Stat Dec and its time limits - Discussion

[Peterbard]

Ahh, discussion thread. Thank whoever.

Forgotten what the points were  now, I will read and get back later.

[Man in the middle]

The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue.

 

You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. Y

 

ou started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule.

I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion.

 

In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread

(a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and

(b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD.

 

I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen.

As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14).

 

The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged.

If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration.

 

If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question.

 

For the final time,

the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned).

 

To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday):

 

I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings...

 

She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.

 

 

[Peterbard]

I think most of the problems ae based around the belief that the Magistrate has no option but to believe a Statutory Declaration.

 

They have misunderstood the intent of the section in this regard.

 

The Magistrate has no option but to allow a correctly filled in, and "in time "Declaration, is what they should say.

Whereas

The Magistrate has every right to make a decision as to the authenticity of the application, and if the time should still be extended whether the application is incorrect or not(admitted lateness), their application may not be passed. and to that end most applications go to a hearing to resolve the mater.

 

You see, many "advisers" tell people to just do a SD, without even inquiring about dates, thinking the court will just pass it. Well no they will not, particularly older ones. If the debtor has contacted the court or had enforcement or whatever, the court will raise questions regarding the date the debtor said he first became aware etc.

 

There is lots about this, and even the section itself says.

3)If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection.

 

And in Crim at 3714

(3) The court may extend that time limit, even after it has expired— (a) at a hearing, in public or in private; or (b) without a hearin

 

Crim at 37 
Statutory Declaration. 

(2) The defendant must— (a) serve such a declaration on the court officer— (i) not more than 21 days after the date of finding out about the case, or (ii) with an explanation for the delay, if serving it more than 21 days after that date; (b) serve with the declaration one of the following, as appropriate, if the case began with a written charge and single justice procedure notice— (i) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(a) (notice of guilty plea), with any representations that the defendant wants the court to consider and a statement of the defendant’s assets and other financial circumstances, as required by that rule, (ii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(b) (notice of intention to plead guilty at a hearing before a court comprising more than one justice), or (iii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(c) (notice of intention to plead not guilty). (3) The court may extend that time limit, even after it has expired— (a) at a hearing, in public or in private; or (b) without a hearing. 

Also, you will notice section refers to two separate addresses within the court, one is the court officer and one the fines officer, to whom the application should be addressed, I will leave to your sparkling wit to decipher why. 

 

In reply please quote the authority to substantiate your case. Or I won't reply. 

 

The six month rule does not apply. This is because the time limit is the point where the prosecution receives all the information required to start proceedings, after this he has 3 years to commence.

 

(a) the court must treat the summons or requisition and all subsequent proceedings as void (but not the information or written charge with which the case began)

 

Crim at 37 
Statutory Declaration. 

(2) The defendant must— (a) serve such a declaration on the court officer— (i) not more than 21 days after the date of finding out about the case, or (ii) with an explanation for the delay, if serving it more than 21 days after that date; (b) serve with the declaration one of the following, as appropriate, if the case began with a written charge and single justice procedure notice— (i) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(a) (notice of guilty plea), with any representations that the defendant wants the court to consider and a statement of the defendant’s assets and other financial circumstances, as required by that rule, (ii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(b) (notice of intention to plead guilty at a hearing before a court comprising more than one justice), or (iii) a notice under rule 37.9(4)(c) (notice of intention to plead not guilty). (3) The court may extend that time limit, even after it has expired— (a) at a hearing, in public or in private; or (b) without a hearing. 

Also, you will notice section refers to two separate addresses within the court, one is the court officer and one the fines officer, to whom the application should be addressed, I will leave to your sparkling wit to decipher why. 

 

In reply please quote the authority to substantiate your case. Crim rules 37 Or I won't reply.

 

the point where the prosection receives all the information required to start proceedings, after this he has 3 years to commence.

[Peterbard]

To the OP. Please listen tto my earlier advice, whilst I am sure you will be OK, It is prudent to take proof of your inability to have heard of the case. As people do unfortunately have theses applications rejected.

 

I do not wish to alarm you just to advise in the most responsible way.

