Speeding offences, failed to show leading to 6 month Disqualification-need advice and help

[Smitch]

I've taken advice from two separate solicitors and they both inform me that my defense is weak....it was my responsibility to have changed my v5 to new address.

 

I pleaded not guilty at my statutory declaration as only the fail to provide was brought up in court and not the speeding offence as well.

 

I've got my case management meeting on the 13th march.

So it looks like I'll be changing my plea to guilty.

 

Just a question,

my driving disqualification was given on the 15th november for 6 months...ending on the 14th may 2020.

 

Pleading guilty at my case management in a few week time does that restart a new ban or does it still continue from the original sentence in november for the 6 months stated.

 

Regards

 

Smitch

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

That's all a bit of a bu99er.

 

So, at the moment you are only charged with the failure to furnish and the speeding has been dropped (presumably because it was over 6 months ago)?

 

This is one of the scenarios mentioned by Man in the Middle in #20:  "There are two scenarios (with similar "symptoms") which introduce complications. The first is that speeding may not have been charged. It is very unusual. However, a sympathetic prosecutor may, with the court's cooperation, raise the original speeding allegation as a new charge, evenif it is "out of time". The purpose of the "six month" rule is to protect those accused of excessive delays in having charges for summary offences raised. So long as the defendant agrees (and he's hardly likely not to) it's usually possible to raise the speeding charge and the deal can be struck."

 

I read that to mean that you may yet be able to persuade the prosecution to resurrect the speeding charge allowing you to go ahead with the plea bargain.  I think if I were you I'd turn up very early for the case management hearing, ask to speak to the prosecutor dealing with your case and say something like:  "Look, if you can raise the original speeding charge I'm willing to plead guilty to it - even though it's technically out of time - if you agree to drop the failure to furnish charge".  Whether that would work or not or whether it's good advice - I don't know.  But it must be worth a try if you can get out of the FTP.

 

If Man in the Middle does not return here over the weekend, ask one of the site team (honeybee or dx100) to give him a nudge.  I think you need more input from him.

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

send him a private message just click his username.

 

dx

[Man in the middle]

I'm away at the moment but will be back tomorrow  PM when I will provide some proper input.

 

MitM

[Man in the middle]

OK, it's a bit unfortunate that you were not given the opportunity to do the "deal". Unusual, but not unheard of.

 

At your case management hearing you should once again offer to plead guilty to the speeding charge if the FtP charge is dropped (but only if. Do not plead guilty to speeding unless the deal is agreed as it is a way to see you convicted of both offences). It could be that at the hearing where you made your SD the prosecutor may not have been in a position to do the deal. The Magistrates cannot initiate the deal on their own without the agreement of the prosecutor. 

 

If the deal is still not forthcoming you have a bit of a problem. There is a statutory defence to the charge under para 7(b) of S172 which says this:

 

(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.   

 

 

 

 

You may think that is straightforward: it is surely not practicable for you to respond to a notice you did not receive. However, in the case of Whiteside vs DPP the High Court ruled that showing that the request was not received - especially where the defendant contributed to that failure - does not necessarily succeed in making a defence under para 7(b). The reason why Mr Whiteside did not receive his request is different to the reason why you did not receive yours  (he was regularly out of the country for long periods) but the principle established by his case has been used to nullify defences such as you might make:

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3471.html

 

So the odds are heavily stacked against you if you try to defend the S172 charge on that basis. If you think about it, anybody might change their address and fail to notify the DVLA, run the risk of a small fine for that offence, but then have a "get out of jail free" card for more serious offences which carry points or a disqualification.

 

I still beieve there is a reasonable chance that your offer to do the "deal might be accepted. Most prosecutors are pragmatic and would usually prefer to see a conviction for the underlying offence rather than run a trial for FtP. More than that, provided they suspect no attempt to evade justice, most of them feel that course of action is more just. You do, of course, have the complication that if the speeding offence was not originally charged it is now "out of time" but as I said earlier, that is not insurmountable. However, if it is not accepted you have a choice to make: plead guilty or defend the matter. Personally I think your chance of success are slim so I would do all you can to secure the deal.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Man in the middle