Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Time limits and identification
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
peterguk
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:39) *
otherwise they could slap it on the defendant literally a week before the hearing


Would never happen.
mrmk
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:39) *
otherwise they could slap it on the defendant literally a week before the hearing


Would never happen.


It's happening with me, received a postal requisition on the 6th of April with the court date set at 16th of April
666
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:19) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:39) *
otherwise they could slap it on the defendant literally a week before the hearing


Would never happen.


It's happening with me, received a postal requisition on the 6th of April with the court date set at 16th of April

But ten days is not a week, literally or otherwise wink.gif
mrmk
QUOTE (666 @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:47) *
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:19) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 17:39) *
otherwise they could slap it on the defendant literally a week before the hearing


Would never happen.


It's happening with me, received a postal requisition on the 6th of April with the court date set at 16th of April

But ten days is not a week, literally or otherwise wink.gif


I can detect the humour but even then, only 6 working days to work matters out is simply unfair don't you agree?
The Rookie
But it’s only for pleading, you’ve had a fair while to decide what way you’ll plead, a trial comes later and you’ll have plenty of time. Not that it’s at all relevant to this thread.
mrmk
Regarding this thread, I was pointed here to learn whether issue legally means to the court only or to the defendant too
coffee pot
I have now reviewed the paperwork. It states a printing date of 26/3/18, but a charge date (is that the same as issue date?) of 1/3/18. As I say, this sat at home for 2 weeks because I was away. I have contacted a solicitor today who is a friend to ask about a specialist in motoring law, but I haven't had a reply yet. They appear to have sat on it for 3 weeks before sending it to me. I now have 4 working days to sort a response out.
andy_foster
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:20) *
I have now reviewed the paperwork. It states a printing date of 26/3/18,


Does it really?
coffee pot
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:39) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:20) *
I have now reviewed the paperwork. It states a printing date of 26/3/18,


Does it really?

Sorry, posting date.
notmeatloaf
Maybe you could scan the document and put it up with personal details removed.

It would be very difficult for a document to print a posting date as by definition it is already in an envelope when that is known.
cp8759
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:20) *
I have now reviewed the paperwork. It states a printing date of 26/3/18, but a charge date (is that the same as issue date?) of 1/3/18. As I say, this sat at home for 2 weeks because I was away. I have contacted a solicitor today who is a friend to ask about a specialist in motoring law, but I haven't had a reply yet. They appear to have sat on it for 3 weeks before sending it to me. I now have 4 working days to sort a response out.

As has been stated multiple times before, your options are to post a redacted copy of your s172 reply on here for free advice, or talk to a solicitor. Either way 10 days is enough time to get advice and make and informed plea.
coffee pot
I said over the weekend that I would indeed be seeking advice. I don't have ten days, I found the letter on my return to the country on Friday night. I have 4 working days. Interestingly, despite them claiming I as the keper have not provided enough information to identify me as the driver I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?
peterguk
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


DL record at DVLA would seem likely.
mrmk
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:44) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:39) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:20) *
I have now reviewed the paperwork. It states a printing date of 26/3/18,


Does it really?

Sorry, posting date.


this is similar to me, charge is dated within 6 months but posting date is outside of 6 months


people on my thread mentioned it's the charge date which matters rather than when it was posted but i'm interested in what your solicitor says, please keep us updated
coffee pot
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


DL record at DVLA would seem likely.

Which demonstrates that they had enough information to identify me from my letter which surely represents a valid defence to the S172 charge.
cp8759
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:54) *
Which demonstrates that they had enough information to identify me from my letter which surely represents a valid defence to the S172 charge.

Either the letter amounted to an acceptable driver nomination, or it didn't. We can't say as you won't show us the letter. But the fact that they could look up your driving licence record is irrelevant to this question.
peterguk
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:54) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


DL record at DVLA would seem likely.

Which demonstrates that they had enough information to identify me from my letter which surely represents a valid defence to the S172 charge.


