Stat Dec and its time limits - Discussion

[Man in the middle]

54 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

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

 

I'll just answer this for clarity (not for an argument). This applies to SDs made in a Magistrates' Court in order to set aside a conviction where the defendant was not aware of the proceedings.

 

When a person comes before a court to make such a Statutory Declaration the court must hear it if it is made within 21 days of the defendant learning of the conviction. The date they learned of the conviction is taken from their own declaration. It actually forms part of it. If you read the form which I posted in post #32 on Monday you will see what it says. I have attached an extract for you. The declaration (including the date the defendant found out about the conviction) is made verbally to the court and one of the Magistrates signs the form to certify it has been properly made. The declaration in its entirety is not challenged and no enquiries into its truth are made by the court.

 

If a person wants to make an SD outside 21 days the court may agree to hear it. The decision is theirs (that is the only decision they are called upon to make when it comes to an SD). They will agree if they believe that the defendant had good reason for making a late declaration. One of the most common reasons for lateness is where the defendant was unable to be given an appointment with the court within 21 days. In those cases the late declaration would be accepted almost invariably. In other cases they will listen to the defendant's explanation. They may question him on the circumstances surrounding the lateness in order to make their decision. If they agree to hear it then it is made in the same way as one which is made in time - that is, unchallenged.

 

In either case, once the declaration is made its effect is to set aside the conviction and any penalties that were handed down. There is no further enquiry; the SD, having been properly made and certified, is all that is needed. So the answer to your question is "yes". Once such an SD is made and certified it automatically and immediately renders the previous conviction void. In practice it may take a few days for the information to reach the necessary offices (e.g. the DVLA and the court's fines office) but the conviction is void as soon as the SD has been certified. 

 

The situation is slightly different where an SD is made elsewhere (say before a solicitor) but that need not concern us here.

 

I

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Man in the middle

[Peterbard]

What does it actually mean when some  one says" for clarity" you mean in your opinion really dont you?

 

HB Thanks, girl done well.

 

Acres of text to get through, are you sure I have not come across you before. Your addiction to point scoring is V familiar.

 

Anyway lets see if there is anything I have not cleared up already.

 

You say 

"'ll just answer this for clarity (not for an argument). This applies to SDs made in a Magistrates' Court in order to set aside aconviction where the defendant was not aware of the proceedings."

 

So much for clarity. Below is what the section says

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.

 

Notice "Shall be void. not set asidIf I am going to just be correcting basic reading i am not goiong tp conti

 

"When a person comes before a court to make such a Statutory Declaration the court must hear it if it is made within 21 days of the defendant learning of the conviction."

 

Noope The regulation says the court cannot interfere with the making of a SD,again completely different

 

Yes if it is, but unless the SD was made within 21 days of the action they are entitled to question it. As they do in the form you reproduced by asking how the defendant knew about the case.                         Said this alreay.

 

To answer your next paragraph, the court will not accept a lie, if there is one, they will have the option to increase the time however I doubt they would, or do you think they would just extend it? This is the test, of course.

 

Again you say SET ASSIDE, it isn't, the new case cannot be started if the old one is still pending of course.

 

Now having demonstrated your lack of knowledge. I shall move on. Your abstinence from posting is appreciated, either way, I will have you on ignore. Nothing personal I just dont think there is anything you can tell me.

 

One more thing the result does not compete with anything I have actually said, and everything I have said is correct, in relation to the legislation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

HB Thanks, girl done well.

 

Girl?

[Man in the middle]

I'm not out to score points. You asked a straightforward question and I gave a straightforward answer. The fact that it doesn't suit you is of no concern to me. I'm only concerned with posters being misled. If you want to argue the semantics of the language used (e.g. the difference between "void" and "set aside" or "must hear" and "cannot interfere with") I suggest you try elsewhere. The effect on the person making the SD is the same. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Man in the middle

[AndyOrch]

Thread now locked and concluded

[Peterbard]

HB. 

 

What's wrong with" Girl done good"? 

Not tripped over one of those politically correctness bumps have I. 

