Mr. H received a knock on his door 21:30 hours on Thursday 1st October 2008. A Police Officer served Mr. H with a summons for failing to provide driver details and exceeding in a 30 rduring the month of August 2008.

The summons was raised and dated the 1st September 2008 and he was due in court on the 7h October. Mr H had only a Friday and Monday before the hearing to obtain help. Mr. H had not known about the offence and did not receive ta Notice of Intended Prosecution.

It must be noted that the vehicle involved in the aleged offence did not belong to MR. H but to Rydale, Newport which is a BMW garage. Mr. H did have a loan of a veihcle that matched the description of the vehicle alledgedly committing an offence however, has no recollection of the registration.

On my advise Mr. H attended Caerphilly Magistrates Court on the 6th October (the day prior to the hearing) and submitted his plea form filling in section 3 Not Guilty which advised him the trial would be adjourned in his absence to a future date.

A week later Mr. H received communication that was somewhat frightening. The communication stated that he had to pay a fee in the region of around 500.00 in fines or the bailiffs would be sent in. The trial was heard in his absence and the plea form ignored. The Clerk admits seeing sight of the form and taking a photocopy for which he gave back to Mr. H

I instigated enquireries and have now got an appeal hearing coming up on thne 21st November. The head of legal services Cwmbran (Gwent HMCS) admits his office blundered. A letter of the 14th October requesting a appeal was answered with outside of the 21 days allowed for such an appeal. Obviously the abacus was not working that day.

I am a little behind in case law of late any suggestions guys & girls.

Hi Cen (haven't seen you for a while)

Anything of note in the bundle?

I am not aware of any any case law specific to the issue of service of an s. 172 requirement (as opposed to a notice purporting to satisfy the requirements of s. 1 RTOA - a NIP), but the 28 days (subsection (7)) are from date of service, and that section makes a positive reference to s. 7 Interpretation Act 1978, so no delivery = no requirement under s. 172.

Sitting on a summons for 3-4 weeks and then serving it a week before the hearing date is standard practice across the country (except Humberside). It will be attributed to collating the evidence and general incompetence a heavy workload.

I would have thought that an application to have the case re-opened under s. 142 MCA 1980 would be more appropriate than an appeal (gives an another bite of the cherry)

IIRC, Gwent are the only farce in the UK that don't sent reminders for non-returned s. 172s (since the funding changes).

Serving a summons by hand (for such a minor offence) is very unusual in England & Wales (as is issuing a summons so quickly). Was there anything significant about the substantive allegation (don't need details) or the accused's history with the powers that be? Otherwise it would seem that the scuffers had reason to believe that there was a problem with the local postal service - which would seem to corroborate the accused's defence.

I would go further and suggest that it in all likelihood its indicative of the non-existance of an NIP as opposed to "a problem with the local postal system" unless that means the problem was that nothing had been delivered (because nothing had been posted). As I know you're more than aware Gwent have never showered themselves with glory in terms of their adherance to proper procedure.

No its been a while since I have logged on to the forum for a variety of reasons nothing personnal.

Re-opening the case as suggested was our first option and respectively considered however, we received a communication from HMCS at Cwmbran which opened with "‘Your request for the Court to re-open this case has been considered". then went on to state was inappropiate.

This was very interesting in that the only communication in this case as been drafted by yours truly and I had not got round to making such a request it would appear the correspondence was forwarded by way of anticipation.

Worse, The second paragraph of your E* H*****g’s (Clerk at Cwmbran HMCS) communication of the 14th states;

‘If you wish to appeal, you will now require permission (‘leave’) from the crown court to do so, as the 21 days
allowed for appeal has elapsed in your case’.

He then furthered with if you wish to make such an appeal then we would be required to write to the Chief Clerk at Cardiff Crown Court and provided an address.

I responded to the communication with amongst other material;

With respect, your communication was written on the 14th October 2008 and the case was heard on the 7th October 2008. The writer achieved an academic degree in law however has a further degree in electrical engineering and a Masters degree in science. Within the scope of attaining such qualifications mathematics played a large part therefore, a simple calculation of 14 – 7 = 7

Can one or another at HMCS at Cwmbran please explain where the other 14 days disappeared in the process of 21 days to appeal?

