HMCTS Historic debt team - old sorn fine - now AEO

[La Mancha]

10 years ago, my motorcycle was clamped for allegedly being on the road when SORN.

 

I do not believe that this was the case,

I paid the release fee and shortly afterwards moved to Guernsey.

 

I learned that I had been prosecuted without my knowledge,

but as there was no way I could be pursued for the fine out of jurisdiction, I forgot about it.

 

Having moved back to the UK, I received a letter from HMCTS historic debt team demanding £523.75.

I contacted them to say I had been prosecuted without my knowledge and was advised to make a sworn statement to that effect in my local Magistrates Court.

 

I am currently awaiting an appointment to do this, but have today received an attachment of Earnings order.

Where do I stand?

If I am successful in my not guilty plea, will the money be returned?

[dx100uk]

ofcourse

[Bailiff Advice]

10 years ago, my motorcycle was clamped for allegedly being on the road when SORN.

 

I do not believe that this was the case, I paid the release fee and shortly afterwards moved to Guernsey.

 

I learned that I had been prosecuted without my knowledge, but as there was no way I could be pursued for the fine out of jurisdiction, I forgot about it.

 

Having moved back to the UK, I received a letter from HMCTS historic debt team demanding £523.75. I contacted them to say I had been prosecuted without my knowledge and was advised to make a sworn statement to that effect in my local Magistrates Court.

 

I am currently awaiting an appointment to do this, but have today received an attachment of Earnings order.

 

Where do I stand?

 

If I am successful in my not guilty plea, will the money be returned?

 

Almost every day I receive up to half a dozen enquiries from members of the public who had received a letter from the HMCTS Historic Debt Team. This team had been set up as a 'Pilot Scheme' just over a year ago to pursue 'historic' unpaid court fines up to 10 years old. The success of the pilot has lead to the project been expanded to cover fines outstanding for a much longer period (in some cases, as much as 20 years old).

 

With many of these fines it is found that a summons etc had been sent to a previous address and the correct course of action is to consider a Statutory Declaration. Unfortunately, it is these applications where the public get confused and there are many instances, where individuals are being seriously reprimanded in the Magistrates Court. For example:

 

On Wednesday, I heard from a lady who had attended an appointment in relation to a fine for using a TV without a valid TV Licence. The fine had been issued approx 5 years earlier and she had moved address a few months after receiving a visit from a TV License Enquiry Agent. At her statutory declaration hearing, the court accepted that she had moved and cancelled the conviction.

 

The original charge remains (that of using a TV without a licence), and what happens in all Magistrates Courts, is that the court will then hear the charge against that person immediately following the hearing.

 

The Magistrate then asked the lady how she wished to plead and foolishly, she stated that she wanted to plead 'not guilty. Give her plea, her case was listed for trial and she attended the new hearing on Tuesday. A representative from TV Licensing was present and he exhibited a signed copy of the 'Prosecution Statement' that the lady had signed 6 years earlier in the presence of the TV License Enquiry Agent confirming that she had been using a TV without a valid licence. According, she had to change her 'not guilty' plea to a 'guilty' plea. Entering a 'no guilty' plea at trial, meant that she was not entitled to a one third discount on the new fine. That discount is only applicable in cases where an 'early guilty plea' is entered. The lady was severely reprimanded by the Magistrate for lying to the court.

 

Before attending your appointment, you need to get as much information as you can from HMCTS regarding the original charge.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I learned that I had been prosecuted without my knowledge, but as there was no way I could be pursued for the fine out of jurisdiction, I forgot about it.

 

I contacted them to say I had been prosecuted without my knowledge and was advised to make a sworn statement to that effect in my local Magistrates Court.

 

I am currently awaiting an appointment to do this, but have today received an attachment of Earnings order

If I am successful in my not guilty plea, will the money be returned?

 

You mention above that you became aware of the fine when you were in Guernsey and you then state that on your return to the UK, you received correspondence from HMCTS and informed them that you had been prosecuted without your knowledge.

 

You need to be aware that a Section 14 Statutory Declaration may only be made within a period of 21 days of becoming aware the prosecution.

[Manxman in exile]

On Wednesday, I heard from a lady who had attended an appointment in relation to a fine for using a TV without a valid TV Licence. The fine had been issued approx 5 years earlier and she had moved address a few months after receiving a visit from a TV License Enquiry Agent. At her statutory declaration hearing, the court accepted that she had moved and cancelled the conviction.

 

The original charge remains (that of using a TV without a licence), and what happens in all Magistrates Courts, is that the court will then hear the charge against that person immediately following the hearing.

 

The Magistrate then asked the lady how she wished to plead and foolishly, she stated that she wanted to plead 'not guilty. Give her plea, her case was listed for trial and she attended the new hearing on Tuesday. A representative from TV Licensing was present and he exhibited a signed copy of the 'Prosecution Statement' that the lady had signed 6 years earlier in the presence of the TV License Enquiry Agent confirming that she had been using a TV without a valid licence. According, she had to change her 'not guilty' plea to a 'guilty' plea. Entering a 'no guilty' plea at trial, meant that she was not entitled to a one third discount on the new fine. That discount is only applicable in cases where an 'early guilty plea' is entered. The lady was severely reprimanded by the Magistrate for lying to the court.

 

Before attending your appointment, you need to get as much information as you can from HMCTS regarding the original charge.

 

 

Sorry if I've misunderstood something here, but what business does the magistrate have severely reprimanding a defendant who has pleaded not guilty? The defendant may have signed some sort of admission five years ago, but not remembering that now is not the same as lying. I can't remember what I signed six months ago, let alone five years.

 

 

When I did a LLB followed by a LLM (admittedly nearly 40 years ago) it was the inalienable right of every defendant to plead not guilty. This did not mean that they were saying they were "innocent", it simply meant that they were putting the prosecution to proof of the case.

 

 

By pleading not guilty the defendant lost the opportunity to have the fine discounted. That's "just" and that should have been an end to it. In my view the magistrate was then completely out of order and acting outside their remit to rebuke the defendant for pleading not guilty.

 

 

If I'd been the defendant I'd be making a formal complaint about the magistrate's conduct as I think they've overstepped the mark here.

 

 

Apologies for going slightly off topic but I read this thread before going on holiday and it made me fume. I didn't have the opportunity to post at the time so am doing so now because I feel strongly about it.

 

 

Irrational(?) rant over!