Got SJP after GDPR

[aaroh]

Honestly I will declare it

its all about me keeping my job and food on the table.

Just worried I could be marched off sight and that is that.

 

It was either I plead Guilty ( Get a criminal record) 

Plead not guilty and still (get a criminal record as i dont have a leg to stand on)

 

I was hoping for the best case scenrio, avoid the record avoid the embarracement. Gosh i hate stella rather bottle of red wine 

[Man in the middle]

11 hours ago, aaroh said:

Now the after I sign my plea ill need to declare it to NSV about the offence hopefully its ok or ill lose my job.

 

Millions (literally) of people commit speeding offences every year. If every one of them lost their job as a result those millions would be unemployed. I know of few jobs where a single speeding conviction would result in dismissal.

 

Should you be unfortunate enough to be in this position again simply follow the process as laid out in the paperwork.

Don't get smart and start prattling on about your (mistaken) rights under GDPR or whatever.

 

As you have seen, by the time you've established your rights correctly you will face a court hearing.

You can ask for "photographs to help identify the driver" before you return your driver nomination form (though that does not stop the 28 day clock measuring the period in which you have to respond).

 

Don't ask for "evidence" as it may be taken that you are disputing the matter and out-of-court disposals (far and away the most favourable option) may not be offered. You have no entitlement to evidence unless the matter goes to court.

 

Most forces will provide such photos (though they don't have to) by giving you a link to follow.

They rarely help in identifying the driver because their purpose is to identify the vehicle.

 

Identifying the driver is your responsibility and if you fail to do so without a valid defence you commit a more serious offence which carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code that will see your insurance premiums rocket.

[aaroh]

2 hours ago, Man in the middle said:

 

Millions (literally) of people commit speeding offences every year. If every one of them lost their job as a result those millions would be unemployed. I know of few jobs where a single speeding conviction would result in dismissal.

 

Should you be unfortunate enough to be in this position again simply follow the process as laid out in the paperwork.

Don't get smart and start prattling on about your (mistaken) rights under GDPR or whatever.

 

As you have seen, by the time you've established your rights correctly you will face a court hearing.

You can ask for "photographs to help identify the driver" before you return your driver nomination form (though that does not stop the 28 day clock measuring the period in which you have to respond).

 

Don't ask for "evidence" as it may be taken that you are disputing the matter and out-of-court disposals (far and away the most favourable option) may not be offered. You have no entitlement to evidence unless the matter goes to court.

 

Most forces will provide such photos (though they don't have to) by giving you a link to follow.

They rarely help in identifying the driver because their purpose is to identify the vehicle.

 

Identifying the driver is your responsibility and if you fail to do so without a valid defence you commit a more serious offence which carries a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code that will see your insurance premiums rocket.

That is a fair point and noted thank you for your help. 

[aaroh]

Thats great just noticed though the SJP was served 6 months after the NIP was filed 

[BazzaS]

Their obligation is to lodge the papers with the court within 6 months of the alleged offence.

The court can then issue the papers to you whenever they get round to them (though you might claim unfairness if there was a delay by the court that was so excessive as to be 'manifestly unfair' .....

 

Did they lodge the papers with the court within 6 months of the alleged offence?

How long was any subsequent delay by the court?.

[aaroh]

The NIP was received on 7/08/2019

I returned it on 8/08/2018 along with GDPR.

 

The prosecution witness statement was signed the 18/01/2020

papers received 24/01/2020

allowing for deemed service of 2 days each way id say there an about 6 months 

[Man in the middle]

What was the date of the alleged offence and what was the date on the SJPN? Nothing else matters.

[aaroh]

Alleged offence 28/07/2019

SJPN Posting Date 17/01/2020

 

 

[aaroh]

Actually just calculated it again its just under 6 months by 11 days 

[BazzaS]

So they definitely laid it before the court within 6 months AND their wasn’t an excessive delay at the court.... we aren’t talking “laid at the court at 6 months and a day” or “laid at the court at 5 months 27 days, and the court losing it for a year”...

