Can I just clarify the position, the above is the procedure that applies in cases where a defendant when making his Section 14 Statutory Declaration indicates his intention to plead guilty to the charge (and in which case, the case against him will dealt with on the same day straight after the court have considered his Section 14 Statutory Declaration.

 

Yes that is indeed the procedure if you pleade guilty, although you forget to add that only if the original proceedings are under the SJP. However, as you have never stated this before your previous posts give the impression that it's the procedure for all s14 stat decs.

I have not in actual fact referred to any specific CrimPR rules (there are many of them). Debtors and the public are not interested in links to legislation. They are interested in having the position explained to them (as I have done).

 

For reasons that are unexplained, you appear to be putting obstacles forward to discourage debtors from attending a Statutory Declaration hearing. I really don't understand why?

This whole thread is about statutory declarations and the CrimPR that govern them. You mentioned the CrimPR in post #1 so we can safely assume you mean the specific rule that stat decs fall under. I get the impression that you may not actually know which rule it is.

I'm not trying to put any obstacles anywhere, in fact I'm removing them. In post #1 you insist that the person MUST make an appointment and attend in person. Dodgeball then says that if you don't attend the stat dec will be dismissed. I'm pointing out that there is no requirement to attend, something that you refuse to acknowledge.

Certainly if I was accused of a criminal offence I would want to know the exact charges and the evidence submitted before entering any plea.

 

PS: As I have mentioned very often, 10% of all court fines are for non payment of a TV Licence fine. In such cases, a 'non guilty' plea is very rarely ever appropriate (and if entered, would mean that the debtor would be in a worse position financially). If an 'non guilty' plea is entered, the defendant would not qualify at his or her new trial from a one third discount (for an early not guilty plea).

Even if they are not guilty?

This thread has already gone to 3 pages. If the purpose is to assist debtors, then any further posts will not achieve this.

Once again - do you still insist that a defendant MUST make an appointment to serve a stat dec in person, as you asserted in post #1? I cannot understand why that is so difficult to answer. It's a simple yes or no.

I have already answered this question a few times and once again, you need to rely upon the letters that are being sent by HMCTS to debtors (a copy of which is below).

 

If you consider that the advice from HMCTS is incorrect, then surely you should be taking your concerns to them (and not here). After all, the following template did featured on your own forum a few weeks ago !!! Why you have not challenged it?

 

If you do get a response from HMCTS, please do let us know. Until then, I would not want to mislead fine defaulters myself into taking another course of action, and in particular a course of action that could lead to further delay for the defaulter and the risk of enforcement action recommencing.

To be fair, you've never actually answered, rather provided a copy of a letter from a court clerk, but it's fair to assume that your asnwer is a yes. You insist that a defendant MUST make an appointment to serve a stat dec in person, and rely upon a letter from a court clerk. This is despite the relevant CrimPR and the MCA both saying you do not need to attend.

You also haven't managed to navigate why a statement of means is not always required when serving a stat dec - again this is in the same CrimPR I've referred to.

That letter you posted has been challenged as anyone who reads the thread can see, as has any other assertion from a court clerk that an appointment must be made. The legislation and the relevant rule is simply given.

I don't understand why you find it so difficult to understand, it is a simple enough sentence. Given the fact that a letter has been received from HMCS saying this, it seems reasonable advice to be giving.

 

In light of that, i would be giving that as advice certainly. You don't ignore letter from the Maj's court.

 

I am aware that there is bad advice to ignore court instructions. Take the advice to ignore letters which say payments must be made to the EA and not the court for instance, but as seen following such advice always ends in tears.

The letter has been sent via email by an admin officer at a court, not by a judge or anyone with legal training. The contents are not compatible with either the relevant CrimPR nor the MCA. The letter is not an order from the court and has no legal standing. If it was a choice of choosing between what a court admin says and what the law says I know which one I would choose. If you are happy for debtors to be denied their rights under legislation then that's your concern.

For everyone else who cares, they can follow what the CrimPR and the MCA say.

Please try to keep your posts accurate. HMCTS state that the defendant must attend and I would not wish to encourage defaulters into believing that the courts are wrong. With seeing so many similar letters from different courts, it seems clear to me that this is the procedure that seems to be followed in most courts (and it is one that I wholly agree with).

This is what YOU posted in post#1:

Can I send a sworn Section 14 Statutory Declaration to the court (or the Historic Debt Team) by recorded delivery?

 

No you cannot...most Magistrates court will reject your application and advise you that you must make an appointment and attend court in person ......(continued on the following post).

This is advice YOU have given. You now say it's not your advice but the advice of HMCTS (or to be precise an admin officer). If so, why have you not challenged it as being incompatible with the CrimPR and the MCA?

Why on earth would I want to challenge something that works and works very well indeed !!!

 

If the procedure did not work to the defendants advantage, I would be the first to raise objections of that I can assure you. The way in which I see it (and from the many cases I assist with), there can only be advantages to the defendant in the way in which court manage Section 14 Statutory Declarations and no disadvantages.

 

Even if the court were to accept a Section 14 Statutory Declaration by post, the court MUST arrange for a re-hearing to take place as soon as possible.

The fact remains that you have stated that a defendant MUST attend in person and CANNOT send a stat dec by post. In post #1 it would be better to say:

Can I send a sworn Section 14 Statutory Declaration to the court (or the Historic Debt Team) by recorded delivery?

