PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Stat Dec for Speeding & Failure to name ..
chribby
post Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 22:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



My mother and father split up several years ago, she has since changed her surname, address, and updated her address on everything .. except her v5c sadly as it was lost and forgotten about when she moved out.

Today I was visiting my father and happened to see a letter addressed to my mother so I took it for her, along with 2 others that were underneath it.


Long story short, she was caught doing 36 in a 30 back in May - a court case has been held in her absence and she now has £900 in fines and 6 points. She also needs to pay the 900 by the 11th of September. Lucky I found the letter now I suppose.


-----

So, I have been reading lots of other topics on this forum and the general advice seems to be to submit a statutory declaration and plead not guilty to both offences and then try to bargain for a guilty speeding plea if they drop the failure to name.. This is all well and good in theory but I can't really find anything about how you actually bargain. Do you just walk up to a guy in a suit at the court and say "hey bub, let's talk!". I don't really get it, it seems very cheeky which feels like the opposite of what you should be in court - especially when you are in the wrong.

Ultimately what the perfect outcome for her would be is to plead guilty for the speeding and not guilty for the failure to name driver (and have the pleas accepted or whatever).

----

One question I do have is, if she phones monday and makes an appointment to do the stat dec, do we still have to pay the fine? I know it effectively gets voided while the new case goes on, but with it being so close to the deadline for paying now I didn't know if there would be any possibilities of bad things happening while the stat dec is processed if payment is not sent.


----

Any and all advice is appreciated. My mother would thank you too if she knew how to work a computer. The fine and the s172 are the big concerns, the fine because she doesn't have £900 to her name.. and the s172 because of the effect it will have on her insurance and license points. She fully accepts wrong-doing for speeding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 22:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Logician
post Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 23:26
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



Your mother should telephone the court and get a date to attend to make a stat. dec. Then contact by phone or letter whoever sent the letter telling her she had to pay the £900 and tell them she will be making a stat. dec. on that date and will be asking for the conviction to be set aside and enforcement stopped. When she attends to make the stat. dec. she will very likely be asked how she will plead to the two offences, to which she should reply no guilty to both. She must not at that point say she will plead guilty to the speeding. A date for her trial will then be set.

On the day, she should get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to her the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that she will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, she should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as she would have trouble speaking to the right person.

If she had received the NIP she could have nominated herself as the driver and would then have received the offer of a fixed penalty. The normal sentencing for speeding in court would be rather more severe than this, so she would have been disadvantaged. Therefore she should point this out to the court and request to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, which is a guideline for magistrates' courts in these circumstances. The actual wording of the guideline is:

Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 08:48
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 00:26) *
Your mother should telephone the court and get a date to attend to make a stat. dec. Then contact by phone or letter whoever sent the letter telling her she had to pay the £900 and tell them she will be making a stat. dec. on that date and will be asking for the conviction to be set aside and enforcement stopped. When she attends to make the stat. dec. she will very likely be asked how she will plead to the two offences, to which she should reply no guilty to both. She must not at that point say she will plead guilty to the speeding. A date for her trial will then be set.

On the day, she should get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to her the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that she will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, she should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as she would have trouble speaking to the right person.

If she had received the NIP she could have nominated herself as the driver and would then have received the offer of a fixed penalty. The normal sentencing for speeding in court would be rather more severe than this, so she would have been disadvantaged. Therefore she should point this out to the court and request to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, which is a guideline for magistrates' courts in these circumstances. The actual wording of the guideline is:

Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances



thank you very much that helps a lot, in the event she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand is there some etiquette for this in the courtroom itself or is it simply to say it (politely) when it's your time to speak
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 10:24
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 09:48) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 00:26) *
Your mother should telephone the court and get a date to attend to make a stat. dec. Then contact by phone or letter whoever sent the letter telling her she had to pay the £900 and tell them she will be making a stat. dec. on that date and will be asking for the conviction to be set aside and enforcement stopped. When she attends to make the stat. dec. she will very likely be asked how she will plead to the two offences, to which she should reply no guilty to both. She must not at that point say she will plead guilty to the speeding. A date for her trial will then be set. On the day, she should get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to her the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that she will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, she should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as she would have trouble speaking to the right person. If she had received the NIP she could have nominated herself as the driver and would then have received the offer of a fixed penalty. The normal sentencing for speeding in court would be rather more severe than this, so she would have been disadvantaged. Therefore she should point this out to the court and request to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, which is a guideline for magistrates' courts in these circumstances. The actual wording of the guideline is: Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances
thank you very much that helps a lot, in the event she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand is there some etiquette for this in the courtroom itself or is it simply to say it (politely) when it's your time to speak