 

Best of luck, and I apologise again for the childish interruptions.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Dodgeball

[Man in the middle]

Quote

“The Magistrate has every right to make a decision as to the authenticity of the application, and if the time should still be extended whether the application is incorrect or not(admitted lateness), their application may not be passed. and to that end most applications go to a hearing to resolve the mater.”

 

Apart from the time extension (beyond 21 days) the above is incorrect. Why do you restrict your argument to a Magistrate? An SD can be made before other people. Do they pass applications to a hearing to resolve any matters with which they find fault? You seem to be moving now towards errors and lack of correctness rather than whether the statement made in the declaration is true or false. So which is it? Of course if there are errors in the paperwork the court’s Legal Advisor will put them right before the matter is heard before Magistrates and if the declaration is before a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths they will correct them. The issue you originally raised is not one of “authenticity” it is one of veracity.

 

Para 3 of the MCA S14 which you quote deals only with late applications to perform an SD. Then it only deals with the reasons for the lateness and I fully accept that a person hearing an SD is entitled to decide whether that reason is acceptable or not, but that's all.

 

The CPRs which you quote deal with serving the sworn SD on the convicting court. It has nothing to do with dealing with the SD itself as it is made so I don’t quite see the relevance to the point under discussion. 

 

Quote

“Also, you will notice section refers to two separate addresses within the court, one is the court officer and one the fines officer, to whom the application should be addressed, I will leave to your sparkling wit to decipher why.”

 

I don’t see any such reference (not in what you’ve posted, anyway) and I’ve no intention of looking it up as delivery of the SD, again, is nothing to do with the original point in question (which is, to remind you, whether those hearing SDs have a duty to question the maker as to its truth and reject them if they are dissatisfied). But purely as an aside my “sparkling wit” tells me that the court officer needs to know of the SD so as to void the conviction and the fines office needs to know of it so as not to enforce the fines.

 

You have done nothing to show me that those hearing an SD must be satisfied that it is true. Nothing in the MCA S14 suggests that. You’ve posted other stuff here that is largely random rambling and is irrelevant to that question. I’ve done all I can to persuade you that you are wrong and obviously failed. I’ll provide no authority for my contentions and if you choose not to reply because of that it will put us both out of our misery.

 

Finally, please don’t apologise for my behaviour to the OP of the original thread (who I doubt is reading this nonsense anyway). I’ve given her my advice and she can take it or leave it (as she can with yours). She will hopefully tell us after Wednesday how she got on and I fully expect her to report that her SD was heard without challenge or problem.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Man in the middle

[Peterbard]

To the OP

 

Again I must apologise for the previous posters arrogant and rude behaviour. I wish I could point you to something instructional in his tirade. Sadly no.

 

To justify my post I offer this.

 

His opinion seems to centre around his belief that you will not be question in a hearing, To me that sounds a little odd.

 

Further he seems to think that for some reason the court will not be interested in how you found out about the original case, I also find this perplexing as the recommended gov,com application form asks: How you found out about the case

 

The reluctance for him to "look up anything" speaks volumes, many incorrect ideas come from reading others notions on the net.

It is trite law that a declaration of this kind is not proof positive. The act gives it that degree of importance sure, but only in very defined parameters. Outside those it is no more than a statement under oath.  

[Man in the middle]

52 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

To the OP

 

You are the OP of this thread. As I said, I doubt the OP of the original question is following this as she has more important things to worry about.

 

I'll ask you this:

 

1. have you ever been in a Magistrates' Court when a Statutory Declaration to set aside a motoring conviction was made?

 

2. If so did you ever see the maker quizzed or questioned  to test their honesty in connection with the SD?

 

3. Have you ever seen such a Declaration rejected for want of truthfulness (rather than a procedural or administrative error or mistake)?

 

My answers to the above would be as follows:

 

1. Yes on, I would estimate, at least two hundred occasions (six or seven on one day last week alone). It may be more, I've never kept a proper count.

