Hi,

I wasn't sure which forum to put this in so I've chosen this one as it seems most appropriate!

I have just received a court summons from a warrant officer for supposedly not being insured 7 years ago. I have been informed that I have to attend court in 8 days to either admit or deny the accusation. My questions are:

1. Is it up to me to prove I had insurance, or the court to prove I didn't?
2. Can they do this considering it was 7 years ago? Do they have the required technology, contacts etc?
3. Will they bother to find out if I deny it?
4. If I cannot find out whether I was insured, as I cannot remember which insurance company I was with, what is the court likely to do when I go next week to resolve the issue?
5. What is the current penalty if I do get found guilty?

Any answers to these questions will be appreciated!

V.

7 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a newbi, so I dont know what I'm talking about.

But

I would have thought the 6 month limit + 28 days like speeding summons would apply?



Much more info needed I suspect.

how did this come about? Why has it taken this long?Are you sleeping with a policemans wife?

A number of issues come out
1/ Is this a new summons or have you been asked to answer an old summons that they have just 'caught up with you' for, I suspect its an old summons, not sure what the time limit for summonsing for no insurance is, but suspect its six months as most other motoring offences.
2/ What evidence if any have you been given?
3/ EU law suggests you should be tried for a motoring offence such as speeding within 3 years, not sure if no insurance is covered.
4/ The prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, if due to the time lapse you can't defend yourself effectively then thay should fail.
5/ Is it for no insurance or not producing an insurance certificate, a different offence and one they may find easier to prove.
6/ Why do you believe this may have come about, were you stopped/involved in an accident at the time given a producer etc

Simon

Hi,

in answer to your questions:

Fedup - Nope. Not sleeping with anyones wife (just my own)!
The Rookie -
1. It is an old summons but it isn't from failing to produce so I'm not sure why they think I wasn't insured. Could they have checked a database for the information?
2. I have been given no evidence, the warrant officer just told me it was for having no insurance and that's all he knows.
4. How would you decide I couldn't defend myself effectively? Is not remembering who I was insured with a good enough excuse? Can they check back to see if the car was insured at that time?
5. It is for no insurance.
6. Looking at the location the car was in at the time I was probably in the gym training. So I'm assuming an officer has checked to see if the car was insured using the reg and found that it wasn't, even though I am pretty sure it would have been. I cannot honestly remember anyone confronting me at the time though, so this must have been done without my knowledge. I never received the original summons thus the re-investigation!

Cirian75 - This sounds promising. Does anyone know if this applies to no insurance as well?

V.

I cant see how anyone could realisticly defend this.And if thats the case there can be no case.I couldnt defend myself of that sort of accusation that long ago.i dont think that they had the ability to check a vehicle was insured then either but im guessing.
You say its an old summons?have you any knowledge of this before now?

What evidence have they got against you?Is it that they didnt know where you were and this is why its taken so long?seems a strange amount of time to pass before popping up.

go to court and ask for a dismssial on the baiss of elapsed time
and inadequate disclosue that you have not seen the evidence agaisnt you

admit nothing - do not answer any questions on the same basis

I don't think the current database even existed that long ago, you will need to plead not guilty, try and determine what they have against you and why, as you say warrant, do I assume your North of the border.

I would think after this long you should be able to get the case dismissed as not being in the public interest!

You mention were the alleged offence took place, I presume that on the warrant, have you moved since then, was the logbook at the time upto date? Basically how and why have they only just caught up with you?

Simon

That's my take on it also...

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't driving whilst uninsured one of the offences covered under Section 6 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ?



What date was the information laid (will be on the summons) ? Is it more than 3 years from when the alleged offence was committed ?

just found this on the CPS website

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.html#26

Exceptions to the six month time limit
Section 6 provides a special time limit for offences listed in Column 3, Schedule 1 RTOA 1988, and for aiding and abetting those offences. When it applies, proceedings must be brought within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings; but must not be brought more than three years after the commission of the offence in any event.

Section 6 applies to the following offences under the RTA:

driving after making a false declaration as to physical fitness [section 92(10)]
failing to notify Secretary of State of onset or deterioration of disability [section 94(3)]
driving after such a failure
driving after refusal of licence under section 92 or 93 (section 94A)
failure to surrender licence following revocation (section 99)
obtaining driving licence, or driving, whilst disqualified [section 103(1)]
using an uninsured motor vehicle (section 143)

I think it means you are in the clear but maybe the way you word things is important. Certainly do not admit anything.

Anyone lese know what to say?

Hi all,

thanks for the the superb information - particularly the section 6 stuff! I am in court next Friday, so I will plead not guilty and say very little. If I do say anything it will be to ask for the case to be dismissed due to some of the points you guys have raised. Thanks again and I will let you know what happens!

Regards,
V.

With a bit of luck they will send you a letter of discontinuance before then.

Or you could write and ask for it to be dropped due to time limits. It would save you going to court and the risk of being hijacked into doing or saying something you shouldn't. Just keep it simple and say as it is more than 3 years since alleged offence don't you think this is out of time etc.

There are plenty of cases on here where miscarriages would appear to be deliberately played out, precedents and evidence ignored, and even though you would certainly win on an appeal before a judge it is a lot of hassle and cost.