Possibly, possibly not. E.g. "Here are all my details...... I think i was the driver, but it might have been my friend".
southpaw82
QUOTE (mrmk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:41) *
i'm interested in what your solicitor says

What makes you think his solicitor knows better than us?
coffee pot
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 23:02) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:54) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


DL record at DVLA would seem likely.

Which demonstrates that they had enough information to identify me from my letter which surely represents a valid defence to the S172 charge.


Possibly, possibly not. E.g. "Here are all my details...... I think i was the driver, but it might have been my friend".

Let's not go round the mulberry bush. My letter identifies me as the driver. I have stated that. I'm not posting it here as I have said before - it adds nothing to that statement. I don't have an issue with posting the charge sheet, or whatever it is called, but as I said, it says 'date of posting' on it so it does not advance the discussion.
cp8759
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 23:16) *
My letter identifies me as the driver.

That's your opinion, those acting for the Crown appear to disagree.
disgrunt
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:40) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 23:16) *
My letter identifies me as the driver.

That's your opinion, those acting for the Crown appear to disagree.


I'd hazard a guess that the letter is not as unequivocal as the OP believes. Consider:

1. I was driving car xyz123a on 1st April 18. Signed Donald Trump
2. I was the only person who drove car xyz123a on 1/4/18. D Trump (the greatest driver in the world, ever)
3. I was driving car xyz123a at 14:00 on 1st Arpril 2018. D Trump

I would guess only 3 would be good enough to avoid the FTF charge as with 1, I could plead not guilty to speeding and claim that ivanka was driving when the speeding occurred. For 2 I could claim that, as an American I've only admitting to being the driver on the 4th Jan. Either way at court the prosecution would be able to offer no evidence (unless the photo was really good enough)



NewJudge
In your letter did you admit to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence (and not merely on the date or at the location or some other nebulous phrase that could be ambiguous or wrongly interpreted)? Perhaps, to put us all out of our misery, you could kindly reproduce just the paragraph or phrase which explains that you were driving. I think you have received quite a bit of good advice here (without the full story) and people, who have spent a bit of time on it, are intrigued as to why you have been charged under S172. Regular contributors use information from previous cases to help people with similar problems. The explanation of your problem may help them. A little bit of reciprocation wouldn't go amiss.
666
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I said over the weekend that I would indeed be seeking advice. I don't have ten days, I found the letter on my return to the country on Friday night. I have 4 working days. Interestingly, despite them claiming I as the keper have not provided enough information to identify me as the driver I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


Your DOB is encoded in your licence number.
coffee pot
QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 09:16) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I said over the weekend that I would indeed be seeking advice. I don't have ten days, I found the letter on my return to the country on Friday night. I have 4 working days. Interestingly, despite them claiming I as the keper have not provided enough information to identify me as the driver I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


Your DOB is encoded in your licence number.

Yes, I appreciate that. However, that was not a piece of information I gave them.
The Rookie
Despite it being one of the pieces of information required on the form?

I think we may have our answer now as to why its going to court.
peterguk
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 10:44) *
QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 09:16) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:17) *
I said over the weekend that I would indeed be seeking advice. I don't have ten days, I found the letter on my return to the country on Friday night. I have 4 working days. Interestingly, despite them claiming I as the keper have not provided enough information to identify me as the driver I note that the letter has my correct date of birth. As that wasn't on my letter nor does it appear on a V5 I wonder where that information was obtained?


Your DOB is encoded in your licence number.

Yes, I appreciate that. However, that was not a piece of information I gave them.


Isn't your DL number a required piece of info on the S.172 reply form?
coffee pot
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 09:14) *
In your letter did you admit to being the driver at the time of the alleged offence (and not merely on the date or at the location or some other nebulous phrase that could be ambiguous or wrongly interpreted)? Perhaps, to put us all out of our misery, you could kindly reproduce just the paragraph or phrase which explains that you were driving. I think you have received quite a bit of good advice here (without the full story) and people, who have spent a bit of time on it, are intrigued as to why you have been charged under S172. Regular contributors use information from previous cases to help people with similar problems. The explanation of your problem may help them. A little bit of reciprocation wouldn't go amiss.

