PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Banned and wasn’t aware
Typan
post Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,876



My daughters boyfriend is a private hire driver with a settle car not registered in his name. In October last year he must have been caught on camera dropping someone at Manchester Airport, he was doing 70 when it had been restricted to 50. In November he received a letter saying because he didn’t give the information of who was driving he had been given 6 points. He called up the court to ask what was it about as he hadn’t had a letter and was told to do a statutory declaration and was given a date. Just before the date to do this he received a summons on referral for this month to attend a court where the speeding had happened.

The court date was yesterday and he forgot about it and did not attend, he was convinced it was 16th and only realised after my daughter told him to check (got the letter 3 mthis ago, I know, no excuse)

As soon as he realised he called the court and was told he had been disqualified for 6mths, prior to this his licence was clean.

I am presuming they doubled the initial 3 points to 6 then 6 for not informing them. The thing is that the keeper of the car (taxi firm) must have provided driver details otherwise how would they have got his address. He is totally distraught as he has never had any dealings with the courts so he was totally naive to what was going on.

He has not only lost his licence but also his job if he doesn’t get this sorted, he really doesn’t know what to do , so I’m hoping someone can offer some advice.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 109)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 22:51
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,250
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



It is unlikely that he would be able to do the plea bargain when he makes the SD as the prosecutor in court will probably have no papers relating to the case. If so and he is asked to plead he should indicate a not guilty plea to both offences and he will be given a new court date, that will be the date to strike the bargain.

No, I have never heard of a Crown Court judge doing that and I am not sure under what authority he has done that, but his is a very confused case.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Typan
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:19
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,876



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 23:51) *
It is unlikely that he would be able to do the plea bargain when he makes the SD as the prosecutor in court will probably have no papers relating to the case. If so and he is asked to plead he should indicate a not guilty plea to both offences and he will be given a new court date, that will be the date to strike the bargain. No, I have never heard of a Crown Court judge doing that and I am not sure under what authority he has done that, but his is a very confused case.


Thanks Logician it truly is, even the case workers in the court cant understand what has happened ?

So when he appears at his local court to do the SD for the speeding charge, if they ask him to plead he should plead not guilty to both charges , they will then give him another date where he may be able to plea bargain ?

The second case, is now being returned from the CC to the court that issued his disqualification when he missed his court date, do you think that will also be for a SD ? I suppose he needs to plead NG to both anyway as the offence did not happen. The girl stumbled drunk onto his mirror and no one can find anything relating to any original charge ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:26
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If its been returned to the magistrates court it will almost certainly so they can convene a new hearing for him to attend, if that is the case it will be as if the previous hearing and sentencing hadn't happened and allow him to defend or plea bargain as appropriate.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Typan
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 11:20
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,876



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 11:26) *
If its been returned to the magistrates court it will almost certainly so they can convene a new hearing for him to attend, if that is the case it will be as if the previous hearing and sentencing hadn't happened and allow him to defend or plea bargain as appropriate.





Thanks Rookie, so given there is nothing listed anywhere for the original offence of failing to stop/report an accident, is it likely that could be dismissed ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 12:10
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



No, it would mean a plea bargain wouldn't be possible (or at least much harder) and he'd have to defend the S172 based on the facts, you've been told ad infinitum that them not listing the underlying offence isn't relevant, please take heed FGS.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 12:11


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Typan
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:23
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,876



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:10) *
No, it would mean a plea bargain wouldn't be possible (or at least much harder) and he'd have to defend the S172 based on the facts, you've been told ad infinitum that them not listing the underlying offence isn't relevant, please take heed FGS.


So how do you defend a charge there is no record of and that he has no formal information about, would they just use the information from the S172. He doesn't want to plea bargain, he didn't commit an offence?

This post has been edited by Typan: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:32
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Typan
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:40
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,876



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 14:32) *
The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop.


I totally understand that, however if as suggested it is going back to the magistrates to start again then surely the first offence is relevant as he would have to plead not guilty to the S172 as he knew nothing about it , how would they look at the original offence ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:44
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Typan @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 14:40) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 14:32) *
The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop.


I totally understand that, however if as suggested it is going back to the magistrates to start again then surely the first offence is relevant as he would have to plead not guilty to the S172 as he knew nothing about it , how would they look at the original offence ?

Why would they look at the original offence?


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


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 14:35
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,707
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



To possibly explain further with an example

The police allege that Keeper As car was speeding, and requries them to nominate the driver on that date. There are two possibilities depending on the response
1) The driver is named in the time allowed, meaning the speeding offence can be continued. Keeper A, if theyre not the driver, has nothing mroe to do
2) Keeper A does not name the driver in time. The speeding offence cannot now be prosecuted as there is no evidence of teh driver, however the Keeper has committed an [b]entirely seperate, independent offence[]/b] of failing to furnish the drivers details. No matter what now happens with speeding - for example, they lose any record of the speeding offence - the Keeper is still guitly of an offence (bar the statutory defence)

Now replace "speeding" with "failure to stop".

You will see that even if the failing to stop isnt progressed - they dont have details of it - the fact a S172 request was made means the Keeper MUST name the driver, even if no underlying offence was actually committed or can be prosecuted.

So the first offence is entirely irrelevant. They only need to be satisfied that the S172 request was made for good reason, and unless a response was given in the time allowed the Keeper has to deal with teh failure to furnish offence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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: Monday, 25th June 2018 - 17:19
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.