Simple question, if the offer of the fixed penalty was accepted would it still be published in the press the same way as it would if it was dealt with via courts?

While the information may well be in the public domain, I can't tell you whether it is released through official channels, therefore how it would reach the press.

When it is dealt with by the courts, a newspaper editor will send a junior reporter to sit for days at a time in the local Magistrates' Court to get the details of any cases that might be deemed worthy of publication.

I assume you would rather someone didn't find out the details of your offence?! You'd still be required to tell your insurer though.

With an IN10, you are very lucky to be offered a fixed penalty. Is that with or without points? Lucky your car wasn't seized. Would advise against fighting it in court, as the penalty will almost certainly be higher, and you would need pretty compelling evidence to get off.

 

With an IN10, you are very lucky to be offered a fixed penalty. Is that with or without points? Lucky your car wasn't seized. Would advise against fighting it in court, as the penalty will almost certainly be higher, and you would need pretty compelling evidence to get off.

I don't dis-agree, but also want to put forward a different viewpoint for consideration (though I feel it likely the conclusion will be the same!).

The OP may well want to go for the certainty of accepting a FPN, but it is worth at least asking "why are they dealing with this by a FPN, if a FPN is unusual?".

OP : is there anything in the background to this that might explain??

The CPS charging standard for taking it to court is 2-fold:

1) that there is sufficient evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction, and

2) that prosecution is in the public interest.

Often, where there may be mitigating factors, it is the latter that means the CPS declines to prosecute.

However, the CPS charging guidelines are pretty clear on "There is a clear public interest in prosecuting offenders. Uninsured drivers pose a substantial risk to other road users."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#P150_12422

There are only limited statutory defences. Believing yourself to be insured (when you aren't!) isn't a defence (save when they can PROVE

(a ) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

 

(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

 

© that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143 S.143(3)

So, all of : not hired/loaned, but use of an employer's vehicle, having reasonable belief that the employer had insurance covering that particular driver, before "I thought I had insurance" becomes a viable defence.

So, whilst it seems harsh that such a strict onus is put on drivers who might reasonable believe themselves to be covered, unless it is an employer's vehicle, not hired / loaned, that still isn't a defence.

So, is it that the FPN is being offered because the police are thinking "seems a bit harsh to take this one to court" : if so, grab it! ; that alone may not be enough for the CPS to say "not in public interest to prosecute". bearing in mind their guidelines.

One wonders what situation would be required for the CPS to say "not in public interest to prosecute" and if the police would even feel that warranted forwarding to the CPS (it may be that for this offence the police have more 'lattitude in discretion' than the CPS guidelines allow the CPS?)

So, more details needed to allow a more detailed discussion, but likely the answer will still be : "take the FPN, it is better than court", especially if you are keen on reducing the small risk of the press taking an interest even further......

Is there any chance (did the lack of insurance come about due to the actions of the OP's insurer, rather than the OP's?) that the insurer will 'backdate' cover such that the offence can be shown no longer to have occurred?.

It seems unlikely it will feature in the press, but don't forget you'll need to declare it (and any points!) to your insurers.

Addendum to my previous post, I have seen other info on a website that states that "A police officer may issue a fixed penalty notice of £300 and 6 points (which stays as an endorsement for 4 years)". So you probably won't avoid points, but note that a magistrate can impose up to 8 points, plus an UNLIMITED fine and up to 12 months disqualification!!!

Take the FPN unless Bazza's defence is applicable!

... but note that a magistrate can impose up to 8 points, plus an UNLIMITED fine and up to 12 months disqualification!!!

!

Not up to 8 points AND up to 12 months disqualification.

Either 6-8 points OR a disqualification.

And any such disqualification is not limited to twelve months.

Magistrates can impose a ban of any length for any offence which carries an endorsement and a few years ago this power was extended to include any offence at all (even non-motoring ones).

A Fixed Penalty (£300 and 6 points) is quite common for No Insurance.

It represents a considerable saving over the fine, surcharge and costs that would normally be imposed by Magistrates.

There is absolutely no chance of the details appearing in the local press.

The matter is not dealt with in public and details are not released to the press.

In fact, there is very little chance of any motoring matter - even those prosecuted through the courts - appearing in the local rag.

Few local newspapers or online publications send reporters to the Magistrates' Courts these days.

They are seen occasionally but very rarely in traffic courts.

They would only put in an appearance if the defendant was, perhaps, famous or if the incident which led to the prosecution was of considerable local interest.