 

We say, " boy done well or good", dont we? perhaps, well I do. Oh dear.

 

Apologies wherever necessary.

[AndyOrch]

Thread unlocked

[Peterbard]

From above

"Even if you are convicted, the offence is "non-recordable" so I do not believe it should have an effect on your DBS report. Ditto for the USA, though I'm not 100% sure of that so a check with the US Embassy may be in order."

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/fixed-penalty-notices/

 

Does a fixed penalty notice show on a DBS check?

An FPN is not a conviction, so it will not show up on a background check that focuses on criminal history. It is also not classed as a caution or reprimand.

 

It would only appear if you refused to pay the fine or challenged it and were found guilty by the court as this would be classed as a conviction.

[Peterbard]

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.

 

This applies to the solicitor or other who hears your SD, not the court or the Magistrate, of course. The solicitor cannot attest to truthfulness of course, he just says that you proved to be the person making the statement. The post is therefore irrelevant.

[Peterbard]

"If you are convicted of an offence and you were unaware of the proceedings against you, you can make an SD.

This has the effect of setting aside your conviction and voiding any penalties imposed."

 

If the SD is accepted by the court, the magistrate of course can refuse it. Particularly if there is evidence to the contrary.

 

Why did your letters from the court take so long to be passed to you? for instance.

 

You should be advised that the penalty for perjury is jail time.

[dx100uk]

posts moved from an existing users thread to here

 

dx

 

[Peterbard]

DX Those posts contain information for the OP, the fact that they also correct another poster is irrelevant.

[Peterbard]

DX whzt on earth are you doing? Those posts were for information to the OP

[dx100uk]

there is a link left to here

should the op of the other topic wish to read here.

 

 

 

[Peterbard]

It is not a matter for here, it is not a discussion, those are relevant corrections to what the OP has been told please replace them.

[Peterbard]

he offence does not carry an endorsement so it depends on what you are asked as to whether you must disclose it. The rule I adopt is "if in doubt, tell them." If you don't need to and you have it doesn't matter, but if you do need to and you haven't it certainly does.

 

 

 

This info is incorrect. If you challenge and are found guilty, there will in fact be a record on your file.

 

 

[Peterbard]

I know I should not say this, but what he hell. The poster Came on here to start an argument, anyone can see that from his attitude, then you let him make wrong statements.

 

It is obvious he and the OP have colluded in this, same as the last time, Jesus. Please think before you move my posts.

[Manxman in exile]

Errr...what other thread is Dodgeball trying to respond to?

[Man in the middle]

 

3 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

Errr...what other thread is Dodgeball trying to respond to?

 

Regrettably we're back to the argument we had a month ago. A new OP has a perfectly straightforward SD to perform. No issue with its timing or anything else untoward but we're back to the same argument about the truthfulness or otherwise of the Declaration. I've posted up the wording from the SD form which says clearly that the person hearing the SD is not there to judge its truth. Alas it cuts no ice. Hopefully this latest OP wil not be confused.

[Manxman in exile]

OK.  I can't see any likely recent thread under Speeding and Motoring Offences.  Am I being stupid or looking in the wrong place?

 

(I need something to raise a wry smile...)

[anon060anon]

7 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

(I need something to raise a wry smile...)

I’m OP from the contentious thread (that is undoubtedly posted in the wrong place). Hope it brings a grin!

[Manxman in exile]

6 minutes ago, anon060anon said:

I’m OP from the contentious thread (that is undoubtedly posted in the wrong place). Hope it brings a grin!

 

Ta.  I haven't looked at it yet.  It shan't be whatever your problem is that I'll be smiling at...

 

Good luck!

[Manxman in exile]

1 hour ago, Dodgeball said:

I know I should not say this, but what he hell. The poster Came on here to start an argument, anyone can see that from his attitude, then you let him make wrong statements.

 

It is obvious he and the OP have colluded in this, same as the last time, Jesus. Please think before you move my posts.

 

I suppose that comment is helpful to the OP in assisting them to decide what posts to consider relying on.

 

(If they have colluded, as you assert, there's no real harm done in moving your posts, is there?)