Received SJPN due to husbands silly actions., 96 in a 70 (but in a van) Options

[UnhappyWife36]

Hi,

I am wondering If someone could put me a little at ease and supply me with a little information. (Maybe a lot sorry)

Husband pulled by police on A20 Swanley Bypass doing 96 in a 70 (however confusing part was a 60 for him as he was in a van but this is not stated on his paperwork)

He is a father of two of my children and I am a stay at home mum that relies on him to bring in the money to pay the bills. He requires his driving licence to drive all around the south east to do his job.

He currently has 3 points on his licence.

My questions are:

He is pleading guilty. Would it better for him to go to court and stand in front of the magistrates or would it be better to plead guilty via post?

If he is attending court does he still need to fill out the mitigation section of the paperwork?

Does he need to send all the paperwork back or does he keep some of it (we have no clue)

Should we be more concerned that he was in a van however the paperwork does not state that the road was a 60 and states that it is a 70?

As you all can understand and anyone that has been through this it is a very stressful experience and I am a aweful worrier that loses a lot of sleep as I can not fix this issue and it is up to him.

Any help or advice is welcomed.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

It’s an SJPN, you can’t attend a single justice hearing which is in a normal office with just the justice and a legal advisor, if he pleads guilty the most the single justice can award is six points, if they think it requires a disqualification the justice will transfer it to a magistrates court, so it’s best to allow the Jsutice to decide that, if it does go to court where he would be required to attend then he gets a second bite of the cherry.

If there is nothing to tell the justice he was in a commercial than six points is likely.

If he writes something in mitigation, make sure it cannot be read as in any way justifying his crime, at most state it was a much regrettted moment of stupidity, it won’t make any difference though as anyone (using any sense) would say the same so no need for an essay.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 - 21:21

[Jlc]

If they process it as a 70 limit then 6 points is quite likely to be the outcome. If they realise the vehicle had a lower limit (60) then it will almost certainly result in a normal court hearing to consider a short ban. (But points are still possible)

[southpaw82]

if he pleads guilty the most the single justice can award is six points, if they think it requires a disqualification the justice will transfer it to a magistrates court

That’s not what the law says, though I accept I’ve not seen the procedure in practice. Section 16C(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 says

(2) If a magistrates' court trying a written charge in accordance with section 16A proposes, after the accused is convicted of the offence, to order the accused to be disqualified under section 34 or 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—
(a) the court must give the accused the opportunity to make representations or further representations about the proposed disqualification, and
(b) if the accused indicates a wish to make such representations, the court may not continue to try the case in accordance with section 16A.

The bar against disqualifying in absence found in s 11(4) does not apply to proceedings following an adjournment for the defendant to make representations under s 16C(2) - presumably only where such representations are not made.

It may well be that a practice has evolved whereby the matter is automatically put to a full court but that need not be the case if the defendant doesn’t wish to make any representations (though that would be foolish). It does beg the question of how the defendant knows he has been disqualified until he receives the letter, by which time the disqualification is already in effect. It’s a bit of a mess.

[The Rookie]

I agree, I thought it best to relay how it would work not how it may work, as you say what they can do is contradicted by other things they should do!

[southpaw82]

I agree, I thought it best to relay how it would work not how it may work, as you say what they can do is contradicted by other things they should do!

Does anyone know it works like that, or is everyone assuming that it does?

[NewJudge]

Single Justices do not generally disqualify in absence. The main problem stemming from such a practice is that, as you say, the defendant may not know he has been disqualified until some time after the ban was imposed. The adjournment notice he receives following a SJ hearing (or a full court hearing for that matter) when disqualification is considered gives him the new date, tells him he should attend but if he does not then he should assume, until he learns otherwise, that he has been banned.

[southpaw82]

Single Justices do not generally disqualify in absence. The main problem stemming from such a practice is that, as you say, the defendant may not know he has been disqualified until some time after the ban was imposed. The adjournment notice he receives following a SJ hearing (or a full court hearing for that matter) when disqualification is considered gives him the new date, tells him he should attend but if he does not then he should assume, until he learns otherwise, that he has been banned.

So in the absence of representations does a single justice proceed to sentence, including disqualification, or is it remitted to a full court (contrary to what appears to be the intention of Parliament)?

[NewJudge]

It is only remitted to a full court if the SJ believes disqualification should be considered.

[southpaw82]

It is only remitted to a full court if the SJ believes disqualification should be considered.

That seems to be contrary to the intention of Parliament (in saving court time) if no representations are to be made. I do, however, think it’s a good idea - albeit I don’t like the SJP full stop.

[andy_foster]

Disqualifying under the SJP would be perhaps least inappropriate in situations where the accused has not responded at all, and is all but certain not to attend any hearing.

As regards the intention of Parliament, it appears to have given a discretionary power to single justices. I would hope that the courts would not feel bound to apply such discretion to do something so contentious just because Parliament says that they can if they want.

IOW, if the courts are lawfully applying common sense to 'troubled' legislation, leave them to it.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 - 23:25

[Logician]

Should we be more concerned that he was in a van however the paperwork does not state that the road was a 60 and states that it is a 70?

Was it a small van? Certain small vans derived from cars have a 70 limit not a 60 limit.

[UnhappyWife36]

Should we be more concerned that he was in a van however the paperwork does not state that the road was a 60 and states that it is a 70?

Was it a small van? Certain small vans derived from cars have a 70 limit not a 60 limit.

He drives a vauxhall vevero so largeish van.

[Logician]

Should we be more concerned that he was in a van however the paperwork does not state that the road was a 60 and states that it is a 70?

Was it a small van? Certain small vans derived from cars have a 70 limit not a 60 limit.

He drives a vauxhall vevero so largeish van.

No joy there, then, just the hope that the police have failed to record that he was in a van with a 60mph limit.