What is the Slip Rule? |
What is the Slip Rule? |
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 12:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 125 Joined: 30 Jun 2020 From: Ealing Member No.: 109,009 |
Can anyone show me the practice directions allowing the court to change the name of a defendant on a summons?
I've read PD40B but that seems to be county court. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 12:49
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 13:22
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
The change made would need to be specified.
If it was changed to another person, I am sure that is not allowed. If it is changed from "Eric Browm, d.o.b 12/3/1945" to "Eric Brown d.o.b 12/3/1945" then it would be. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 13:47
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Do you mean section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980?
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 14:28
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 125 Joined: 30 Jun 2020 From: Ealing Member No.: 109,009 |
The change made would need to be specified. If it was changed to another person, I am sure that is not allowed. If it is changed from "Eric Browm, d.o.b 12/3/1945" to "Eric Brown d.o.b 12/3/1945" then it would be. I'm looking for the rule of court that enables a court to modify a summons to amend the name of the defendant. I'm not looking for any rule that changes the defendant. Do you mean section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980? I don' think section 123 is what I'm looking for, it only prevents an objection to a summons for a defect in the court's process. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 15:05
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 951 Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,849 |
Perhaps it would help with any advice if you were to explain exactly what changes have been made etc?
|
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 17:45
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 125 Joined: 30 Jun 2020 From: Ealing Member No.: 109,009 |
Here's the bigger picture
Her surname is Cona and she got a NIP for doing 37 in a 30 in the name of Cone. The DVLA V5 for the car is Cona I didn’t see the NIP myself, but I understand she returned it not known at the address. She now has a collection order in her correct name Cona and must send her driving license. I suspect the court switched her name, but I cannot find the rule proving it. The DOB is correct. Does anyone have any thoughts? |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 18:10
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,585 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I didn’t see the NIP myself, but I understand she returned it not known at the address. Does anyone have any thoughts? I would suspect she has been prosecuted, in absence it seems, for a failing to furnish (s172) charge. A Statutory Declaration would be the next move with the court to remove the conviction at least. Not enough detail to comment much further. This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 18:15 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 18:49
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Off the top of my head, a summons (or equivalent) raised against the wrong person (where the 'wrong name' is the correct name for some other person) cannot be rectified, but a misspelled name can. I think that the relevant authority will be case law - not quite sure why you are specifically asking for a practice direction, or involving the slip rule.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 19:12
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
So is that all the story? She received no ‘reminder’ no ‘summons’ no result but just the first and last communications in the chain?
I think you’ve misunderstood S123, perhaps read it again more slowly. You’ll note the key bit is ‘the accused’. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 19:13 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 06:22
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 125 Joined: 30 Jun 2020 From: Ealing Member No.: 109,009 |
Off the top of my head, a summons (or equivalent) raised against the wrong person (where the 'wrong name' is the correct name for some other person) cannot be rectified, but a misspelled name can. I think that the relevant authority will be case law Spot on. That's what I'm looking for. A Statutory Declaration would be the next move with the court to remove the conviction at least. I'm a bit nervous about encouraging a stat dec, and I'm mindful of the time limit. If the court can switch a defendants name after a section 172 and before a collection order, then it can probably back-date the switch to the original contravention. |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 07:20
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
What is she going to declare? Being a smart-ar*e and ignoring a notice obviously for her but with one letter wrong is not likely to play-out well for her.
