To help you understand why they can do this, forget for a moment it was your son. Let's say it was a complete stranger who took your car. Your insurers pay out because they are obliged to under the Road Traffic Act (as above). But that payment comes from the premiums paid by all their customers (including you). When they insured your car they took on the risk based on who they were told would be driving it, which presumably did not include anybody who might steal it. They based the premium on that information. Now, somebody who they had not agreed to cover has caused damage by driving it. Why should they (i.e. their policyholders) meet the costs of the claim?

Hi DK Sorry for the delayed reply - been away. I can only suggest you persevere. Have you tried phoning the court and simply making a request for a hearing to re-open the case (as you would if you were applying to make a Statutory Declaration)? Or a tracked and signed for letter to teh Clerk to the Justices?

For information, this is what is likely to happen on the day: When you arrive at the court building, report to reception. They will have a list of those expected to attend. Make it clear you’d like to see the Duty Solicitor (DS). If they prevaricate, make it clear that you are entitled to see the DS as you are appearing for the first time and you face a charge which can carry a custodial sentence. When you see the DS he (I’ll use he but it might just as likely be “she”) will want to know your side of the story. He will also take brief notes about your domestic situation, income, employment, etc. You will be called into court and should be asked to stand in the enclosed dock. The court will be presided over by either three “Lay” Magistrates or possibly a District Judge (DJ) sitting alone (some big cities make more use of DJs than smaller cities and towns). In front of them will be the court’s Legal Advisor. They are the only people facing outwards towards the court. Everybody else faces them. Facing the Bench will be the Duty Solicitor - probably nearest you – and the prosecutor. There may be a few other odd people sitting in the court but they will be nothing to do with you. There are no wigs and gowns, only suits and boots. The charge will be read to you by the Legal Advisor and you will be asked to enter your plea. If you plead Guilty the prosecutor will provide a brief outline of what happened. The DS will respond with anything he thinks the court should hear about the offence and you. The Magistrates may retire to discuss their sentence or they may just agree their sentence whilst remaining in court. If a DJ is presiding, he or she is unlikely to retire. You will then be sentenced. Whilst a Magistrates’ Court is a formal court of law, it is far less formal than a Crown Court and you need not be worried that you will be bullied or intimidated.

When I first replied I discounted the option of a Statutory Declaration (SD) on two counts: 1. The considerable time lapse since sentencing makes it unlikely a court will accept an SD. As the e-mail states, they should be made within 21 days of conviction. Whilst a court may accept one later, it is very unlikely they will accept one this late. I have similar reservations about an application to re-open the case, but, unlike with an SD, it is not laid down anywhere how long a defendant has to make such an application. 2. Far more importantly, I discounted it because, as far as your description goes, your brother was aware of the proceedings (to the extent that he entered a plea to the charge, albeit too late). He therefore cannot make an SD under any circumstances if that is the case. The SD is a declaration that he knew nothing of the proceedings against him, so it would be a false declaration. This is probably why the first letter he has from the court (13th June) does not mention this as an option. Unfortunately much of the correspondence a court deals with is handled by people who are not legally trained and are not entirely familiar with the court process. This is why I said you may have to persevere to get the application to re-open put before the court. You need to get back to the court to explain that an SD is not appropriate and reiterate your request to have the case reopened.

The two matters are unrelated and the people interested in the traffic violation are unlikely to trouble the DVLA. Although failing to update your V5C carries a maximum fine of £1,000, if you were fined in a Magistrates' Court the fine would be income related and also take account of your (presumably) guilty plea. In practice the offence is rarely prosecuted and would normally result in a £100 fixed penalty if actioned. But the DVLA rarely take enforcement action for the offence.

Yes I think he should enter a plea if that's what they ask for. I believe he should also ask to be able to appear rather than to allow this to be dealt with in his absence, possibly by a Single Justice (they may request his attendance anyway). I still recommend a guilty plea, but that's his call.

