Court for Traffic Offence

[clarion48]

A query on behalf of a friend

- she lent her car to someone who committed a traffic offence whilst driving it

 

- she received the initial letter but had just had a baby and was unwell so didn't respond in time.

 

The other driver later admitted the offence but they prosecuted my friend anyway because the information was not received in the time limit and took her license away as she was a relatively new driver.

 

She drives for a living so she appealed.

 

The hearing was adjourned and a new date set for this week

- she is worried in case they do revoke her license as she will then lose her job.

 

Any advice that could help would be gratefully received.

[BazzaS]

I take it she is appealing the sentence? (rather than the conviction, or both).

Did she:

a) plead guilty initially?,

b) appear in court? (rather than plead guilty by post, or not appear!)

c) make a plea in mitigation for reduced points (even at the expense of an increased fine!) to avoid disqualification?

d) have a lawyer familiar with the bench make the plea in mitigation?.

[clarion48]

Hi,

 

She is appealing both..

..it was for doing 36 in a 30 zone but as I said, her friend was driving not her.

 

 

She has not pleaded guilty..

..she sent an appeal because she had just given birth and was unwell so missed the original PCN..

..it is now a year ago since the offence.

 

 

The original hearing was adjourned until now because of her health

...from the court letter I am assuming she pleaded not guilty as it says hearing adjourned for trial to take place.

 

 

Details of the case say she failed to give information relating to the identity of the driver, which is true but only because of her circumstances at the time.

 

 

She cannot afford a lawyer...

.she is on maternity leave so only receiving half her salary.

 

 

I am going to court with her but trying to get some advice on how best to go about it.

[Raykay]

Details of the case say she failed to give information relating to the identity of the driver, which is true but only because of her circumstances at the time.

 

If that is what happened, and she did not give the information (or it was late), then she would be guilty of the offence.

The circumstances may be considered to be mitigation, not a defence.

[Aretnap]

There is potentially a defence

- if it was not reasonably practical for her to provide the information within the 28 days then she has a defence, provided she did provide it as soon as reasonably practical (if it was ever reasonably practical).

 

Precisely what is reasonably practical isn't defined by the law and is a question for the court to make a judgement call on based on the specific circumstances.

 

 

If she was seriously ill in hospital for many weeks with no access to her home or her mail then it would be a very hard hearted magistrate who thought that she should have been able to respond to the NIP.

 

 

On the other hand if she was just a bit run down after giving birth and let things get on top of her then it would be harder to argue that it wasn't practical for her to open her mail and spend a few minutes posting a form.

Somewhere between those two scenarios there's a grey area where the court might decide either way.

 

If she's convicted then 6 points are mandatory,

and if she gets 6 points then revocation of her licence is automatic

- the court has no power to waive it because of the hardship it would cause.

 

 

So she has little to lose by trying to argue the point.

[Ruleoflaw]

I believe your friend can make statutory declaration during or after the proceedings for Traffic Offences. Your friend was not driving so she should not plead guilty either. Besides your friend's main defence, her lawyer should concentrate their mitigation for her insofar as the driving licence is necessary to perform her job which without simply stops you from making a living. In addition, the prosecution has actual and or constructive knowledge that your friend was not driving so in any event, there is 'public interest' in any conviction where the lady concerned was/ is a mother who made a mistake by not making a statutory declaration at an earlier time. In addition, the guidance provided by Chief Police officers is that the speed limits permits actual speed& 10% & 2, with further discretionary thresholds as the vehicle's speedometer is not reliable unless calibrate like commercial vehicles: lorries/ coaches etc.

[BazzaS]

I believe your friend can make statutory declaration during or after the proceedings for Traffic Offences. Your friend was not driving so she should not plead guilty either. Besides your friend's main defence, her lawyer should concentrate their mitigation for her insofar as the driving licence is necessary to perform her job which without simply stops you from making a living. In addition, the prosecution has actual and or constructive knowledge that your friend was not driving so in any event, there is 'public interest' in any conviction where the lady concerned was/ is a mother who made a mistake by not making a statutory declaration at an earlier time. In addition, the guidance provided by Chief Police officers is that the speed limits permits actual speed& 10% & 2, with further discretionary thresholds as the vehicle's speedometer is not reliable unless calibrate like commercial vehicles: lorries/ coaches etc.

 

Irrelevant.

 

The summons isn't for speeding.

The summons is for failure (as registered keeper) to provide information on who the driver was!.

[Ruleoflaw]

A query on behalf of a friend

- she lent her car to someone who committed a traffic offence whilst driving it

 

 

- she received the initial letter but had just had a baby and was unwell so didn't respond in time.

 

 

The other driver later admitted the offence but they prosecuted my friend anyway because the information was not received in the time limit and took her license away as she was a relatively new driver.

 

 

She drives for a living so she appealed.

 

 

The hearing was adjourned and a new date set for this week

- she is worried in case they do revoke her license as she will then lose her job.

 

Any advice that could help would be gratefully received.

 

 

Clarion, what law did they use against your friend, ie the section and name of Parliament Act (ie statute). Was this to do with an enforcement police camera?

[BazzaS]

Clarion, what law did they use against your friend, ie the section and name of Parliament Act (ie statute). Was this to do with an enforcement police camera?

 

A query on behalf of a friend

- she lent her car to someone who committed a traffic offence whilst driving it

 

 

- she received the initial letter but had just had a baby and was unwell so didn't respond in time.

 

 

The other driver later admitted the offence but they prosecuted my friend anyway because the information was not received in the time limit

 

"initial letter .... didn't respond in time" and "information was not received in the time limit" suggests this is S 172, Road Traffic Act 1988

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

[Ruleoflaw]

"initial letter .... didn't respond in time" and "information was not received in the time limit" suggests this is S 172, Road Traffic Act 1988

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

 

 

Hmm, you're right Bazza. We need do know more about the OP's mental disposition, ie were there forces affecting their person that made it difficult telling the other driver's (third party's) ID, which may provide at least a basic defence.