PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

435 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Logician
Posted on: Yesterday, 02:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


1. That is the lowest speed at which cases usually go to court, had you been doing 49 you would probably have received a fixed penalty, and there is a sudden jump at that speed, with the likelihood of 6 points and a fine of a week's net income less 33% for guilty plea, plus surcharge of 10%, minimum £30, and costs of £85. A disqualification is possible but unlikely, your personal circumstances would only be relevant if disqualification were being considered. you will not be disqualified without being given the opportunity to appear in court to put your case. So not much point you going to court.

2. It is your current income which is relevant

3. If the job is a base plus commission I would take the base as you will not receive any commission for some time. Otherwise make an estimate you can defend if challenged

4. Depends on how busy the court back office are but probably a couple of weeks

5. For speeding as at the date of offence, so yes you are 6 months towards points coming off already.

You only need to give evidence about your personal circumstances if disqualification is in prospect, but I do not believe it is. However, you are likely to be on 9 points after the court hearing so you need to drive like a nervous nun whatever the other traffic is doing, put your mobile in the boot and be very wary of traffic lights.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360884 · Replies: 5 · Views: 452

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:23) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:48) *
3. Every week, very nearly every day, we have to advise people to go through the rigmarole of a stat dec to correct a situation that need not have arisen. How many more people simply accept a penalty because they have no advice to do otherwise?
As that is invariably due to non receipt of the letters, I’m not sure how that would be changed by the RK being liable as they still would miss the communication?


But the conviction and fine in their absence would be for offence actually committed, not a s.172 offence, so the points would be correct. Admittedly, they might still want to make a stat dec so that they could get the discount off the fine for a guilty plea, but they would not have to go through the rigmarole of attending court and doing the deal with the prosecutor. If people post here we can set them on the right course, but no doubt there are some who think that as they committed the index offence and did not identify the driver, they committed both offences and there is nothing for it but to take the points and fine for both.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360744 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,402

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Longroadhome @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 16:14) *
Based on the limited info I have provided would it be best for me to just take my medicine and take the points and pay the Government


Yes, no trace of any defence in what you have said, but you may not have to take the points, you are just within the range for which a course is usually offered, provided you have not done one for an offence in the 3 years before the current one.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360735 · Replies: 11 · Views: 415

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Once magistrates had been invented, yes. Whether a District Judge (MC) qualifies is more doubtful, I suggest. But at the time of signing, the phrase must have referred to juries.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360733 · Replies: 129 · Views: 6,286

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 14:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 11:14) *
QUOTE (ben1974 @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 14:07) *
Anyone on here ever tried ‘lawful rebeliion’? You state that you do not recognise the jurisdiction of the court, based on the fact it stares in the Magna Carter that every freeman deserves a trial by jury? http://lawfulrebellion.info/what-to-say-if...ged-into-court/
The only relevant bit in Magna Carta (1297) is that NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right Not much to say about juries in any form really... just judgement of your Peers, and even the 1297 Charter is a good sixty years before the Justices of the Peace Act.


What is "lawful judgment of his peers" if it is not trial by jury?

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360658 · Replies: 129 · Views: 6,286

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:47) *
As I've said, most European countries seem to just assume the RK was driving unless he nominates someone else, I fail to see how that is any better than the s172 approach.


Actually I think it is much better in some circumstances, although most of the time it makes no difference.

1. The s.172 penalty is unrelated to the offence, which leads to unfortunate consequences: a) the penalty has to be set at a high level or for more serious offences it would be advantageous to take the s.172 penalty, so those who commit it carelessly or accidentally often suffer much more than they would for the underlying offence b) for very serious offences it is still advantageous to take the s.172 penalty and avoid the consequences. There is no support for varying the s.172 penalty to reflect the underlying offence.

2. Those RKs who do not know who was driving and are honest enough to say so, get clobbered with a very severe penalty. We know enough to advise always to nominate a single driver but there is of course no such advice given on the S.172 request and people continually fall into that trap.