She will be asked again how she pleads to the two charges, she should then say she pleads not guilty to both charges unless the s.172 charge is dropped. Everyone will be expecting something like that, in fact the prosecutor may make the first move, and say they would be willing to withdraw the s.172 charge if there is a guilty plea to the speeding.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 11:15
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 11:24) *
QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 09:48) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 00:26) *
Your mother should telephone the court and get a date to attend to make a stat. dec. Then contact by phone or letter whoever sent the letter telling her she had to pay the £900 and tell them she will be making a stat. dec. on that date and will be asking for the conviction to be set aside and enforcement stopped. When she attends to make the stat. dec. she will very likely be asked how she will plead to the two offences, to which she should reply no guilty to both. She must not at that point say she will plead guilty to the speeding. A date for her trial will then be set. On the day, she should get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to her the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that she will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, she should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as she would have trouble speaking to the right person. If she had received the NIP she could have nominated herself as the driver and would then have received the offer of a fixed penalty. The normal sentencing for speeding in court would be rather more severe than this, so she would have been disadvantaged. Therefore she should point this out to the court and request to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, which is a guideline for magistrates' courts in these circumstances. The actual wording of the guideline is: Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances
thank you very much that helps a lot, in the event she does not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand is there some etiquette for this in the courtroom itself or is it simply to say it (politely) when it's your time to speak


She will be asked again how she pleads to the two charges, she should then say she pleads not guilty to both charges unless the s.172 charge is dropped. Everyone will be expecting something like that, in fact the prosecutor may make the first move, and say they would be willing to withdraw the s.172 charge if there is a guilty plea to the speeding.

Thank you very much, have made sure to tell her 100 times she needs to say she is going to plead not guilty. Hopefully I will go with her to the stat dec and court to make sure she doesn't cave in.

Thanks again for your help and information
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 11:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,547
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



You must also make sure she asks the court to consider sentencing at the fixed penalty level (as Logician points out in post #2), they won't do that automatically.

As she failed to update her V5c they may decide she contributed to the situation, so it isn't definite they will agree - but she must raise it before they sentence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 14:23
Post #7


Member


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



It is however a reason unconnected with the offence and there is nothing in the guidance about not considering it if the ‘defendant bought it on themselves’.


--------------------
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
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 14:51
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



Thanks, hopefully everything goes smoothly. And as you pointed it is quite self inflicted so the disadvantage thing potentially is not relevant here however simply stating she feels at a disadvantage due to not being able to respond to the initial letter can either get her a better deal or change nothing so nothing to lose there.

One concern is if they reject the deal and she ends up then with 9 points (6 for s172 and 3 for speeding) but from what I've read this is unlikely. And much like everything else, at the end of the day people are people regardless of their job or position. The prosecutor isn't there to get enjoyment from hammering as many offences as possible, so treat them respectfully and hope for the best.

Many thanks again to you all for your input.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 14:57
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 15:23) *
It is however a reason unconnected with the offence and there is nothing in the guidance about not considering it if the ‘defendant bought it on themselves’.


But:

"...such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender,..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 16:27
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



Ok so I was just thinking about it and if they refuse to make the deal does my mother then stick to not guilty to both, or should she then plead guilty to the s172 and not guilty the speeding one (because it's only logical that if you are charged with an s172 then they don't know who the driver is right so how can they also give you speeding). Getting both seems quite absurd since a guilty plea to speeding contradicts the s172. Or should it remain not guilty to both and what happens then?

am I thinking that through properly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:30
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,723
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:27) *
Getting both seems quite absurd since a guilty plea to speeding contradicts the s172.

It doesn't at all..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:11
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:30) *
QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:27) *
Getting both seems quite absurd since a guilty plea to speeding contradicts the s172.

It doesn't at all..

well if you plead guilty to speeding you are identifying yourself as the speeding driver (right?) so to also be prosecuted for failing to name the driver .. I don't see how it remains applicable in such circumstance


regardless, I am interested in what she should do and the following events in a scenario where a deal is rejected, when absent from court only the s172 was carried through as they seemingly could not identify her as the driver to apply the speeding offence, so worst case to me would seem to be a not guilty (speeding) and guilty (s172) plea
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:14
Post #13


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:27) *
Getting both seems quite absurd since a guilty plea to speeding contradicts the s172. Or should it remain not guilty to both and what happens then?

am I thinking that through properly?