A couple of adjustments (mainly for "style" but one or two corrections as well. The Clerk to the Justices Willesden Magistrates Court 448 High Road London NW10 2DZ HM Courts Ref: xxxxx My ref: xxxxx 09th Aug 22 Dear Sir/Madam I am writing in relation to (insert ref number). As per your letter of the 13th of June 2022, I would like the court to consider a request to reopen my case (Ref no). I have been sentenced without my knowledge and I believe the sentence is inconsistent with the sentencing guidelines. I accept that some time has passed since I was sentenced and this may impact on the court's decision whether or not to reopen my case. There are some exceptional circumstances which have led to the delay: I am the sole carer of a disabled person who has been very unwell for the past few months. It was my duty to stay with them and care for them. Being away for long periods meant that I had missed the letters prompting me to respond the ruling. Yours faithfully, XXXXX XXXX

It seems the fines are already being deducted from benefits, HB. The letter to the court does not need to be too involved. Simply refer to the letter of 13th June (where your brother was told he can apply to have the case reopened) and make that request. State the reason (that it appears he was not sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines) and a brief outline to explain the delay would not go amiss. Beware, that you may get a refusal from a non-judicial officer - a clerk of some sort. The decision to reopen or not is one solely for the court (i.e. the Magistrates). It is not one that should be made even by the Clerk to the Justices (to whom you should address the request). They may try to tell you that the request is "out of time" but that is not correct. The power to reopen stems from s142 of the Magistrates Court Act. That simply says this: 142Power of magistrates’ court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc. (1)A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so;] and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make. . You will note that it is not "time bound" (unlike, say, an appeal to the Crown Court). It is entirely up to the Magistrates whether they consider the request should be granted or not and they will take all the circumstances - including the delay and the explanation for it - into account. You may have to be persistent.

No, the judge (in fact a single magistrate sitting with a legal advisor) would not have seen the video. He or she would only have seen the papers. I don't understand what you mean by your brother "being adamant against a guilty verdict." I based my earlier post on the assumption he would plead guilty because, frankly, from your description there is little chance of him being found not guilty of the offence. Being found guilty following a trial will see him with considerably increased prosecution costs. They start at £620. His attempt at a Not Guilty plea did not influence the sentence. His plea was not received in time and if it had been his case would have been listed for trial at a (much) later date. My advice is to concentrate on trying to have the case reopened first. I am not at all optimistic that the court will agree to that. They will find it hard to understand why somebody who was convicted at the end of May and was told in mid June that he would need to take action if he wanted the case reopened, has left it until the second week in August (perhaps prompted by having deduction made from his benefits?) before getting round to doing something about it.

Looking at the sentencing guidelines, the sentence, on the face of it, seems harsh – and a little confusing. From your description the offence seems at the lower end of seriousness. There are three bands of seriousness mentioned in the guidelines. From the least serious, the suggested sentences are: A fine of half a week’s net income, and 3-4 points A fine of a week’s net income and 5-6 points A fine of a week and a half’s net income and 7-9 points (or a disqualification). The sentencing guidelines are here: Careless Driving (drive without due care and attention) (Revised 2017) – Sentencing WWW.SENTENCINGCOUNCIL.ORG.UK From your description I can see no aggravating factors to push the offence up from the lowest band of seriousness. The sum he has been ordered to pay is based on the highest fine – a week and a half’s income. Let me explain how I have deduced this. As well as the fine, the court will also order prosecution costs (normally £90) and a “victim surcharge” of 10% of the fine. When the court has no information about a defendant’s income a default figure of £440 per week is used. So, he will have been ordered to pay 1.5 times £440, so £660 by way of a fine, £66 Victim Surcharge and £90 costs. Total £816, as per his notice. The fine indicates that the court viewed the offence in the top band of seriousness. The confusing thing is the points. If the court considered the offence at the top of the seriousness range, he should have received at least seven points, not six. He has also been sentenced on the basis of a Not Guilty plea (which is again the default when no plea has been entered). This means he did not receive credit for his guilty plea. This is normally a discount of one third off the fine (but not the points). So much for an explanation of what’s happened. What’s to do? He faces some considerable difficulty here because of the length of time elapsed between his conviction and now. His only option is to ask for a court hearing to have the matter reopened. He should be aware that the court is not obliged to agree to this and may not do so in view of the time elapsed. When making his request he should do so on the basis that the sentence does not seem to comply with the guidelines on two counts: (1) he should submit that the offence is at the lowest end of seriousness and (2) the sentence is inconsistent with the guidelines anyway (discrepancy between points and fine). He also needs to contact the fines office as a matter of urgency. I am surprised he has not already faced one of the sanctions they mention by now but he needs to let them know he is asking for his case to be reopened. Once again, in view of the time elapsed, they may continue with their normal enforcement process anyway. If he had dealt with this promptly it is my view (provided the court sees the offence at the lowest end of seriousness) he should have face a fine of half a week’s net income, reduced by a third for his guilty plea, a 10% victim surcharge (minimum £34), £90 costs and three points. That is the ideal outcome he should be looking for but, as I said, the court may not agree to reopen the matter at all. If they do, he may find his full discount for a guilty plea is reduced due to his tardiness. Do let us know how it goes.

