MS90 Statutory Declaration - Advice for negotiating a deal Options

[rhysjmorgan]

Hi all,

I've found a lot of good advice here on how to respond to an MS90 due to a speeding ticket I didn't know about (slow to update V5C when I moved home).

Carlisle Magistrates Court have accepted my Stat Dec and have set a date for a Single Justice Trial on March 20th that I do not need to attend. I have submitted NG pleas to both the speeding offence and the S172.

I am then expecting to be summoned to court where I will seek out the prosecutor and negotiate a deal to drop the S172 if I plead guilty to the speeding offence, getting this deal reconfirmed inside the courtroom.

My question is, what should be my course of action if the prosecutor refuses to make a deal? From what I've read this is uncommon but it is a possibility. I can see that my only option would be to plead NG to the speeding and Guilty to the S172 in the hope of a reduced fine.

Am I right or is there a better way to handle things if I cannot get a deal?

Thanks for your help.

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

Depending on how long after you moved the date of the alleged speeding was, you may have a defence.......

[cp8759]

Hi all,

I've found a lot of good advice here on how to respond to an MS90 due to a speeding ticket I didn't know about (slow to update V5C when I moved home).

Carlisle Magistrates Court have accepted my Stat Dec and have set a date for a Single Justice Trial on March 20th that I do not need to attend. I have submitted NG pleas to both the speeding offence and the S172.

I am then expecting to be summoned to court where I will seek out the prosecutor and negotiate a deal to drop the S172 if I plead guilty to the speeding offence, getting this deal reconfirmed inside the courtroom.

My question is, what should be my course of action if the prosecutor refuses to make a deal? From what I've read this is uncommon but it is a possibility. I can see that my only option would be to plead NG to the speeding and Guilty to the S172 in the hope of a reduced fine.

Am I right or is there a better way to handle things if I cannot get a deal?

Thanks for your help.

Well if you're asking what I would do myself, personally in such circumstances I would plead guilty to speeding, not guilty to the s172 offence, and then I would ask for the prosecution for the s172 offence to be stayed as an abuse of process, I would ask for an adjournment so that skeleton arguments on the issue could be exchanged and a bundle of authorities could be agreed (and if the case is being dealt with by law magistrates, I would respectfully ask that the matter be re-listed for consideration by a DJ).

In parallel, I would also send a judicial review pre-action protocol letter to the CPS on various grounds, including that a s172 prosecution is not in the public interest and that I appear to have been arbitrarily singled out when such prosecutions are not normally pursued in the circumstances, and asking them to justify what features in my case justify a departure from the normal practices and policies of the CPS.

Your chances of you doing this right without professional help are, frankly, slim to none, but the chances of the CPS going down this route are equally slim to none. I don't think we've ever had a case where someone has sought a deal from the CPS and has been turned down.

[andy_foster]

We have never heard of anyone 'negotiating' a deal with the CPS, but have never heard of the CPS refusing if the accused asks nicely. Whilst I have reasons to mistrust some CPS prosecutors, I would not expect them to renege on a deal such as this.

As you appear to have grasped, they potentially currently have a strong case against you for the s. 172 (although as you have chosen not to trouble us with any of the details we will simply have to assume that you have no viable defence) and presumably no case against you for the speeding. Pleading guilty to the s. 172 and not guilty to the speeding ought to see a discount off the fine for the s. 172 and the speeding dropped/not proceeded with - assuming that they have no viable means of proving that you were the driver.

edit: As much as I like a good argument down the Strand, I would suggest that cp8759's argument would work far better if they had an open mic night at the Knights Templar than it would at the Administrative Court - although he would probably get more laughs at the latter.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 19:46

[cp8759]

edit: As much as I like a good argument down the Strand, I would suggest that cp8759's argument would work far better if they had an open mic night at the Knights Templar than it would at the Administrative Court - although he would probably get more laughs at the latter.

The CPS's own page on Judicial Reviews of Prosecutorial Decisions confirms that:

R v Inland Revenue Commrs, ex p. Allen [1997] STC 1141
The High Courts Queens Bench Division held that a decision to prosecute is amenable to judicial review if it is an unjustified departure from established prosecution practice, or even if, without reference to any wider policy or practice, it is unfair insofar as it amounts to a breach of contract or representation

As we are dealing with an established CPS practice, there is clearly an arguable case. In reality if a case of this type actually came about because a particular prosecutor had got out of the wrong side of bed on one particular morning, the CPS would concede the issue once formally challenged and the prosecution would be discontinued, and that would be the end of that. I therefore fail to see how this could ever end up in the administrative court.

[peterguk]

Hi all,

I've found a lot of good advice here on how to respond to an MS90 due to a speeding ticket I didn't know about (slow to update V5C when I moved home).

Carlisle Magistrates Court have accepted my Stat Dec and have set a date for a Single Justice Trial on March 20th that I do not need to attend. I have submitted NG pleas to both the speeding offence and the S172.

I am then expecting to be summoned to court where I will seek out the prosecutor and negotiate a deal to drop the S172 if I plead guilty to the speeding offence, getting this deal reconfirmed inside the courtroom.

My question is, what should be my course of action if the prosecutor refuses to make a deal? From what I've read this is uncommon but it is a possibility. I can see that my only option would be to plead NG to the speeding and Guilty to the S172 in the hope of a reduced fine.

Am I right or is there a better way to handle things if I cannot get a deal?

Thanks for your help.

Well if you're asking what I would do myself, personally in such circumstances I would plead guilty to speeding, not guilty to the s172 offence, and then I would ask for the prosecution for the s172 offence to be stayed as an abuse of process, I would ask for an adjournment so that skeleton arguments on the issue could be exchanged and a bundle of authorities could be agreed (and if the case is being dealt with by law magistrates, I would respectfully ask that the matter be re-listed for consideration by a DJ).

In parallel, I would also send a judicial review pre-action protocol letter to the CPS on various grounds, including that a s172 prosecution is not in the public interest and that I appear to have been arbitrarily singled out when such prosecutions are not normally pursued in the circumstances, and asking them to justify what features in my case justify a departure from the normal practices and policies of the CPS.

Your chances of you doing this right without professional help are, frankly, slim to none, but the chances of the CPS going down this route are equally slim to none. I don't think we've ever had a case where someone has sought a deal from the CPS and has been turned down.

Your attitude suggest there is some sort of right to have the S.172 charge dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to the speeding offence.

Is this the case or are you just puffing?

[cp8759]

Your attitude suggest there is some sort of right to have the S.172 charge dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to the speeding offence.

Is this the case or are you just puffing?

No I'm suggesting that having the s172 dropped in these circumstances (where a deal is made) is an "established prosecution practice" and the CPS cannot depart from such practice on a whim, arbitrarily or capriciously. CPS prosecutors have a discretion, but that discretion must be exercised on the basis of established public law principles.

I have nothing to support the existence of such a practice other than what people have reported back on this forum, but I have no reason to doubt what has been reported back.