I think that you are thinking it through reasonably well, but expressing it poorly.

Being convicted of both would generally be absurd, not because of some legal contradiction, but because it would generally rely on the accused pleading guilty to an offence that the prosecution could not otherwise prove, and getting nothing in return.

Contrary to what has been said, we have heard of a single case where the accused was both dual charged and the driver and the prosecutor refused to do a deal. In that case, the accused clearly had an attitude problem and decided to tell the prosecutor what was what. The prosecutor quite understandably decided not to play nice.

It is easy to be glib/confident sat behind a keyboard, when it is not you or your loved one who is facing a daunting court hearing. That said, it is almost certain that the prosecutor will do a deal if asked politely.
However, if you feel the perhaps understandable need to be prepared for an eventuality that we are all glibly confident will not arise, I shall explain the thinking behind the deal.

As it stands, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the speeding charge as they have no evidence that she was the driver.
It would seem to be pretty easy for them to prove the more serious s. 172 charge. The offence is complete when the information has not been provided at the expiry of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the requirement. Subsequently providing the information does not change that (with the arguable exception of when a 'reminder' has specifically allowed extra time), nor does pleading guilty to the speeding offence.

Realistically, the only way that they could convict her of the speeding charge is if she pleads guilty to it. The only reason for her to do that would be if the prosecutor will drop the s. 172 charge in return. In some cases, the prosecutor would do that in response to a guilty plea to the speeding charge, without previously doing a deal - and in others he would simply continue to prosecute the s. 172, resulting in a conviction for both.

If for whatever reason the prosecutor will not do a deal, she will be facing a speeding charge that the prosecution realistically cannot prove, and an s. 172 charge that she would have great difficulty in defending. Pleading guilty to the speeding charge would seem to be absurd - she should plead not guilty to speeding (or maintain such a plea). The appropriate plea for the s. 172 charge would seem to depend on how viable any defence she might have is, and what the implications of going to trial might be.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:23
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:14) *
QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:27) *
Getting both seems quite absurd since a guilty plea to speeding contradicts the s172. Or should it remain not guilty to both and what happens then?

am I thinking that through properly?


I think that you are thinking it through reasonably well, but expressing it poorly.

Being convicted of both would generally be absurd, not because of some legal contradiction, but because it would generally rely on the accused pleading guilty to an offence that the prosecution could not otherwise prove, and getting nothing in return.

Contrary to what has been said, we have heard of a single case where the accused was both dual charged and the driver and the prosecutor refused to do a deal. In that case, the accused clearly had an attitude problem and decided to tell the prosecutor what was what. The prosecutor quite understandably decided not to play nice.

It is easy to be glib/confident sat behind a keyboard, when it is not you or your loved one who is facing a daunting court hearing. That said, it is almost certain that the prosecutor will do a deal if asked politely.
However, if you feel the perhaps understandable need to be prepared for an eventuality that we are all glibly confident will not arise, I shall explain the thinking behind the deal.

As it stands, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the speeding charge as they have no evidence that she was the driver.
It would seem to be pretty easy for them to prove the more serious s. 172 charge. The offence is complete when the information has not been provided at the expiry of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the requirement. Subsequently providing the information does not change that (with the arguable exception of when a 'reminder' has specifically allowed extra time), nor does pleading guilty to the speeding offence.

Realistically, the only way that they could convict her of the speeding charge is if she pleads guilty to it. The only reason for her to do that would be if the prosecutor will drop the s. 172 charge in return. In some cases, the prosecutor would do that in response to a guilty plea to the speeding charge, without previously doing a deal - and in others he would simply continue to prosecute the s. 172, resulting in a conviction for both.

If for whatever reason the prosecutor will not do a deal, she will be facing a speeding charge that the prosecution realistically cannot prove, and an s. 172 charge that she would have great difficulty in defending. Pleading guilty to the speeding charge would seem to be absurd - she should plead not guilty to speeding (or maintain such a plea). The appropriate plea for the s. 172 charge would seem to depend on how viable any defence she might have is, and what the implications of going to trial might be.



Perfect thanks for the clear information, so maintain the not guilty plea for speeding unless a deal is confirmed - and for our circumstance I believe a guilty (again only if a deal is not on the table) plea to the s172 would be the way to go. So worse case she comes out of it the same as going in, no worse.