We will most definitely on E.*.*******’s advice be writing to the Chief Clerk, The Law Courts, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3PG requesting leave to appeal and making a further request of leave for a Judicial Enquirery.
We will furnish the Chief Clerk with a copy of all the documentation received and sent in matters to highlight the abuse of process by HMCS Cwmbran.

The head of legal services did respond to my communication in writing stating that the content within the Clerk's communication was incorrect and even apologised in writting amongst other interesting statements. Writing to the aforementioned could be considered an appeal to the high court and the head of legal services was pushing hard to aquire a statement that we believe the Crown Court was the right course of action for such an appeal.

Giving the written data above in effect the Court Service took away Mr. H's right to have the case reopened and we have written proof as in s. 142 MCA 1980. This naturally will be conveyed to the Crown Court on November 21st that is, if it gets there.

A number of recorded communications have been sent requesting the evidence held against Mr. H which was the basis of the raising of summom's however, we still await sight of such. Naturally the usual requests were made;

1. photgraphic evidence
2. Was it recorded by video or staitic camera
3. If video then full release etc
4. If by operator then Civilian or Serving Officer
5. When was a notice of Intended Prosectution served upon Mr. H

It would appear to me that the whole sorry affair have been a castrophe of errors which I believe and sincerely hope the Judge will see and make comment to the degree of reasonableness.

Is it reasonable to expect a defendant that made a not guilty plea to have had his case heard in his absnse?
Is it considered reasonable for a summons to be served giving the defendant 5 days to build a defense with a weekend forming part of the five days?
Is it reasonable that the defendant having taken the trouble to submit a plea was ignored by the Court?
Is it reasonable that a professional public body was allowed to give written statement that the defendant would not be peritted to re-open the case even tehough he had Statutory rights?
Is it reasonable that the defendant was found guilty in such a manner without the right of a fair trial again legislated within English & European law?
Is it reasonable ufor a proffessional public body such as HMCS to giv wrong advice regarding its calculation of 21 days to make appeal when its regulated within English/Welsh law that 211 days is the permitted allowance?
Is it reasonable to expect HMCS to give correct advise on legal matters?
etc etc

An answer to another question posed "Is there history between the defendant and Mr. H" Simple answer 'YES' I represented Mr. H in a case just over a year ago where he was to appear before Abergaveny Magistrates to answer charges of exceeding and driving without due care and attention. I called the CPS 's bluff after providing evidence that a serving officer did not book out from his station a Speedscope Lasertech for which he stated in his witness statement that he did. The CPS then withdrew charges and issued a discontinuance notice.

It must be said that Mr. H did not drive in a manner which could be construed as with undue care or attention and the exceeding was not proven with any given checking device in fact, they followed him for 22 miles and were looking for a booking to knock thier daily taly up. They did not follow up on m complaint to the Officers committing an offence of perjury.

Good old Eddie Harding eh? Had a couple of run-ins with him myself. His next gambit will probably be that he didn't write many of the communications that appear to be signed by him.

As it turns out, every clerk and assistant at HMCS Gwent seems to have access to a stamp of his signature. He wasn't overly concerned about the possiblities for abuse, although admitted that someone had made a statment "signed" by him that didn't represent his opinion. Oddly that person had "left the HMCS".



I'd make a rough guess that someone in HMCS royally cocked up when this went to trial and is now desperately trying to cover it up. It may be instructive to get copies of any notes made at the "trial" to see what was said.

Done, along with a letter from the head of legal services at Cwmbran HMCS giving the Clerks name although nothing as yet from the CPS although this helps the cause so to speak.

What I can't get my head round is the timings....

Offence in August 08, so NIP to RK (Ryedale) and responce, NIP to MrH sent at the very earlist mid August (latest mid september), yet summons dated 1st September within that 28 days....some mistake surely?

Apart from that ignoring the entered plea and now claiming the appeal is outside 21 days when it isn't...somthing stinks like a kipper!