3. Every week, very nearly every day, we have to advise people to go through the rigmarole of a stat dec to correct a situation that need not have arisen. How many more people simply accept a penalty because they have no advice to do otherwise?

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360619 · Replies: 36 · Views: 1,402

Logician
Posted on: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 01:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Giving birth is an extraordinarily emotional time even if all goes well, throw in this speeding business and medical problems and no wonder you are blubbering, more surprising if you were not.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360513 · Replies: 14 · Views: 850

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 20:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Difficult to consider it a continuous journey unfortunately. You could try sending both responses back in the same envelope with a note pointing out that had the offences not occurred on the same day, you would have been warned by receiving the first one that there was a 20mph limit in force and would have had a chance to modify your driving in that area before committing a second offence, and therefore requesting the two offences be considered as one offence.
They are unlikely to accede but worth asking. Otherwise you may get the offer of a course for one offence, provided you have not done a course for an offence in the last three years, and a fixed penalty for another. Some areas, I do not know if it is all, have a separate course for 20mph limits, if that applies a general course in the last three years may not count.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360420 · Replies: 12 · Views: 600

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 19:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Anna-2018 @ Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 18:19) *
Thank you all. You're helping me think it through from all points of view. At the end of the day I can only present the facts and hope for leniency.


Indeed, but do try to get a copy of the case I mentioned because it does make the point that your husband does not actually have to show that speed was essential for your well-being. There is a difference between proving necessity, which would amount to a defence against the charge, and showing that there was a factor which should properly be taken into account, and amounted to a special reason not to endorse.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360400 · Replies: 14 · Views: 850

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 17:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


What counts is the date of the offence, not the date of the course, does that offer any help?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360373 · Replies: 3 · Views: 369

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 02:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (peterguk @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 20:28) *
QUOTE (ben1974 @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 20:17) *
Magna Carter
Who?


Did she die in vain?

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360095 · Replies: 129 · Views: 6,286

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 02:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


It is not "our" letter, it will have to come from your husband, but actually it would be better if he opted to have the case moved to a full court and appeared in person to explain. It is going to need more than just mitigation, because the lowest number of points a court can give for speeding is 3. What he needs to do is ask the court to find that there are "special reasons not to endorse his licence" and also order an absolute discharge.

Medical emergencies have been held to constitute special reasons, but he needs to show that driving over the speed limit was the best option available, as compared to calling an ambulance, say. Evidence that you had your baby 4 hours later would be very helpful. There is a case he could mention, Marks v West Midlands Police [1981] RTR 471, which is really on point, it was held that the minor nature of the offence was a relevant factor (80mph in a 70 mph limit). Mr Marks was worried by his blind incontinent 80 year old passenger becoming ill and was thereby not aware of exceeding the speed limit, being anxious to reach the nearest service area. It does not seem to be online but can be ordered from National Archives LINK. I have just seen a reference to the case, not read it, so you need to read the case carefully. Your husband should take along 5 copies, one for each of the three magistrates, one for the legal advisor and one for himself. It would probably help if you could get to the court as well and sit in the back looking pale and anxious. Good luck.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360094 · Replies: 14 · Views: 850

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 02:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


The first of many difficulties you would face is that the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership had no duty to send you a reminder at all.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360093 · Replies: 16 · Views: 632

Logician
Posted on: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 01:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


How long ago was the speeding? I am wondering if there is time within the 6 months limit for you to get the case transferred to a full court (presuming what you have is a SJPN) see the prosecutor before court and ask for speeding to be added to the charge, so that you can offer to plead guilty to the speeding in exchange for the s.172 being dropped, assuming it is as least likely you were driving as that your wife was. They do actually prefer a conviction for speeding to s.172.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1360091 · Replies: 5 · Views: 341

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 23:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


As not meatloaf says, there is no need for the police to lie about your speed, there are plenty of real speeders out there. The assumption is not that the police never lie but they have nothing at all to gain by it, and could be made to look very bad by actual evidence such as dashcam footage, you on the other hand have every incentive to minimise your speed, so who are the magistrates more likely to believe? Accusing the police of lying never goes down well in court unless backed by evidence, it simply comes across as desperate. It is far better to say they are mistaken. Camera evidence is used to convict far more often because it is an entirely automated system, that does not in any mean that camera evidence is essential, believe it or not drivers were being convicted of speeding long before the first cameras blighted the roads.

