Found points on my licence i knew nothing about.

[Man in the middle]

Like Manxman, I find this very mysterious.

 

First of all, let’s work on the assumption that only one allegation of speeding is involved.

 

If that was on 5^th December, let’s say that a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and an accompanying request to name the driver (a “S172 notice) was sent within a week, say by 12^th.

 

This would have been deemed served on you on Friday 14^th.

You would have until January 11^th to respond.

If you didn’t it is about right that court action would be initiated some time in March

(most areas send a reminder and they usually give the Registered Keeper another couple of weeks to respond).

 

So it seems quite likely that the conviction you have seen on your licence stems from that allegation and that it was heard in court in April.

 

As far as the police are concerned that matter is done and dusted.

 

You failed to respond to their request,

they prosecuted you for that failure and you were convicted and sentenced.

 

I imagine you owe the court £881.

That would be a fine of £660 (1.5 weeks’ net income based on a default figure of £440pw), £66 “Victim Surcharge” and £85 prosecution costs.

 

I’m surprised no attempt has been made to recover that sum from you.

 

But now it gets puzzling.

It seems that somebody has prompted the police to write to you.

 

I’ve no idea why that should be and I think you would be well advised to find out why they have sent the 7^th October letter to you.

 

But it gets worse.

It now seems, from what you say, that they are prosecuting you again for an offence for which you have already been convicted and sentenced!

 

Is that correct, or are the SJ papers you have been sent simply a copy of those which you did not receive for the April hearing?

 

If indeed they do intend prosecuting you again you should tread carefully.

 

As Manxman suggests, you may have been able to do a “deal” to get the S172 charge dropped in return for pleading guilty to speeding. But you cannot do that as you are sure you were not the driver.

 

I think you need to find out:

(1) Why did they send you the 7th October letter? What makes them believe you were not in receipt of the earlier paperwork?

 

(2) Why are they apparently prosecuting you again for an offence for which you have already been convicted and sentenced (if indeed that is what they are doing)?

 

There is quite a bit of correspondence which takes place between being detected allegedly speeding and a court case.

 

It seems very odd that you received none of this but you did get the 7th October letter.

 

If you do engage a solicitor it will cost you a tidy sum and you are unlikely to be awarded all of your costs (you may not be awarded any at all, depending on the outcome).

 

I would make those enquiries as a matter of urgency before anything else.

 

[Man in the middle]

Yes there is a way to have your earlier conviction made void. But it would be a good idea to find out the answer to the two questions I posed in my earlier post.

[Man in the middle]

1 hour ago, Dodgeball said:

Answer. Just send proof you were out of the country END

 

Yes, a great pity you did not come forth with that pearl of wisdom a little earlier. Still better late than never.

 

The "pontificating" you mention was not a figment. It was perfectly sound advice based on what was known.

 

Of course proving the OP was out of the country does not absolve his responsibilities under S172 if he is the Registered Keeper.

 

His contention that his earlier letter stated he was speeding is almost certainly incorrect.

 

The police do not know who was driving so cannot accuse anybody of speeding. What it probably said was that his vehicle was detected speeding and it falls to him to name the driver. Being out of the country does not excuse that responsibility.

 

There's lots of unknowns in this, not the least of which being how his earlier conviction was set aside as only a court can set aside a conviction.

 

Clearly something out of the ordinary has occurred but that's water under the bridge.

 

However to give the impression that being out of the country is a perfectly reasonable and routine defence to a S172 charge is, not unusually for you, totally misleading.

 

Of course every case turns on its own merits but if you contend that your advice is sound  you may care to look up the case of Whiteside vs DPP (2011).

 

Mr Whiteside was in a similar position to the OP, being out of the country when a S172 notice was served on him.

 

He contended that he could not be guilty of failing to respond to the notice as he had not seen it. The High Court ruled against him. Part of their ruling said this:

 

"The offence created by section 172(3) does not require knowledge on the defendant’s part that he is under an obligation to provide the specified information; ".

 

But I suppose that's just a "figment" as well. 

[Man in the middle]

 

42 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The time period for the new hearing, would be six months from the prosecution receiving the evidence in the initial case

 

The  S172 offence would have been committed 28 days after the S172 request was served on the recipient. The six month time limit to begin proceedings begins from that date. If an SD was to be performed to set aside (or "void" if you prefer) an earlier conviction there is no time limit on any new hearing to bring the matter again as proceedings would have already begun. There is no time limit on how long the proceedings must take to conclude.

 

However, all academic because for a reason we are not aware of, proceedings were discontinued. The most puzzling thing is that the police, in the first letter that the OP posted, stated "It has recently been identified that you may not have received the original documentation". Quite how or why they identified that is a mystery but I guess we'll never find out and it doesn't matter anyway.

[Man in the middle]

56 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

I did think you were going to challenge the burden of proof point.

 

Not at all. If the defendant presents a statutory defence to an offence for which he would otherwise be convicted then the burden rests on him to prove that defence. Anything that the defendant has to prove is always to the lower level "on the balance of probabilities".

[Man in the middle]

Man In The Middle retires for a lie down!!!!