As above, you have no realistic option but to plead guilty. The problem when looking at the sentencing guidelines for fraud is that they cover such a wide range of seriousness that making a reasonable guess at the sentence is not easy for those unfamiliar with the guidelines. However, I would suggest that your offence sits at the very bottom of that range. There is no indication that you are being accused of using the badge more than once. Even if you had done so, the prosecution needs to let you know at this stage and in any case there is no evidence to support such an allegation. So it’s a single offence for very little monetary gain. My guess (and it’s only my guess) is that If you show genuine remorse before the court I believe they may see fit to impose a “Conditional Discharge”. This means that there will be no punishment for the offence but if you commit any further offences during the period of the discharge (12 months is the most usual) then that will be the end of the matter. At the very worst, if the court does not think a Conditional Discharge is appropriate, they should deal with the matter by way of a fine. You will also pay a "Victim Surcharge which will be £20 if you are handed a Conditional Discharge or 10% of the fine (minimum £34) if you are handed a fine. As well as that the Council will ask for a contribution towards their costs. The CPS normally ask for £85 but local authorities ask for somewhat more. The good news is that you will be able to take advantage of the “duty solicitor” (DS) at court on the day of your appearance. The DS is available to people who appear for the first time and who are charged with an offence which can carry a custodial sentence. Do not worry – there is no possibility of you going to prison for your offence. As I said, fraud is a very broad spectrum charge and covers some very serious offences. It’s just the offence must carry the theoretical possibility of custody before the DS can be consulted. The DS should have a chat with you about the offence, gain a brief outline of your circumstances and should represent you in court. You would not be entitled to Legal Aid for your first appearance (because you can take advantage of the DS scheme) and your eligibility would only be tested if you had to appear again, in which case the DS would usually help with your application. However, your case should be dealt with in one appearance. For information, very roughly, Legal Aid is available for those with an annual income of under about £11,500. Just to explain, the reason you have been summonsed to court is, once again, because the offence can carry a custodial sentence. There is a court process known as the “Single Justice Procedure” (SJP) where a single Magistrate sits with a legal advisor in an office dealing with guilty pleas to minor offences “on the papers.” Nobody else can attend and somebody who is being dealt with under that process must ask for a normal hearing if they want to attend court for any reason. Many minor motoring offences (speeding, careless driving, etc.) are dealt with in this way. But the SJP can only be used for non-imprisonable offences. Regrettably you will have a criminal conviction as a result of this. Quite what effect this will have on your employment I’m afraid is not my area of expertise.

Any organisation which has the ability to prosecute you through the courts (the police, transport authorities, etc.) may offer you an out-of-court disposal. The police, for example, offer motorists caught speeding a course and transport concerns may agree to an out-of-court financial settlement for fare evasion. None of these have any legal standing and they are not "fines". The police have specific powers to offer fixed penalties for some motoring offences and these include the endorsement of the driver's licence with penalty points as well as a financial penalty. Provision for this is made under statute, but the penalties are not "fines". Apart from one or two exceptions (such as financial conduct authorities for example) only a court can impose a "proper" fine (though of course the effect is the same on the person paying the money, whatever it is called). I'm not sure if water authorities offer fixed penalties for those breaking hosepipe bans.

