the COFP not bothering to state the requirements is that in the latter case the argument for sentence at the equivalent of the fixed penalty is far more compelling.

What it can be done please?

Respond to the SJPN by pleading guilty. When doing so enclose a note (either in the "mitigating circumstances" or separately) explaining the circumstances and ask to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level. Magistrates have guidance which allows them to do this:

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.

The reason the FP could not be taken up was under the control of the offender but a kindly Single Justice will probably meet that request.

I don’t think it matters. Online will ensure it “gets there” (or at least you can show it was submitted).

Does any of you know for what are this two payments?
To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £44.00.
To pay costs of £90.00.

The driver pleaded guitly and not choosed to not attend the court.
Thank you for your answers.

Some victims of crime (e.g. assaults) are paid compensation. The victim surcharge (40% of the fine) is used to help fund those payments, and applies to all criminal convictions.

£90 is the guideline prosecution cost for a guilty plea. For a not-guilty plea, it starts about £600.

Some victims of crime (e.g. assaults) are paid compensation. The victim surcharge (40% of the fine) is used to help fund those payments, and applies to all criminal convictions.

£90 is the guideline prosecution cost for a guilty plea. For a not-guilty plea, it starts about £600.

The Victim Surcharge does not go to victims of crime.  If only it did, as people wait for years to be paid compensation in installments by defendants with no money.

Details of the organisations funded are here,  though the government has yet to publish any accounts showing the total received vs total paid.