Simon

This is a fascinating thread for us non-legal types such as I.

but I do know a lot about processes and precedures - and this lot don't have any ! or just ignore them willfully.
another question I would pose is how can a / complete fcuk up /case as wildly uncontrolled/ as this one patently is proceed though their well oiled machine without being caught by procedural/quality checks. the 21 days is golden and a perfect example of this.

there are large systemic issues underneath this IMV - their 'machine' is clearly broken and yet everyday they go to the office and drive it.

anyone used the phrase 'management supervision of work' lately ?

or 'pissed up Apaches' - Just using a coulurful phrase and no disrespect to the Apache Nation intended in any way.

More like some pumpkin sending a standard letter without having it checked by a supervisory superior.

In which case that (particular) procedure is broken. How is it possible to send it out at all when the 21 days have not elapsed.
There will be others equally broken. e.g. after it was sent there was no report that showed it being sent and that it was sent within proper deadlines. or there was such a report and it was ignored.
there will be more.

I am sure there will be more however, the head of legal services provided me with his personnal email address and have supplied all information requested so far. He have even written to state that he have passed on all information to the CPS including my request for all evidental matter which is good enough for me to prove request was made diligently through the head of legal services however, the Crown it would appear preferred to ignore my request and not supply evidence in a properly proper manner.

Is it reasonable to assume that the request for evidence was forwarded as expressed by the head of legal services to the relevant CPS office concerned?

Davepoth, what or which case did E J Harding claim his signature was used by another who had since left the organisation.

In my case (not the thread below, but the argument I had with him about costs, it should be in BB&G somewhere).

????

Case was heard today (21st November 2008) by way of appeal at Newport Crown Court to a conviction under S.172 RTA.

Success appeal allowed. Grounds: Abuse of Process, professional negligence both actional in civil law for compensation. Let it all begin, now the fun starts.

Interesting, right of audiance granted in full including the right to question the defendant and witness's

And your original thead ?? Well Done. Pete D

Good stuff Ken. you don't fcuk about thats for sure !

Well done......now off to the civlis then?

Simon

And the CPS?
This should fall at their feet as well. They should also have picked up on the original timings for the issue of a summons whilst still within the 28 days. Negligence by themselves.

Well done another one to the good. Did the CPS show their faces and if they did, did they successfully manage to get onto their hind legs? The shame of it is that barring the cases that end up in the RSS cash machine the vast majority of prosecutions aren't really looked at in any depth by the CPS before their man/woman/person stands up to address the court. This is just another example of that woeful practice and Lynnzer's comment is quite correct or did I simply imagine that solicitors (including those from the CPS) are officers of the court?

If the OP is found not guilty of failure to provide, what are the chances of the CPS following up on the speeding charge?
The reason I ask is that I am going through a simaular situation.

I think in this case none I should think, they wil probably feel once bitten twice shy!

Usually by the time an S172 summons has even been served (and certainly by the time its been tried) the speeding has long timed out.

Simon

Don't know if we need to go there HMCS have indicated that an offer is being considered





Don't disagree however, complications occur in civil or rather tort law when attempting to make a shared claim. It's less complicated to go for one party by the throat.




The barraster representing the prosecution was actually a lovely lady. The Judge did make her look a liitle small and the four representatives who turned up from the safety camera partnership did not look to pleased.

Lessons learned: On this occasion I did not lay out the case structually making points of law to be considered at the appeal. Instead I bombarded them with case law to support an whole multitude of sins that could crop up and confused the Judiciary at what point I was wishing to make. This was commented upon from the bench. The prosecution was not then prepared for which case law I was going to rely on and had no reasonable answer.





No chance




It was well timed out. Alleged offence 1st February 08 summons issued 1st October

Argh that explains the timing, your first post said the offence was in August!

Simon

Yes, sorry Simon I didn't realise that I wrote August in the original post. I must have been thinking elsewhere when writing it should have read February doh!





Speeding was long timed out. No chance of them coming back with that one they have allready made moves to offer compensation which of course will be considered in the bin until a amicable settlement is reached.

The resultant of actions from the Crown and HMCS was a cause for undue stress through professionable negligence. May even get tort case law.

At least I understand the timings now!

Get them by the jugular!

Simon