PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Speeding and Licence not valid
Donald22
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 16:35
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,919



Hi. I'm new to this forum and hope someone can help.
I got caught speeding near Bridgwater on 13th March by a mobile camera. I was doing 46 in a temporary 30 limit (normal limit is 40). Ok, my fault. I accept I was in the wrong.
So, after I received the notice from the speed enforcement unit, I sent off my licence on the 6th of April (old green paper one) and paid the £100 fine.
To my surprise I got a letter back from the fixed penalty office saying my licence was not valid and was being returned, with the matter being left with the police.
My licence showed validation dates from 1978 to 2024. I've never had my licence suspended or withdrawn and my last speeding ticket was in 1994.
I rang the FPO who suggested I talked to DVLA. I rang them and was told they hold no details of my licence. They suggested I send them my green paper licence and they would update it to a photo licence. I did this, after photocopying my paper licence.
Next I received a letter letting me make a plea to the magistrate. I pleaded guilty to the speeding offence and not guilty to the licence offence, with mitigation as described above.
Next I received a refund of my £100 fine straight into my bank account, followed by a "Notice of new date hearing" saying my case has been adjourned to 22nd Nov (despite never having an original date), with the reason being "For the police to make checks regarding driving licence offence". The cases are the speeding and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence...
The letter states I must attend the court.
Any help or info regarding the above very much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 37)
Advertisement
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 16:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:30
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Agreed, Andy, "...or a technical defence"

If he is acquitted the question of a sentence does not arise. However, if he is convicted I believe the court will find that he had the opportunity to accept a FP but chose not to do so. I think it depends very much on the circumstances and they may believe there is justification to sentence at the FP level since he only came to court on (say) a point of law. But I imagine such circumstances will be very rare.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:30) *
he had the opportunity to accept a FP but chose not to do so

Eh? You may have confused threads, but he clearly DID NOT make that choice, in fact he did the opposite and is the basis for the defence.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:07


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 09:16
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Yes thanks Rookie.

Unfortunately I conflated the hypothetical situation in post #17 with the OP's actual predicament. (Easy done when you're busy trying to follow the Brexit shenanigans! biggrin.gif )

If he goes to court as it is now there's every likelihood, as you have pointed out, that the matter will be dismissed so a question of sentence should not arise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Donald22
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:08
Post #24


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,919



Ok, thanks for the advice.
I'm think I'm going to give it a try with the argument being that I've already done everything required by law regarding the speeding offence.
That is I paid the fine and submitted a valid licence but they declined to indorse it.
I take it that I must plead not guilty to the speeding offence (even though I was speeding) for me to be able to make the above point.
I.e. I could not plead guilty then use this as an argument.

In regards to the alleged licence offence I'm more than happy to plead not guilty, as I now have proof from the DVLA that my licence was valid.



This post has been edited by Donald22: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:18
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Donald22 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
Ok, thanks for the advice.
I'm think I'm going to give it a try with the argument being that I've already done everything required by law regarding the speeding offence.
That is I paid the fine and submitted a valid licence but they declined to indorse it.
I take it that I must plead not guilty to the speeding offence (even though I was speeding) for me to be able to make the above point.
I.e. I could not plead guilty then use this as an argument.

In regards to the alleged licence offence I'm more than happy to plead not guilty, as I now have proof from the DVLA that my licence was valid.

If you were speeding, and you accept you were speeding, you plead guilty to the offence.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:30
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (Donald22 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
Ok, thanks for the advice.
I'm think I'm going to give it a try with the argument being that I've already done everything required by law regarding the speeding offence.
That is I paid the fine and submitted a valid licence but they declined to indorse it.
I take it that I must plead not guilty to the speeding offence (even though I was speeding) for me to be able to make the above point.
I.e. I could not plead guilty then use this as an argument.

In regards to the alleged licence offence I'm more than happy to plead not guilty, as I now have proof from the DVLA that my licence was valid.

If you were speeding, and you accept you were speeding, you plead guilty to the offence.