 

Yes but you may be able to speed matters up if you attend in person

That is the true position. I notice that you haven't managed to address your error in saying that a stat dec must be accompanied by a statement of means. Again, this is not what the CrimPR say.

I would agree with the lawyers observation (that the courts objective is that the case against the debtor should be re-heard immediately following the granting of the statutory declaration).....and as I see it, this procedure works well.

Yes, it says reheard immediately following the granting of the stat dec. The previous sentence says this can be via attendance or by post.

Is that the CrimPR you rely upon?

Serving a statutory declaration for a court fine when you were unaware of proceedings.

If you have received notice of a court fine that you were unaware of, either from the court or from a bailiff visit, you have the right to serve a Statutory Declaration (SD) under the Magistrates Court Act 1980 section 14 to the sentencing court to request a re-hearing and ‘rewind’ the proceedings back to the start. A SD will not be able to void the original allegation but it will void all subsequent hearings and enforcement.

Can I send the SD by post?

Yes but you must send it via registered post (ie getting a signature on delivery). If the original proceedings were heard under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrPR) say you will need to indicate your plea with the SD – more on that later

Do I have to attend in person or make an appointment?

No, but by doing so you may be able to speed matters up. If you do attend in person and the original proceedings were heard under the SJP the, as said above, then you will need to enter a plea at the same time - again more on that later.

The proceedings were under the SJP, what do I plea?

You have three options –

1- You can plead guilty and have the case reheard as before under the SJP and the case will be heard as soon as possible – you do not need to attend.

2- You can indicate a guilty plea but ask for a hearing at court comprising of more than one justice (ie not under the SJP) – you will need to attend.

3- You can plead not guilty and the case will be listed for trial.

I don’t know how to plea, I have been shown no evidence, what do I do?

This is, in my opinion, a flaw in the SJP system. How can you make an informed plea if you’ve been provided with no evidence?

Under the SJP you are sent a notice detailing the allegations and your options. By beings asked to give a plea with a SD you are being denied this notice and I would advise that you have seen this notice before any plea can be made.

You have the option of pleading not guilty. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you are declaring yourself innocent, but you are excercising your right to disclosure of evidence - you are putting the prosecution under notice to prove their case. They will then be required to serve you with the evidence. After viewing the evidence, you will have have the option of changing your plea should you decide to.

My own opinion is that you should state on your SD that you cannot enter an informed plea at this stage until you have had notice of the SJP and been given the opportunity to seek advice.

Do I need to send a means test form with my SD?

If you are going to plead guilty and stay under the SJP then yes you do. This will allow the magistrate to see your disposable income level before issuing any fine.

If you intend to plead guilty but with a full hearing or if you plead not guilty or if you decide to say you cannot enter a plea then no, you do not need to send a means test form with your SD.

Rule 37.16 is not the rule that stat decs follow.

Rule 37.16 is not the rule that governs stat decs.

I think it has to be remembered that there are two processes here.

 

The first one is to ensure the SD is served on the court, the court will not consider an application if it has not been properly served within the 21days or with an extension of time.

Many SDs now being sent to courts lie about when they first heard about the offence, there is no reason why a court should not require the person to attend and declare the truth of the SD, if they are going to accept it.

The SD will have already been sworn in front of a solicitor or registrar. There is no need to swear it again. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided the SD must be taken as fact.

 

Whilst it is the case that the Rules themselves allow a Statutory Declaration to be serviced by post as well as in person, the reality is that it is now common practice for courts to insist that Section 14 Statutory Declarations are made in person and by prior appointment.

The court can request you attend but unless or until the legislation or rules are changed then they simply cannot insist that you do.

You must remember that the SJP starts with a notice sent in the post. The reply is meant to be by post. Notification of the fine will be by post. There is no reason why a stat dec in this process must be in person - it can be done by post.

An advantage of not attending is that the court will need to re-issue the SJP notice and allow the defendant to read the charges and seek advice. By attending for a stat dec you may be expected to enter a plea without having seen the SJP notice let alone had the time to seek advice. How can anyone make an informed plea without even knowing what they're pleading to?

Our 'new' poster, Captain Bluedog, is a frequent contributor on another forum. To understand why he is so insistent that a Section 14 Statutory Declaration should be sent by post is very likely to be due to the following advice given on that forum owners website.

Just to be clear, I am not insistent that a stat dec should be sent by post and people are free to deal with it as they see fit - however I want the public to understand that the assertion in post #1 that they cannot send it by post is incorrect.

I also want to make it clear that a statement of means and a plea are not always required with a stat dec. In addition I want to ensure that everyone knows that you can send a stat dec after the 21 day limit. The most common reason for doing so would be that the defendant was unaware that they had a right to serve a stat dec and they were unaware that this should have been within 21 days of becoming aware of proceedings. The typical man in the street would be completely unaware of these procedures.

 

Whilst it is the case that the Rules themselves allow a Statutory Declaration to be serviced by post as well as in person, the reality is that it is now common practice for courts to insist that Section 14 Statutory Declarations are made in person and by prior appointment.

 

The court clerk can ask that you attend however there is nothing in the legislation or rules to allow them to insist or demand.