Excellent news. I think the hospital authorities need to realise that a DoL order is a serious step and not something to be undertaken lightly. The hospital can only impose an "urgent" (i.e. 7 day) DoL and the clue is in the name - there should be some urgency that makes its imposition necessary. But from your description I cannot see any urgency in imposing one, especially on a Friday afternoon. It wasn't as if your mother was going to up sticks and walk out against medical advice or anything. It depends how much you want to put into this. I imagine that once Mum is home and settled you may simply want to put it behind you and move on and I wouldn't blame you for that. But depending on their reasoning (which I hope was explained to you and I'd be interested to hear it if they explained it to you) I believe the hospital should be taken to task for this. It has caused an awful lot of unnecessary worry and stress. Let things settle down first though, and get Mum home safely.

It's difficult to say because we don't really know exactly what process was adopted! I suppose it depends on what the hospital actually tells you they did. But the fact that you were not consulted at all points to there being breaches of the guidance at the very least. I think you need to major on the reasons why this step was taken, Among the questions you should demand answers to: Why did they consider it was necessary to detain her (which can be done by force if necessary, so it's not something that should be undertaken lightly)? How will her treatment suffer if she is not detained? What alternatives were considered before the DoL decision was taken? Why was it deemed necessary to take that decision on Friday afternoon and before you had been consulted? Exactly what changed to prompt the DoL order being considered? You should also get confirmation that this is an "urgent" DoL order (and thus lasts only seven days) and if so are there plans to seek a "standard" DoL order? Ultimately I think you need to make it clear that you are prepared to have the issue considered by the Court of Protection (how to do this is in my first post). Do let us know what happens.

I absolutely agree. But in this particular case no consideration appears to have been given to that option. Instead the patient has been summarily deprived of her liberty - a course of action that should only be considered as a last resort when all other options have been considered and discounted. Furthermore there seems to have been no discussion with the patient's family (which is clearly seen as desirable if not necessary). At the very lowest there seems to have been an enormous abuse of process here. Nobody should be deprived of their liberty in these circumstances on the whim of a single person without suitable alternatives being considered. Even convicted criminals are entitled to have alternatives to custody duly considered by a judge or magistrates.

Which is a request you are perfectly free to ignore. You don't have to "declare" that you don't need a TV licence. You simply don't buy one.

You are getting somewhat ahead of events. If it is a doctor (i.e. the hospital) who has initiated the DoL order it is only valid for seven days. It is what is termed an "urgent" DoL order. A standard DoL order (which can last up to 12 months) can only be issued by a Local Authority and that is what will be required if your mother is to be detained for longer. Securing a standard DoL order is a process which involves at least six assessments of the patients condition and the proposals planned to treat it. It includes a "Mental Health" Assessment and a "Best Interests" assessment. This also makes provision for, wherever possible, that someone to be appointed as the relevant person’s representative in an unpaid capacity (i.e. a family member or friend). This is something that should also have been discussed with you before an "urgent" DoL order was made. Whether the doctor you mention has any non-medical reasons for seeking this order is difficult to say. But from your description it seems, on the face of it, that due process has not even been carried out properly before the "urgent" DoL order was made. You must keep on top of this. In particular, when you attend Monday's meeting, you must establish why it is considered necessary to detain your mother, what plans there are for her treatment that requires her detention and why that treatment cannot be sustained without her detention. You should also question why you were not consulted before the "urgent" DoL order was made. At worst, you must be prepared to challenge the order (which will expire next Friday anyway) in the Court of Protection if necessary. You can do this if you think: the order may not have been authorised properly this action is not in the person’s best interests the person has mental capacity to decide their own treatment Deprivation of Liberty is not something even a court embarks on lightly without evidence of its necessity, its likely duration and the consideration of alternatives. The Supreme Court heard a case about DoL orders a few years ago and some harsh criticisms and recommendations for changes came from that. I don't know if your mother's doctor is aware of that.