I understand all that, and have thanked people. You will have to believe me when I say there is honestly a very good reason I do not wish to share the letter with the general public, and the way it is phrased means I can't just pick a bit out. If it helps, I describe a driving maneouvre I make. I don't know if this forum allows me to send private messages, and I don't know who my correspondents are here and whether I can trust them not to display the letter if I do send it on. I am still waiting for a reply from the solicitors but I'm increasinlgy coming round to the idea that a plea bargain is the most efficient way forward.

I did not return the form but sent a letter.
Logician
Obviously something that you wrote in the letter led to it being considered not a satisfactory identification of the driver, and that is why you are being prosecuted. Without seeing the actual wording we cannot advise you about this, and you are getting advice from a solicitor. You may have hoped to avoid both charges, but it is almost always better to err on the side of being convicted of the speeding if there is any risk of a s.172 conviction, which will normally have much worse consequences. A plea bargain is a well established procedure that may well be the best way forward.
peterguk
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Tue, 10 Apr 2018 - 10:52) *
I don't know if this forum allows me to send private messages


We don't operate on a "private" basis.
notmeatloaf
If you cannot provide a concise paragraph here then that may essentially be your problem. There is no requirement in S172 to provide a concise nomination, although the advantage to doing so is that the police can easily see you have provided an unequivocal driver nomination.

If (to use a deliberately extreme example) you send a 50 page letter throughout which there is an unequivocal driver nomination, you may well have a S172 defence but you are still likely to be taken to SJP because the police have no obligation to offer a fixed penalty or SAC and better things to do than read chapter and verse about apparently unrelated matters.
Churchmouse
The whole point of the s172 process (in relation to the driver) is to establish the legally conclusive identification of the driver of a particular vehicle at a particular time and place. If what you wrote in your letter did not do that, it would not be sufficient for purposes of s172. That the police actually know who you are is irrelevant (except to explain how they managed to send the court papers to you).

--Churchmouse
coffee pot
Advice from solicitor supportive. I shall keep you updated.
IanJohnsonWS14
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 20:28) *
Advice from solicitor supportive. I shall keep you updated.


Solicitors always are, win or lose they still get paid .
southpaw82
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 09:27) *
QUOTE (coffee pot @ Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 20:28) *
Advice from solicitor supportive. I shall keep you updated.


Solicitors always are, win or lose they still get paid .

Bulls**t.
cp8759
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 16:45) *
Thanks again, cp, in particular for this (of which I was not aware):

QUOTE
As I understand it, the written charge & requisition / SJPN is transmitted to the court immediately when it is issued, or in any event on the day it is issued,...

If I am correct (I'm waiting to get definitive confirmation), the whole issue is entirely academic as the written charge is always sent to the court immediately, probably before it is even printed off.


I was unaware of the mechanics involved and had visions of prosecutors with quill pens writing their SJPNs out before carefully blotting them, only then to drop them down the back of their desk to be discovered by the cleaner a few months later (or something like that) biggrin.gif

If the process works as you describe then the issue date is all that matters.

I've had confirmation an electronic link is used, it's called the Criminal Justice System Exchange, and it allows the police to connect directly to the HMCTS Case Management System. Actual documents are not exchanged, the information is sent as formatted data based on the secure protocol that has been set up, this is a national system. This suggests the only date that matters is the date of issue.
NewJudge
Thanks CP. I think that information will address a number of queries regarding the SJP on here.
Jlc
So within the 6 months here?
cp8759
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:24) *
So within the 6 months here?

Without re-reading the thread, I believe so.
coffee pot
Just to conclude this thread; I pleased guilty with mitigation to speeding and not guilty to the S172 offence. I did end up with 3 points and an income adjusted fine which was less than I was expecting, so the mitigation helped. The S172 case was dropped.Thank you all again for your help.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.