Was the return not known your idea? |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 07:55
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If the court can switch a defendants name after a section 172 and before a collection order, then it can probably back-date the switch to the original contravention. A contravention is civil, this is a criminal offence. In this case the (now) accused person was sent a mis named S172 request, there could be an argument as to whether that was served on the accused or some other person as a potential defence. The court has no powers to modify the S172 request (S123 applies to court documentation only) so the accused is either the correct accused or not. Without knowing what else was sent (and received as you've not answered that question) its impossible to say how we've got to a collection order. Was a corrected S172 request sent (which would then be valid and the non respondent prosecuted for that), was the 'summons' (Single Justice Procedure Notice) in the correct name or not (you're assuming the court changed it, but that's a complete guess by you unless other paperwork was received), or has it been changed post conviction when trying to trace the now debtor. So again, was ANYTHING else received at all between the misnamed S172 (which was presumably opened?) and the collection order as I'd expect at least three were sent. 1/ Reminder or similar from the police - may not have been sent but I think it unlikely 2/ SJPN 3/ Court result This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 08:34 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 08:22
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,585 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I'm a bit nervous about encouraging a stat dec, and I'm mindful of the time limit. I would suggest it may be the only realistic option. But we have no detailed information as to what happened. They have a conviction against the 'correct' person. Making a SD to remove that conviction does not prejudice any potential defence. But I think you are trying to find another argument to somehow nullify the conviction/process itself? This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 10:13 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 09:22
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What is she going to declare? Being a smart-ar*e and ignoring a notice obviously for her but with one letter wrong is not likely to play-out well for her. +1, IMO she cannot make an SD as it would be a false declaration, she plainly knew the notice was for her if she knew about the offence and there was just 1 letter wrong in the spelling of the name. Don't forget that making a false SD is quite a serious criminal offence. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 10:07
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
What is she going to declare? Being a smart-ar*e and ignoring a notice obviously for her but with one letter wrong is not likely to play-out well for her. +1, IMO she cannot make an SD as it would be a false declaration, she plainly knew the notice was for her if she knew about the offence and there was just 1 letter wrong in the spelling of the name. Don't forget that making a false SD is quite a serious criminal offence. I disagree (at the moment) there is no indication the accused got an SJPN (pending a proper answer from the OP) in which case a a stat dec is entirely in order even if its merely to then plead guilty and minimise the sentence. In no way would that then be the false declaration you suggest. and the scare sentence is unnecessary I'd suggest. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 10:12
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,585 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
What is she going to declare? Being a smart-ar*e and ignoring a notice obviously for her but with one letter wrong is not likely to play-out well for her. +1, IMO she cannot make an SD as it would be a false declaration, she plainly knew the notice was for her if she knew about the offence and there was just 1 letter wrong in the spelling of the name. Don't forget that making a false SD is quite a serious criminal offence. We don't know exactly what was received, what was done (or not done) with them. It could be true that they were unaware of the subsequent court hearing. But some professional help may well be advised to avoid a sticky outcome. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:43
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
We don't know exactly what was received, what was done (or not done) with them. It could be true that they were unaware of the subsequent court hearing. If they returned all paperwork unopened, they would have been unaware. However I'm not sure you can legitimately claim you're unaware if you received the notice and deliberately returned it even though you know full well the notice is intended for you. Otherwise you could go as far as opening the letter, noticing it's an SJPN and simply refuse to read the time and date of the hearing (which would be half way down the page), and claim that as a result of that you were "unaware" of when the hearing was due to take place. Of course, if the OP confirms how many letters were returned to sender, we might be able to work out based on the number of letters whether one of them was likely to be the SJPN. At the moment I'm presuming all paperwork was correctly served unless / until the OP tells us otherwise, as this is the starting point and the OP has not asserted the contrary. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:07
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,585 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Indeed - your glass is half empty, mine is half full.
But I suspect there's a lot of detail to this case which means they are in a creek without a paddle. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 13:01
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
We don't know exactly what was received, what was done (or not done) with them. It could be true that they were unaware of the subsequent court hearing. If they returned all paperwork unopened, they would have been unaware. However I'm not sure you can legitimately claim you're unaware if you received the notice and deliberately returned it even though you know full well the notice is intended for you. Otherwise you could go as far as opening the letter, noticing it's an SJPN and simply refuse to read the time and date of the hearing (which would be half way down the page), and claim that as a result of that you were "unaware" of when the hearing was due to take place. Of course, if the OP confirms how many letters were returned to sender, we might be able to work out based on the number of letters whether one of them was likely to be the SJPN. At the moment I'm presuming all paperwork was correctly served unless / until the OP tells us otherwise, as this is the starting point and the OP has not asserted the contrary. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 14:18
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I suspect the court switched her name, but I cannot find the rule proving it. I suspect that the case was prosecuted using the SJPN method, so no summons would have been issued. The prosecutor (in this case the police) would have issued a written charge and a single justice procedure notice, under s 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If this was in her correct name then all is good. If it was not in her correct name then, as you surmise, someone has changed the name before it got to the collection order. People seem to be concentrating on amending the name prior to conviction (in what used to be called amending the information - but here would require an amendment to the written charge, which wasn’t issued by the court anyway - so the slip rule would not apply). I am not aware of any power to correct an error in a written charge, neither am I aware of any case law on that point. If the written charge was incorrect but the name has been corrected on the collection order then I’m not sure the slip rule is appropriate either - the court could not be said to have meant to put the correct name on the collection order, if the correct name was not on the written charge. It seems important to find out what was on the written charge - you’ve not said whether that was received or not (which is also central to the issue of whether a statutory declaration can be performed or not). So far, you seem to have given half a story. You really do need to list every document that has been received and what name appears on it. For what it’s worth, I think that ignoring the s 172 notice was a bad idea and runs a real risk of conviction if it gets that far. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 04:23 |