The link below will take you to the Government's page on how to challenge a Deprivation of Liberties (DoL) order: Deprivation of Liberty orders - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK How to apply to the Court of Protection to challenge an order restricting someone's freedom or get a deprivation of liberty authorised. From the speed this has been implemented I get the impression that this has been granted as an "Urgent" DoL Order. If so, it will have been authorised by the hospital and can last for no more than seven days. Standard DoL Orders must be authorised by (usually) the local authority and there is a clear process for them to do this and there are a number of criteria that must be met before an order should be granted. These include: The person is suffering from a mental disorder. The person lacks capacity to decide for themselves about the restrictions which are proposed so they can receive the necessary care and treatment. Before granting an Urgent DoL order the hospital should have spoken to you (or another relevant person) to discuss the plan and determine if another method of treatment that does not entail deprivation of liberty is possible. This article provides information about the protections that are in place to prevent unlawful or unnecessary DoL: Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS): Latest developments | SCIE WWW.SCIE.ORG.UK More information about Liberty Protection Safeguards, replacing DoLS for likely implementation in October 2020.

You need to contact the course provider to see if you can sort this out. But you must understand that the offer of a course is made entirely at the discretion of the police and there is no right of appeal if you are not offered one (for whatever reason). As an side, there is no right to a fixed penalty either and the police can simply begin court action if they wish (though they usually follow their guidelines).

Was cover actually granted by Hastings (even if only for a short time) or did they decline your proposal before it got that far?

Just to lay one thing to rest, you say you do not recall driving at that speed on that road. But do you recall driving on that road at the time mentioned? Assuming you do, after you have responded to the request for driver's details you should be offered a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) for that excess. If you don't fancy accepting that the police will prosecute you through the Magistrates' Court and if you are convicted the result will be much more expensive. If you want to defend the matter, the police will almost certainly produce evidence that your speed was measured by an approved device operated correctly. Without a defence from you, that will be sufficient to see you convicted. To defend the charge you must cast doubt on the evidence provided by the police to the extent that you must show that the measurement of your speed cannot be relied upon. Unfortunately turning up and saying you do not remember travelling at that speed will not cut the mustard.

Why did you head your question "Magistrates Court Act 1980, Sect 12(3)(B)? When you say your brother has been "Summoned" to the Magistrates Court, what exactly has he received? Summonses are rarely used these days. Proceedings usually begin with either a "Postal Requisition" or a "Single Justice Procedure Notice".

Yes (unless you especially want to attend - which I imagine you don't). I don't think there is much you can say about the offence itself except perhaps "apologies for wasting the court's time, momentary lapse of concentration" that sort of thing. You should also have been sent a Form MC100 "Statement of Means", which you should complete with details of your income and outgoings. This will enable the court to calculate the appropriate fine.

You don't have to say anything. In fact, in the first instance you will not be required to attend court at all because, unless you insist on a personal hearing, your case will be heard under the "Single Justice Procedure" and you cannot attend that hearing at all. You can write anything you want the court to hear when you respond to your Single Justice Procedure Notice (which is what you currently have). Only if the SJ believes a ban should be considered will you be invited to attend (the SJ will not ban you in your absence). If no ban is considered you will simply be sentenced by the SJ by way of a fine and points. If a ban is considered the SJ will adjourn your case and you will be given a date for a personal hearing in the normal court. If that happens, when you attend you can tell the court what effect a ban will have on you. You can decide at that stage whether to involve a lawyer or not. There really is no point in engaging a lawyer at this stage because he or she cannot attend your SJ hearing either.

You need to find a solicitor who will take the time to read Section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act. Whilst the penalty for each offence is the same, the definitions (and hence what the prosecution has to prove) are different. Section 3ZA provides the definitions. You can see the difference between the two in paragraphs (2) and (4) : Road Traffic Act 1988 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I can't really assist any further. I don't know what the video shows but that is the only real evidence there is. All the rest (the statements, etc.) simply provide provenance to support the footage. I have a suspicion that the prosecution may amend the charge to one of careless driving. All they have to do for that is to prove that your driving fell below the standard of a competent and careful driver. From your description it certainly did.