 

2. No, never.

 

3. No, never.

 

Now it could be of course that I have been particularly fortuitous and that all the makers of those SDs were paragons of virtue and/or that all the Magistrates concerned were exceedingly gullible and believed everything they were told without question. On the other hand it could be that during their training the Magistrates were instructed that when hearing an SD they were simply witnessing that it had been made before them and that they were not testing its truth. I imagine they were either shown or have probably seen since a copy of this form which is completed before making an SD:

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2014/crim-pr-form-part37-statutory-declaration-revised-feb-2014.pdf

 

In the "Notes for Guidance" is this:

 

"Under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, the defendant’s declaration can be made before anyone who is authorised by law to hear it (e.g. a solicitor), or before any Justice of the Peace (a magistrate or District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts). The person who hears the declaration need not enquire into the truth of it. That person’s function is limited to hearing the declaration, and certifying that he or she has done so by signing it. If the declaration turns out to be untrue, the defendant making it may be punished for perjury." 

 

The bold type is my emphasis so I think I know which of my two scenarios above is more likely. I hope this wasn't too rude or arrogant for you and  I'll leave it at that now. But I will ask you (politely) once again to please stop providing misleading information to people who have enough to worry about. It confuses them, others have to correct it and it leads to unnecessary stress for the posters.

[Manxman in exile]

9 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

I think most of the problems ae based around the belief that the Magistrate has no option but to believe a Statutory Declaration.

 

They have misunderstood the intent of the section in this regard.

 

The Magistrate has no option but to allow a correctly filled in, and "in time "Declaration, is what they should say.

Whereas

The Magistrate has every right to make a decision as to the authenticity of the application, and if the time should still be extended whether the application is incorrect or not(admitted lateness), their application may not be passed. and to that end most applications go to a hearing to resolve the mater.

 

You see, many "advisers" tell people to just do a SD, without even inquiring about dates, thinking the court will just pass it. Well no they will not, particularly older ones. If the debtor has contacted the court or had enforcement or whatever, the court will raise questions regarding the date the debtor said he first became aware etc.

 

There is lots about this, and even the section itself says.

3)If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection....

 

 

 

So are you now shifting your ground to say that a SD in these circumstances can only be challenged if the application is made outside 21 days - because that seems to be what you are now saying by mentioning "inquiring about dates"?  (You originally stated in reply to my first post that the OP would be questioned by the court even within the 21 days).

 

Did you actually read the original post?  She first found out about the conviction the day before she started this thread and she's arranged to do the SD on Wednesday.  There is no question of 21 days coming into it or of the court exercising their discretion in allowing it.

 

"14 Proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them.E+W

(1)Where a summons has been issued under section 1 above and a magistrates’ court has begun to try the information to which the summons relates, then, if—

(a)the accused, at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory declaration that he did not know of the summons or the proceedings until a date specified in the declaration, being a date after the court has begun to try the information; and

(b)within 21 days of that date the declaration is served on the [F1designated officer for the court],

without prejudice to the validity of the information, the summons and all subsequent proceedings shall be void. [My emphasis].

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a statutory declaration shall be deemed to be duly served on the [F2designated officer] if it is delivered to him, or left at his office, or is sent in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his office.

(3)If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection.

(4)Where any proceedings have become void by virtue of subsection (1) above, the information shall not be tried again by any of the same justices"

 

 

The three words "...shall be void." at the end of 14(1)(b) seem quite clear to me.  I don't see how any misunderstanding can arise in interpreting this section, but I'll be interested to read your promised explanation when you get round to it.  (No better time than now).

Edited November 19, 2019 by Manxman in exile
spacing

[Manxman in exile]

 

On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 13:42, Dodgeball said:

We know of no such thing so please don't unnecessarily worry the OP. On the contrary what we do know is that the court has no discretion but to hear the Statutory Declaration provided it is made within 21 days of learning about the conviction (with which the OP will be compliant) and it has no power to "reject" it once it has been heard

 

 

So why bother hearing it?

Have a look on here.

How would the court know it was in 21 days?

 

We have had cases where the poster sent a application saying they only heard about the case 21 days ago, and the court has presented letters sent by the defendant to the court just after the hearing. So your saying in such a case the defendants application wont be thrown out. ?

 

Sorry no

 

Could you perhaps use the quote button so as to minimise confusion?  It's difficult to distinguish between what you quote and what you are saying.  (Actually it is quite easy to tell the difference).