Not if he’s going to dispute the court’s jurisdiction to try him though.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:51
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Strictly speaking, as SP points out, its not a not guilty plea, you are challenging the courts jurisdiction to try you for an offence you have already disposed of, however from a pragmatic point of view, right now its just a not guilty plea.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:55
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



OK, thanks.
So how is this case different to the usual guilty plea for speeding, but sentenced at CoFP rate for "reasons unconnected with the offence"?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:57
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Read through page 1 and it should be clear!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:58
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:55) *
OK, thanks.
So how is this case different to the usual guilty plea for speeding, but sentenced at CoFP rate for "reasons unconnected with the offence"?

The OP is arguing that he should not be prosecuted at all, due to the statutory bar in the RTOA once he’s complied with the COFP. He doesn’t want to be sentenced or convicted at all.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:01
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:58) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:55) *
OK, thanks.
So how is this case different to the usual guilty plea for speeding, but sentenced at CoFP rate for "reasons unconnected with the offence"?

The OP is arguing that he should not be prosecuted at all, due to the statutory bar in the RTOA once he’s complied with the COFP. He doesn’t want to be sentenced or convicted at all.

Got you! Sent in valid DL. Paid. Both asccepted. Then DL rejected when it should not have been. Thanks!

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:01


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Donald22
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:14
Post #32


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,919



I've just read Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 76(2) and this states:

(2)Where the alleged offender makes payment of the fixed penalty in accordance with the conditional offer, no proceedings shall be brought against him for the offence to which the offer relates unless subsection (3) below applies.

Within subsection 3 it states:

(b)the appropriate person returns the payment to the alleged offender together with (where he is the holder of a licence)] his licence and its counterpart.

Now, the £100 fine was returned to me and my original licence was returned. So I'm beginning to think the argument is not valid. Any thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:28
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So which part of (3) do you think allowed him to return it, you have to read it all, not one bit
QUOTE
(3)This subsection applies where—
(a)it appears to the appropriate person, on inspecting the licence and its counterpart [F4or (where the alleged offender is not the holder of a licence) accessing information held on his driving record ], that the alleged offender would be liable to be disqualified under section 35 of this Act if he were convicted of the offence to which the conditional offer relates,
(b)the appropriate person returns the payment to the alleged offender together with [F5 (where he is the holder of a licence)] his licence and its counterpart, and
©where the appropriate person is not the Secretary of State, the appropriate person gives notice that he has done so to the person required to be notified.

There are no OR's so its AND, so as you were not liable to be disqualified (a) under section 35, it doesn't apply at all.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:28


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:13
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Take sufficient print-outs of the legislation, a copy of the letter from the police returning your licence, and the email form DVLA, so that you, each of the three magistrates, the court legal adviser and the CPS prosecutor can all have a copy. Getting the admin right can make hearings like these a lot smoother.

A not guilty plea is the correct approach where the jurisdiction is disputed, it's the same approach you'd take if the proceedings had been started after the six months time limit or if the first NIP had been served after 14 days. The basis is that whether you committed the offence or not, the court cannot convict you.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Donald22
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 18:08
Post #35


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,919



Ok, I took that to be OR not AND in the legislation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'll take copies as suggested and plead not guilty.

Just one other query:
I received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" as noted in my original post ... (Next I received a letter letting me make a plea to the magistrate....)
I filled this in on line, pleading guilty to the speeding and not guilty to the licence offence.
Can I still go to court and plead not guilty to the speeding offence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:52
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Yes. As I noted above, it’s nit strictly a not guilty plea anyway, you are stating that the court has no jurisdiction to try the offence although the effect is the same in practice. Contact the court and tell them you are withdrawing the guilty plea and are pleading not guilty.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Donald22
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 09:34
Post #37


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,919



Or will I be asked in court how I plead?
I.e. Despite the guilty plea within the Single Justice Procedure notice, this has now gone to court and so I should be allowed to plea as I wish.
If the answer to this is no, then how would I change my plea? By email to the court?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 09:58
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Yes you can, but it’s worth notifying the court in advance, that way they can allow the extra time for your case if they think it’s needed.

Atkinson v DPP relates to a similar issue of lack of jurisdiction and worth a read.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d.../2004/1457.html


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:43
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here