HELP! Plead guilty & ticked to go to court- SJP made a decision, Help required with my lawyers actions & SJP decision Options

[Sam Jones]

I registered to this forum for help in regards to my matter.

Please forgive me if the post is lengthy.

I was caught doing 76 in 50mph zone in February 2020. At the time of the offence I had 6 points on my licence that were due to clear in August 2020.

I received the SJP and immediately contacted a lawyer for help on how to proceed as I felt I had extenuating circumstances that would prevent a ban.

My lawyer instructed me to go online and make a guilty plea and tick the ‘want to go to court’ box so that we could go to court and plead extenuating circumstances

Yesterday I received the make a plea result email from the single magistrate, they have requested I pay a hefty fine and have given me 6 points on my license. I have immediately paid the fine as I was happy with this result and the fact I didn’t need to go to court or argue to not be banned!

My lawyer argued that the fee is non-refundable and THEN proceeded to tell me that the court must have made a mistake and that I should be going to court and they should be imposing a ban and that it’s his duty as a court officer to notify the court of their mistake! He then said that once the mistake is rectified, I should have a court date and then he will represent me and my request for a refund is moot!!

I’m utterly confused how a lawyer that I appointed wants to inform the court that they made a mistake, so that he can represent me in court to get the same outcome as the single magistrate?!?!

Surely my lawyer works for me and should be instructed by me and also have solicitor/ client privilege? Is my lawyer just giving a passive threat because I requested a refund?

Has the single magistrate made a mistake? Or are the courts inundated with cases due to Covid and so the single magistrate is making more decisions to prevent face to face court proceedings?

I would be really interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on this and how my lawyer is in some respect working against me?

This post has been edited by Sam Jones: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 - 16:29

[Advertisement]

[Sam Jones]

.

This post has been edited by Sam Jones: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 21:54

[NewJudge]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, as a matter of law, the OP ought to have been banned.

Which is a very good point. Perhaps the OP's mistake was report back the outcome!

I’m hoping that the courts are so backlogged that they won’t care to re hear such a minor case, especially since the HMCTS have stated on their official webpage that the SJP has been asked to take on more cases in order to reduce the number of face to face hearings at the magistrate court, so that they can address the backlog of more serious cases.

I wouldn't count on that at all. Whilst the decision to reopen a case is for the court to make, I cannot see them refusing to do so in these circumstances if somebody asks them. As far as driving offences go, any offence (or, in your case, a group of offences) which attracts a mandatory six month ban is considered quite serious.

I find it difficult to understand what obligation the OP's solicitor feels he has towards the court.

Presumably that the court has not imposed the obligatory totting ban (subject to an exceptional hardship argument) and had thus fallen into error. If that had happened to my client I’d be slow to say that I had no obligation to inform the court, even if I had not appeared in respect of that matter.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, as a matter of law, the OP ought to have been banned.

Well it isn’t as black and white as that, is it? I have the right to explain exceptional hardship in court ...

OK, perhaps "should have faced a ban against which you could have argued 'Exceptional Hardship' " would be more appropriate. Either way, your matter was wrongly handled by the SJ.

[Sam Jones]

.

This post has been edited by Sam Jones: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 21:54

[andy_foster]

Apologies I didn’t mean that my previous points have cleared, they’re still there as they are 3 years old but don’t count anymore for totting as they are 3 years old.

Was the 'current' offence committed more or less than 3 years after the offence which lead to the previous 6 points (or the earlier offence if there was more than 1)? Only the offence dates matter/

[Sam Jones]

.

This post has been edited by Sam Jones: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 21:54

[southpaw82]

I find it difficult to understand what obligation the OP's solicitor feels he has towards the court.

Presumably that the court has not imposed the obligatory totting ban (subject to an exceptional hardship argument) and had thus fallen into error. If that had happened to my client I’d be slow to say that I had no obligation to inform the court, even if I had not appeared in respect of that matter.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, as a matter of law, the OP ought to have been banned.

Well it isn’t as black and white as that, is it? I have the right to explain exceptional hardship in court

Did you miss the bit in bold?

[andy_foster]

I had 6 active points at the time of my current offence (if that’s what you’re asking).

Strictly speaking, there is no concept in law of "active points". There are however, points to be taken into consideration when sentencing (for the purposes of totting up). The reason we often ask specific questions is (mostly) because we need specific answers in order to correctly advise.

It may well be that the offences were within 3 years of each other and that both the Single Justice and your lawyer messed up. Or it might be that they haven't, and you aren't answering the key question(s). You are probably confident that you know what you're talking about. We don't know you, all we know is that so far you've been vague, verging on inaccurate on this point.

[Sam Jones]

.

This post has been edited by Sam Jones: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 21:55

[andy_foster]

What specifics do you think I haven’t answered?

Previous points were given in August 2017

Current offence occurred in February 2020

It doesn't matter when the points were given, it the dates of the offences that matter.

[Sam Jones]

What specifics do you think I haven’t answered?

Previous points were given in August 2017

Current offence occurred in February 2020

It doesn't matter when the points were given, it the dates of the offences that matter.

Apologies if I’m not using the correct terminology. Those dates are the dates of the offence.

[BertB]

What specifics do you think I haven’t answered?

Previous points were given in August 2017

Current offence occurred in February 2020

It doesn't matter when the points were given, it the dates of the offences that matter.

Apologies if I’m not using the correct terminology. Those dates are the dates of the offence.

It may be a case of terminology or confusion. When you say your points were given in August, do you mean you were detected speeding (if that was the offence) in August, or this was when you received a letter from the court saying you had earned yourself 6 points?

For example, the date of your latest offence was February. You were given points for it in September.