Edited November 19, 2019 by Manxman in exile
edit

[Manxman in exile]

8 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

To the OP

 

Again I must apologise for the previous posters arrogant and rude behaviour. I wish I could point you to something instructional in his tirade. Sadly no...

 

  

 

You must be joking...

[Peterbard]

7 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

 

Could you perhaps use the quote button so as to minimise confusion?  It's difficult to distinguish between what you quote and what you are saying.  (Actually it is quite easy to tell the difference).

 

Quote button?  Where's that then?

7 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

You must be joking...

Why?

[Peterbard]

7 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

So are you now shifting your ground to say that a SD in these circumstances can only be challenged if the application is made outside 21 days - because that seems to be what you are now saying by mentioning "inquiring about dates"?  (You originally stated in reply to my first post that the OP would be questioned by the court even within the 21 days).

 

Did you actually read the original post?  She first found out about the conviction the day before she started this thread and she's arranged to do the SD on Wednesday.  There is no question of 21 days coming into it or of the court exercising their discretion in allowing it.

 

"14 Proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them.E+W

(1)Where a summons has been issued under section 1 above and a magistrates’ court has begun to try the information to which the summons relates, then, if—

 

(a)the accused, at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory declaration that he did not know of the summons or the proceedings until a date specified in the declaration, being a date after the court has begun to try the information; and

 

(b)within 21 days of that date the declaration is served on the [F1designated officer for the court],

without prejudice to the validity of the information, the summons and all subsequent proceedings shall be void. [My emphasis].

 

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a statutory declaration shall be deemed to be duly served on the [F2designated officer] if it is delivered to him, or left at his office, or is sent in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his office.

 

(3)If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused af, read the est, there are many other words.ter that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection.

 

(4)Where any proceedings have become void by virtue of subsection (1) above, the information shall not be tried again by any of the same justices"

 

 

The three words "...shall be void." at the end of 14(1)(b) seem quite clear to me.  I don't see how any misunderstanding can arise in interpreting this section, but I'll be interested to read your promised explanation when you get round to it.  (No better time than now).

 

That part refers to when the SD is accepted, there are many other "words" in part b.

[Peterbard]

8 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

So are you now shifting your ground to say that a SD in these circumstances can only be challenged if the application is made outside 21 days - because that seems to be what you are now saying by mentioning "inquiring about dates"?  (You originally stated in reply to my first post that the OP would be questioned by the court even within the 21 days).

 

Did you actually read the original post?  She first found out about the conviction the day before she started this thread and she's arranged to do the SD on Wednesday.  There is no question of 21 days coming into it or of the court exercising their discretion in allowing it.

 

"14 Proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them.E+W

(1)Where a summons has been issued under section 1 above and a magistrates’ court has begun to try the information to which the summons relates, then, if—

 

(a)the accused, at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory declaration that he did not know of the summons or the proceedings until a date specified in the declaration, being a date after the court has begun to try the information; and

 

(b)within 21 days of that date the declaration is served on the [F1designated officer for the court],

without prejudice to the validity of the information, the summons and all subsequent proceedings shall be void. [My emphasis].

 

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a statutory declaration shall be deemed to be duly served on the [F2designated officer] if it is delivered to him, or left at his office, or is sent in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his office.

 

(3)If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates’ court (which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by that subsection.

 

(4)Where any proceedings have become void by virtue of subsection (1) above, the information shall not be tried again by any of the same justices"

 

 

The three words "...shall be void." at the end of 14(1)(b) seem quite clear to me.  I don't see how any misunderstanding can arise in interpreting this section, but I'll be interested to read your promised explanation when you get round to it.  (No better time than now).

I thought this thread was here to discuss the legal issue at hand. This is a discussion thread. Its at the top.

[Peterbard]

13 hours ago, Man in the middle said:

 

You are the OP of this thread. As I said, I doubt the OP of the original question is following this as she has more important things to worry about.

 

I'll ask you this:

 

1. have you ever been in a Magistrates' Court when a Statutory Declaration to set aside a motoring conviction was made?

 

2. If so did you ever see the maker quizzed or questioned  to test their honesty in connection with the SD?

 

3. Have you ever seen such a Declaration rejected for want of truthfulness (rather than a procedural or administrative error or mistake)?