If I was you I would go and measure the length of the distance used, it does seem odd that 175 entered as 125 would account for the difference, and at trial you can ask the officer if he drove over the distance himself or relied on being told, and whether he could have input it wrong.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359663 · Replies: 129 · Views: 6,286

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 22:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


I now realise that it was not the CPS you should really be trying to contact but the police prosecutor at the SJPN stage. I would have another go at that path.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359652 · Replies: 31 · Views: 1,625

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE
Anyhoo, she called the unit and amended the details to hers and then paid the fine and sent off her licence, via Royal Mail 1st class and promptly put it all behind her and carried on with life.


So what exactly did she send off, the NIP amended to show her correct details, as well as the licence? It seems very odd her boss got her name wrong, even if the address was. It also seems odd that she should be charged with failing to provide driver details since they seem now to have written to her at her correct address, but possibly they picked that up from her telephone conversation and used it, but would certainly not accept that as a proper response.

Pleading guilty to both offences will mean eye watering insurance premiums for the next five years, insurers particularly dislike a s.172 conviction, so she really needs to go to court and do the deal as above, which is well trodden route that the court and prosecutor will be expecting. It will all happen in a business like atmosphere, no one is going to shout at her or try to make her feel small.

She cannot attend an SPJN hearing, she should indicate a not guilty plea to both offences and the case will then be transferred to a normal court. When she receives a date for that hearing, 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. She should 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. Without her pleading guilty there can be no conviction for the speeding since the driver is not identified. 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. Another poster in a more complicated matter has just tried to do that and failed completely.

If the police had received the form and the licence she would have paid the fixed penalty. The normal sentencing for speeding in court would be rather more severe than this, so she has 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

She also needs to get a replacement licence from DVLA, she needs this anyway and will also need to hand it to the court.

For completeness it is worth pointing out that if she ignores all this it will not go away, the likely outcome is that she will be convicted in her absence of both offences, the fines will be calculated on an assumed net weekly income of £440 and she will receive 9 points.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359605 · Replies: 13 · Views: 611

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (CheshireMatt123 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 16:18) *
what fines (she is a full time student and unemployed).
A minimum figure of £120/week is used in such circumstances. (So a fine of £120 - on baseline 150% and 33% guilty discount) Costs of £85, surcharge of £30. The speeding seems well and truly dead for everyone.


That is of course for a guilty plea, if found guilty after a not guilty plea, Fine £180, surcharge £30, costs guideline £620.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359586 · Replies: 31 · Views: 1,625

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 14:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Tesni90 @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:31) *
Tomorrow is upon me. I will update my OP afterwards with the outcome for any future queries that come to the forum. I have one last question about the bargain plea, if I am unable to locate or get in touch with the prosecutor in the morning am I able to ask about a bargain plea during the hearing? I'm going to be getting to the court for 9am when it opens but I am curious just in case they are unavailable for any reason and would like to be well prepared for different scenarios. If anybody has any additional advice for the court day I am all ears! Many thanks.


It should still be possible to do the deal in the courtroom. If you see the prosecutor beforehand it might be worth saying that you intend to ask the court to take into account the fact that you have already been disqualified for a period. If you raise that for the first time in the courtroom they might oppose it, but given more time to think about it, they should see the justice in it.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359433 · Replies: 27 · Views: 2,363

Logician
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 09:56) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:45) *
FWIW, the traffic laws in other countries (e.g., the USA) do operate in the way Bigbang21 has implied (with the reference point being the front of the vehicle), but that is not the case here (which must seem particularly unfair to drivers of articulated lorries and other very long vehicles...).
The laws in the US differ by state, some use the UK principle of amber means stop, others encourage you to gamble the red by only red meaning stop, while others permit a vehicle already crossing to continue. But then they do slaughter circa 35,000 a year on their roads to our circa 1600 from a population only 5 times bigger..........(about the same number also die from 'lead poisoning' as well each year and 64,000 from prescription opioid abuse so their sense of self preservation (as a nation, not individual) isn't too good.)