 

No loophole there

[Man in the middle]

Indeed not. "Out-of-time" prosecutions are extremely rare.

 

With the introduction of the SJ procedure an automatic system was introduced which, simultaneously, produces a "written charge" (which is the document that effectively begins court proceedings) and the SJPN.

 

The written charge is usually transmitted electronically to the court office and the listing department returns a date for the matter to go before a SJ.

 

The SJPN is then populated with the hearing date and is sent to the defendant (together with an evidence pack).

[aaroh]

Filled out the guilty please and means paperwork.

 

Having talked to a solicitor he advised we could goto the first stage whatever stage that is to obtain the evidence they wished to rely on and plead guilty.

 

I didnt like the gist of it seems like he was looking after a representation and soon the cost mounts up.

With all the reading up ive done over the days ive decided to make peace with it. 

 

Thank you all guys one final question though should i write anything in the guilty plea section?

Definately no sob story

 

 

[Man in the middle]

There's very little point to be honest. Sentencing for speeding is quite prescriptive and there's rarely anything to be said that will influence the court.

[aaroh]

do I have to submit means form i.e. income and expenditure?

 

[Man in the middle]

Yes. You should have been sent a form MC100. If the court has no details of your means it will probably impose a fine based on a default figure of £440pw Relevant Weekly Income.

[aaroh]

rather 440£ ..  so i dont have to! thanks for your help though.

 

Donation made!

[Manxman in exile]

Nobody seems to have mentioned this even though it's in the thread title and people might search for it thinking it was a "cunning plan".  (Sorry if I have missed a mention).

 

Surely GDPR was a non-starter from the outset because the OP is asking for evidence of a (potential) criminal offence?  I'm certainly no expert, but I thought that was an exception to having to comply with a GDPR request?

 

It's a great pity (although perhaps not surprising) that upon getting a s172 request people don't seem to realise that they are just being asked to name the driver and they aren't being prosecuted for anything yet.  They'll see the evidence if and when they think they are not guilty and want their day in court.

[aaroh]

Made a guilty please fined 84+32+85=£201 and 3 points

I did however mention in the mitigation section though that " I did not realise asking for a photographic evidence would mean i would incriminate myself, It was clear this police force is not in line with others around the country."

 

Lesson learned 

Edited February 15, 2020 by aaroh

[aaroh]

On 01/02/2020 at 17:45, Manxman in exile said:

Nobody seems to have mentioned this even though it's in the thread title and people might search for it thinking it was a "cunning plan".  (Sorry if I have missed a mention).

 

Surely GDPR was a non-starter from the outset because the OP is asking for evidence of a (potential) criminal offence?  I'm certainly no expert, but I thought that was an exception to having to comply with a GDPR request?

 

It's a great pity (although perhaps not surprising) that upon getting a s172 request people don't seem to realise that they are just being asked to name the driver and they aren't being prosecuted for anything yet.  They'll see the evidence if and when they think they are not guilty and want their day in court.

Cunning plan or not a complaint has been made to ICO awaiting outcome.

Edited February 15, 2020 by aaroh

[Manxman in exile]

Good luck but I can't see the ICO upholding a GDPR complaint that the police did not release evidence of an alleged criminal offence to the person alleged of committing that offence.

 

Let us know what the ICO says.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Manxman in exile

[Man in the middle]

On 15/02/2020 at 09:18, aaroh said:

Cunning plan or not a complaint has been made to ICO awaiting outcome.

 

It's all a bit academic but to what end are you doing this?

 

You mention "I did not realise asking for a photographic evidence would mean i would incriminate myself".

What makes you think that it does?

 

The issue surrounding keepers of vehicles being asked to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence was settled in 2007 when Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. That court ruled against them and determined that keepers and drivers do have an obligation and that such an obligation does not fall foul of the Convention on Human Rights.

 

If you believe the Information Commissioner is going to rule that police forces have an obligation to disclose their evidence under GDPR when they already have such an obligation under the Criminal Procedure Rules I think you may be out of luck.