 

My answers to the above would be as follows:

 

1. Yes on, I would estimate, at least two hundred occasions (six or seven on one day last week alone). It may be more, I've never kept a proper count.

 

2. No, never.

 

3. No, never.

 

Now it could be of course that I have been particularly fortuitous and that all the makers of those SDs were paragons of virtue and/or that all the Magistrates concerned were exceedingly gullible and believed everything they were told without question. On the other hand it could be that during their training the Magistrates were instructed that when hearing an SD they were simply witnessing that it had been made before them and that they were not testing its truth. I imagine they were either shown or have probably seen since a copy of this form which is completed before making an SD:

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2014/crim-pr-form-part37-statutory-declaration-revised-feb-2014.pdf

 

In the "Notes for Guidance" is this:

 

"Under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, the defendant’s declaration can be made before anyone who is authorised by law to hear it (e.g. a solicitor), or before any Justice of the Peace (a magistrate or District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts). The person who hears the declaration need not enquire into the truth of it. That person’s function is limited to hearing the declaration, and certifying that he or she has done so by signing it. If the declaration turns out to be untrue, the defendant making it may be punished for perjury." 

 

The bold type is my emphasis so I think I know which of my two scenarios above is more likely. I hope this wasn't too rude or arrogant for you and  I'll leave it at that now. But I will ask you (politely) once again to please stop providing misleading information to people who have enough to worry about. It confuses them, others have to correct it and it leads to unnecessary stress for the posters.

Your highlighted section says he cannot confirm the truth of the statement. Which actually supports my point. 

 

No evidence here to prove anything I am afraid.

I am not bothered particularly about which scenario you think"is more likely" TBH.

[Peterbard]

Anyway now I am repeating myself.I will say that, if the Magistrate is merely witnessing the Declaration was made, why in part 23 does it say the court may accept service of such a declaration .

[Man in the middle]

2 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

Your highlighted section says he cannot confirm the truth of the statement. Which actually supports my point. 

 

I (almost) give up !!!!!!!!!!   

 

My highlighted section does not say he cannot confirm the truth of the statement. It says (quite clearly) it is not his function to do so.

 

In post #4 on the original thread at 21:17 last Friday you said this:

 

Quote

The initial part of your hearing will be to decide whether the court excepts your story about not knowing about the missed hearing, if they do accept it, the next stage will be the hearing regarding the offence itself. In particular whether you were owner of the car or not .

 

It was that with which I took issue and it is that which led to this entire "debate". You gave the OP the impression that there is a possibility that her Statutory Declaration (your "initial part of the hearing") might be rejected and that it was incumbent on her to convince them that her "...story about not knowing about the missed hearing" was true. That is clearly incorrect and utterly misleading. Since then you've meandered all over the place talking about the 21 day limit and the delivery of the SD to the convicting court, none of which has any relevance whatsoever to this question. Now that I've pointed out your error with supporting information (i.e. the form that is completed before an SD is made) you suggest it somehow supports your point. Meanwhile I take it you're not going to answer the three questions I posed in my earlier post.

 

You need to get your ducks in a row but until you do (which seems unlikely) I think it would be better for the people who come here for advice that you don't comment on things about which you clearly have scant knowledge and about which you seem confused.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Man in the middle

[Peterbard]

Listen, for once. I repeat, show you what the law says, you ignore it, like many who have problems understanding do..

 

Depending instead on what they have read and heard on the net or in some barroom. I am not going to cure you of that, I learned long ago that people like you are a lost causes.

 

If anyone else has a question  i will do my best to answer. I will not repeat myself.

 

One acception, the court must accept a SD if it is made within 21 days of the hearing of course. This is because, if the hearing was 21 days ago or less the debtor would not have heard about it before,(that would be before the hearing started) would they. Before you start again the time limit starts when the case is presented t the court..

 

Now look at the mention of an officer to the court, ths in the fist case refers to the judges assistant, in court.

 

Now look at the second mention of an officer, this refers to someone who works outside the court, ie, the fines officer. So in disputed cases the SD is not handed straight to the court but to the fines officer or assistant to arrange A hearing or deal with, re the SD, or lateness there of.

It is all pertinent. I thought you may have just seen the connection, being an expurt anall.

