Pleading guilty by post - Motor offence

sassy_one

Hi,

Seeking some advice from someone who may know some examples on the law, can I politely request anyone without valid in put clicks away from this page now.

Someone I know was stopped by Police a week ago, for an unrelated ANPR hit on the car.
When stopped, the driver instantly coughed that he didn't have insurance in his name or a full licence (has provisional - 9 years)

He signed the officers notebook to such affect, they seized the car and reported him for the consideration of prosecution.

Yesterday received a summons, returned it, pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances (They have depression and Asperger's syndrome along with other issues I won't enter into which relate to the offence)

They have no previous, on any crime or driving offence, no points.

What is the likely outcome? We have written a letter with the summons outlining the circumstances if they are banned and pleaded they aren't - may I add they did have a qualified driver with them but they have only had a license for two years.

Are they likely to be banned? Or is there a chance their licence could be saved? They have lost their car already as they couldn't afford to recover it even though the person insured could of got it out for them.

Please don't judge, I'm merely seeking advice regards what is likely to happen, no one knows this persons background or circumstances and recently someone close to them was diagnosed with cancer.

So please think before you reply.

ghostfinder

think its about 6 points for each offence - no insurance and no license

I think they will struggle to keep their license

however, i read somewere there are plenty of people driving with more than 12 points

tberry6686

Lack of insurance will most likely be 6 points plus a fine.

Why would a ban matter ? They are unable to drive unsupervised anyway plus getting insurance now will be massively expensive due to a no insurance endorsment.

Penalty for lack of insurance is unlikely to be affected by mitigation any other charges may be.

Captain_Flack.

ghostfinder wrote: »

think its about 6 points for each offence - no insurance and no license

I think they will struggle to keep their license

however, i read somewere there are plenty of people driving with more than 12 points

It's 6-8 for no insurance and 3 for the licence offence. They will only get points that count for one offence so 6-8 looks likely.

You're thinking is of no help to the OP.

If they can't afford the £150 to recover the car how will they buy another with the increased cost with points?

I don't see how they will be disadvantaged by a ban if it were on the cards.

Captain_Flack.

sassy-one wrote: »

Hi,

Seeking some advice from someone who may know some examples on the law, can I politely request anyone without valid in put clicks away from this page now.

Someone I know was stopped by Police a week ago, for an unrelated ANPR hit on the car.
When stopped, the driver instantly coughed that he didn't have insurance in his name or a full licence (has provisional - 9 years)

He signed the officers notebook to such affect, they seized the car and reported him for the consideration of prosecution.

Yesterday received a summons, returned it, pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances (They have depression and Asperger's syndrome along with other issues I won't enter into which relate to the offence)

They have no previous, on any crime or driving offence, no points.

What is the likely outcome? We have written a letter with the summons outlining the circumstances if they are banned and pleaded they aren't - may I add they did have a qualified driver with them but they have only had a license for two years.

Are they likely to be banned? Or is there a chance their licence could be saved? They have lost their car already as they couldn't afford to recover it even though the person insured could of got it out for them.

Please don't judge, I'm merely seeking advice regards what is likely to happen, no one knows this persons background or circumstances and recently someone close to them was diagnosed with cancer.

So please think before you reply.

That won't make any difference.

Stooby2

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

It's 6-8 for no insurance and 3 for the licence offence. They will only get points that count for one offence so 6-8 looks likely.

That's not correct, courts can and do tot points up for each offence. Driving without insurance also carries a discretionary ban. Given that this will be heard by a magistrates court, even with the guilty plea, a ban is quite a likely outcome, especially if there's evidence has been driving for nine years on a provisional - although it's not clear how the the guy was drving for the OP's post.

The only way they'll save their licence is to attend court and offer the mitigating circumstances themselves and try to convince the magistrate that losing their licence would cause undue hardship - hardly likely given it's a provisional and they shouldn't be driving on their own anyway.

dannny_2

Can't see how having depression and aspergers is a mitigating factor.

Over 4.7 million people had depression in england in the year 2010-2011 according to NHS data.

spacey2012

Some more realistic information :
Mitigation is rejected outright unless they opted to appear.
Excuses offered for Law breaking always attract a hefty premium in the sentence as you are failing to accept responsibility for your actions and blaming it on something else.

This is an Example of a working mitigation :

The Accused accepts full responsibility for their actions on that day and wishes to apologise to the Police, the Court and the General public in accepting that they knowingly broke the law on that day in question.
The accused mitigates that in return for accepting full responsibility for the actions the court grants leniency and sets a punishment which takes in to account the financial circumstances of the accused and the consequences a large fine would have upon those dependant upon the accused.
A financial statement of income is included and the defendant request the court grants leniency in sentence to the defendant.

This if accepted would produce a minimum sentence and fine.

However:
It was not my fault because I have aspergers / dyslexia / depression and blame it all on that, not me gov, it's not my fault, will equate to.
Well lets put it this way, you have heard of having the book thrown, I would practice ducking, this one is going to hurt.

Stooby2

Edited as I posted at the same time as Spacey who is spot on. They need to attend court.

Rover_Driver

Stooby2 wrote: »

That's not correct, courts can and do tot points up for each offence.

Where more than one offence is committed at the same time, and more than one would incur points on a licence, only the points for the offence with the higher number of points should be awarded - s.28(4), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

sassy_one

spacey2012 wrote: »

Some more realistic information :
Mitigation is rejected outright unless they opted to appear.
Excuses offered for Law breaking always attract a hefty premium in the sentence as you are failing to accept responsibility for your actions and blaming it on something else.

This is an Example of a working mitigation :

The Accused accepts full responsibility for their actions on that day and wishes to apologise to the Police, the Court and the General public in accepting that they knowingly broke the law on that day in question.
The accused mitigates that in return for accepting full responsibility for the actions the court grants leniency and sets a punishment which takes in to account the financial circumstances of the accused and the consequences a large fine would have upon those dependant upon the accused.
A financial statement of income is included and the defendant request the court grants leniency in sentence to the defendant.

This if accepted would produce a minimum sentence and fine.

However:
It was not my fault because I have aspergers / dyslexia / depression and blame it all on that, not me gov, it's not my fault, will equate to.
Well lets put it this way, you have heard of having the book thrown, I would practice ducking, this one is going to hurt.

I somewhat disagree with your post.
Considering the defendant has without a doubt admitted at the roadside the offence before the officer could even obtain his name and check him on Police National Computer along with the fact the officer has clearly written in his witness statement "The driver admitted to me before I even had chance to write down his details to carry a check out on him and the car, that he had no insurance or licence. This was a completely unsolicited comment"

And that he has admitted full responsibility in his mitigation, shows remorse and also has suffered already as the loss of his car has prevented him taking his elderly father out who has cancer, who has a full licence who normally goes with him.
It was just that no insurance was present for himself when stopped as his father was recently diagnosed, and since then has not been out meaning the defendant removed his name from the policy.

A solicitor has been consulted briefly, but no legal aid is offered however Monday we have been advised to speak to the local Crown Prosecution Service to put forward the circumstances, to which the Police and solicitor have advised to do, to see if they are willing to revoke the charges prior to court.

May I also add, no one knows the full facts, I did not come here for judgemental people to make remarks, the fact the defendant has Asperger's alone means they require an appropriate adult at all times if anything formal takes place such as Police interviews etc, he does not understand the consequences of his actions however understands now that he shouldn't of driven without insurance and a driver who has a licence for under three years.

Thanks to everyone else who has offered advice