I know it likely won't get to that stage but as you say I just feel the need to be prepared, more-so because I am trying to guide her and I don't want to set her up for something without having every outcome planned so she can be confident going into it and not get to a place that isn't planned for and blurting something out (such as changing to a guilty plea).

Again thank you all for you help, I'll keep you updated but I imagine you all already know the expected outcome and won't be surprised.

Seems like a piece of cake smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:23
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,723
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:11) *
well if you plead guilty to speeding you are identifying yourself as the speeding driver (right?)

But not within 28 days of the notice being deemed served, which when the offence is committed. Pleading guilty later doesn't change that.

But realistically this all hypothetical, as the chances of a deal not being done is vanishingly small.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:31
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:23) *
QUOTE (chribby @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:11) *
well if you plead guilty to speeding you are identifying yourself as the speeding driver (right?)

But not within 28 days of the notice being deemed served, which when the offence is committed. Pleading guilty later doesn't change that.

But realistically this all hypothetical, as the chances of a deal not being done is vanishingly small.

Appreciated. At the end of the day not updating the v5 is her own fault and we can accept that so .. it can't get worse than it's at right now and the chance of it improving seem very high so it's all up from here I suppose. Worst case, life lesson and experience. Best and expect case, no s172 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 19:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Almost certain outcome is just the speeding conviction, unless you fail to politely ask the prosecutor for the plea bargain, or you are the first case we encounter where that fails.

The effective aim of charging you with both is to allow you to make this deal. You do see cases, usually where the defendant has got the police's back up, where they only charge the S172 to mostly block this deal.

If it helps, the issue many people have is the concept of pleading not guilty to an offence they know they are guilty of. It can be helpful to think of it as not yet pleading guilty - it is fairly routine in the court process to change your plea from not guilty to guilty, and in this case without penalty. You can't do it the other way round hence the initial not guilty pleas for both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 22:40
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 20:30) *
Almost certain outcome is just the speeding conviction, unless you fail to politely ask the prosecutor for the plea bargain, or you are the first case we encounter where that fails.

The effective aim of charging you with both is to allow you to make this deal. You do see cases, usually where the defendant has got the police's back up, where they only charge the S172 to mostly block this deal.

If it helps, the issue many people have is the concept of pleading not guilty to an offence they know they are guilty of. It can be helpful to think of it as not yet pleading guilty - it is fairly routine in the court process to change your plea from not guilty to guilty, and in this case without penalty. You can't do it the other way round hence the initial not guilty pleas for both.

I think this is the part my mother is most stuck on but I have got my head around it thanks to you all - the s172 is kind of set in stone though not to say she should or will plead guilty (she did not respond despite the letter being sent, simple as) so to plead guilty to speeding would basically be volunteering for an extra offence since they can not prove you were speeding. So you have to enter a not guilty plea so you have leverage to get the s172 dropped in exchange for them to get the speeding conviction they actually want. This is how I understand it so far at least.

I have written this down as simply as possible for her and I think she is starting to get her head around it. But court may be a while away yet, as may be the stat dec appointment - we will find out tomorrow I hope.

In my posts you might picture my mother as an older lady, because I think I am making it sound that way for some reason when I read back through my posts. She's not though, she's just never been to court before (neither have I) and she has never used a computer in her life either so this is all new for her. I think the most anxiety inducing thing at this stage is having never been to court and not knowing how things work the whole "speaking with a prosecutor beforehand" just sounds kind of like a chance thing but from reading through posts on this forum it seems really quite an easy thing to accomplish, and as has been pointed out even should the chance not be available it does not stop the potential for a deal - though in a courtroom infront of people it may be harder for some people to find the words - but we have plenty of time to train! (queue eye of the tiger theme tune).


Appreciate all of ya! have a good night

This post has been edited by chribby: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 09:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chribby
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 12:32
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,684



Hey guys

Just to update, we had the stat dec appointment today and when we turned up we were told to fill in the form and not to put down our plea until we speak to the magistrate. When we spoke to the magistrate they said if we put a guilty plea for speeding they will settle it today and drop the failure to name so it is all out of the way now smile.gif Fine was £130
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 13:33
Post #20


Member


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



Not so hard then, many courts treat them as de facto alternative charges although legally they are not.

Alternative charges are where you can only be convicted of one, for example dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention, the bench decides on the basis of the evidence which you are guilty of but clearly you can only be guilty of one or the other (from the same event).


--------------------
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 - 16:52
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