 

I have no idea what you mean with your ducks, sorry

 

Now if you have anything pertinent or new please PM and I will have a look, cause, I am A nice man really.

Just don't like people crash threads and rubbish other peoples advice.

 

Used to be one of them, dont anymore

[Man in the middle]

Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such).

 

Quote

One acception, the court must accept a SD if it is made within 21 days of the hearing of course. This is because, if the hearing was 21 days ago or less the debtor would not have heard about it before

 

It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves.

 

I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider.

 

Quote

They will ask how you plead. If I were you I would plead not guilty as, you say you did not drive the vehicle nor where you the owner at that time.,

 

The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time.

 

 

Quote

 

I was under the impression you were not at the address when court papers were filed and therefore were not responsible for not attending, isn't that what you inferred in post one?

 

So in this case, unless you have any other reasons for not knowing, I would plead guilty, because, it seems you are.

If you do, you should get a discount on your fine. Perhaps the driver will re-imburse you the rest.

 

 

 

So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver.

 

 

Quote

The courts, contrary to uninformed opinion do not just accept out of time statements.

 

 

What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned?

 

 

Then from the OP:

 

 

 

Quote

Sorry I’m confused

Your response:

 

 

Quote

 

Your not the only one. Are you now saying that you did not live in your old house when the offence was committed?

 

You will get the fine which rightfully belongs to the actual driver, because you will not or cannot disclose their name.

 

 

The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was.

 

Quote

This is about an application to reopen he case on request of the defendant under section 14 via 142 of the MCA,.

 

No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to.

 

Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above.

 

I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary:

• She moved;
• She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t;
• Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding;
• She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details;
• She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge.

   

Happens every day and simple to deal with.

 

Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant).

 

I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures.  It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Man in the middle

[Gick]

Thank you Man in the middle for a most clear and comprehensive reply.  I think that you have been very patient with someone who is displaying 'difficulties'.

 

[Peterbard]

Anyway now I am repeating myself.I will say that, if the Magistrate is merely witnessing the Declaration was made, why in part 23 does it say the court may accept service of such a declaration .

 

Section 14 of the majistrates act sub 3

 

And I am also repeating myself when I say the SD will be examined if out of time. I mean it says so on the application for god sake. The fact that such an application is not applied straight to the court should be A clue

As for the points you keep raising about misreading the OPs original post, it happens, get over it. It makes me think your comments are more personal than about the issue.

 

Glick, is that Bluebottle by any chance, well well? 

 

Indecently I never said anyone will be interrogated here, that was you,

 

An SD is not proof, you said that yourself, as does the old act.

 

As for making a deal on how to plead, really, so what does the prosecutor tell the DVLA.

[Peterbard]

Glick, is that rhyming slang?

 

Nice if you could phrase your own opinions an thoughts.

[honeybee13]

I hope we can keep this thread for a discussion of SDs. If it descends into a slanging match then there probably isn't much point in having it.

 

HB

[Man in the middle]

36 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I hope we can keep this thread for a discussion of SDs. If it descends into a slanging match then there probably isn't much point in having it.

 

HB

I quite agree. I think all that needs to be said has been said. It is my view that the poster is very confused not only about the law and court procedures but about the circumstances explained in the original post. As you can see from the passages I highlighted it caused considerable confusion for the OP (and just about everybody else). My concern was that we had a worried OP about to go to court to deal with a very unfamiliar (to her) process being completely misled and confused. A principle part of her court visit was to be her SD and she was presented with a totally false impression of what might happen. I know that all forums such as this have differences of opinion. However, this matter was not a difference of opinion - it was a different portrayal of facts. One of them was utterly incorrect and no amount of persuasion could get them retracted. It's not good.

[Peterbard]

There is an issue here that needs to be made clear.

 

That is, does a SD presented out of time automatically and immediately render the previous conviction void.

 

I sayno, it doesn't, because, as per section 14 it must be examined before it is passed to the court officer.

 

However if the application is sent within 21 days of the hearing, it may be passed because common sense tells us it must be within the period.

 

I have no idea what others may be discussing, but his is what I am interested in.

[honeybee13]

You may have seen that JenRuss posted an update to the thread that sparked this debate. 

 

HB