Author Topic: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread  (Read 1041 times)

0 Members and 81 Guests are viewing this topic.

Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« on: »
So far, it has always been a staring competition. The PF has always blinked when the accused turns up to court on the day of the trial and maintained his not guilty plea.

So far, it has always been a staring competition. The PF has always blinked when the accused turns up to court on the day of the trial and maintained his not guilty plea.


I recently sent the form back completed & unsigned to comply with S172  & then received the conditional offer, as stated above normally they would notice it was unsigned and post back asking for it to be signed or knock on the door of home address.

Has anyone else seen this?
Is it likely just clerical error on behalf of the issuing police force?

Thanks

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #1 on: »
It was probably deliberate, hoping you will just fold and accept the CoFP.

Re: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #2 on: »
It was probably deliberate, hoping you will just fold and accept the CoFP.

I thought that was a possibility too.

Any advice on my next move?

I had considered writing back to clarify I had only responded to satisfy the conditions of S172 and response was not an admission to guilt.

However I was aware I need to be careful with how I would word that so not to trip myself up? 

Re: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #3 on: »
Why do you feel inclined to write back at all?
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.

Re: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #4 on: »
Why do you feel inclined to write back at all?

Fair comment.
So in this instance I should just ignore?

Re: Unsigned in Scotland - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #5 on: »
Sounds right.