I think you can tell that from the ease with which homicidal maniacs can buy assault rifles, and the NRA response of arming school teachers!

Interesting that they drive rather slower than we do on the whole but kill so many more people, something for BRAKE to think about (but they won't)

Off-topic, sorry.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359341 · Replies: 11 · Views: 842

Logician
Posted on: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (baroudeur @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 12:05) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:42) *
QUOTE (baklava @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 14:45) *
I had expected to have to go out to them and collect the car with my 3rd party insurance.
It's rather peripheral to your main issue, but if you're referring to the "driving other vehicles" provision of your own comprehensive policy then you should check your policy carefully before relying on this in the future - it seems to be the norm now for that cover to specifically exclude recovering a vehicle impounded in these circumstances.
The OP would not have been covered DOC on his own policy because the car he intended to drive is required to have its own insurance in force. In this case, quite obviously, it didn't!


Sometimes that is a condition, sometimes it isn't. It is not on mine, the only limitation being not to use to collect impounded vehicles.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359121 · Replies: 25 · Views: 1,530

Logician
Posted on: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 10:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 08:10) *
+1 that an email is woefully inadequate to inform a motorist that he is going to be driving unlawfully and his car can be seized

On a typical day, I only open between 1% and 3% of the 400+ messages I receive


So you are virtually shut out of using email as an effective communication medium. I suggest you get a new email address and notify it only to those you want to hear from, abandoning your existing address. Unsubscribe your new address from useless mailing lists if it gets on them.

Many of those who appear in court for no insurance do so because their direct debits have failed, usually through lack of funds at the crucial time. I would advise people never to use these arrangements, better to pay an annual premium on a credit card. Fail to make a payment on a credit card and you start to get nasty letters and then other action, but you will never get your insurance cancelled and risk all the unpleasant consequences of driving uninsured.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359072 · Replies: 25 · Views: 1,530

Logician
Posted on: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 22:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


Mostly FOTL nonsense, debt collectors have no legal powers anyway, bailiffs acting on behalf of a UK court do, and have been advised to take no notice of such signs.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1359015 · Replies: 16 · Views: 952

Logician
Posted on: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


QUOTE (Typan @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 14:53) *
I am extremely grateful for advice given but if people aren’t aware of the judicial process then it is confusing, I was just trying to highlight the fact that people here are adept at what you need to do. I am by no means stupid but I confess I am confused. Why didn’t the court give him a form and explain the next step, if you can’t afford a solicitor then your just supposed to know ?


I would have expected them to do so, perhaps if he was in tears and overwhelmed he failed to take in what was said. Perhaps someone should phone the court on Monday and enquire about the next step and an appeal form.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1358895 · Replies: 67 · Views: 3,906

Logician
Posted on: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528


If your wife takes it to court I expect the court might show some sympathy but will almost certainly sentence in accordance with the guidelines anyway. I do not think there is much chance of them finding special reasons not to endorse, you did have the opportunity to query with the company why the renewal had not come through, and when you checked your emails you discovered what had happened. I would take the fixed penalty if offered.

I can see why the insurers would not automatically charge another year's premium to any credit card other than the policyholder's, they are not to know whether another person is still willing to pay the cost, even between husband and wife. What I think is very poor practice is not warning your wife that there would be no automatic renewal, or did they in fact ask for payment and your wife assumed that the charge would be made automatically?.

The officer did your wife a big favour by allowing her to drive home, I would not complain about it, we hear of cases where the car has been impounded and the driver left completely stranded.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1358893 · Replies: 25 · Views: 1,530

435 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 03:47
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.