Pleading guilty by post - Motor offence

tberry6686

sassy-one wrote: »

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.

Why on earth would they want to drop the charges before court ?

Lack of insurance is a strict liability offence, either insured or not. It's an easy conviction for the CPS and they do like the easy ones.

spacey2012

The Offence is one of absolute liability unless they were driving under instructions of an employer or hold a valid certificate of insurance.
I pointed out, how to get a fair deal from the Magistrates and this is by turning up with no lame excuses and taking total and responsibility without lame excuses.
Nobody is saying they are not genuine facts surrounding that persons life, but when you climb behind the wheel of a car, you leave any excuse as to why you could not drive legally behind on the pavement.

Magistrates generally feel sorry for people who are ashamed, apologetic and have learnt their lesson and prepared to accept it.

They do have a reputation of teaching a short sharp one to those who clearly have not learnt a lesson and do not take responsibility for what they have done.

You asked for advice, I gave you some and I am quite confident it is the best free advice you are going to get.

Stooby2

_Rover_Driver wrote:

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.

The operative word there is "should" - it's not "must". I have been in court (part of my job) and heard a magistrate and defending solicitor discussing this as the magistrate wanted to ban the offender due to the nature of the offences. As the magistrate pointed out it was at his discretion.

Captain_Flack.

Stooby2 wrote: »

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.

There is no time limit on holding or driving on a provisional and there will be no evidence put before the court that they have driven otherwise that in accordance before.

Please, in order to help the OP check your facts before posting.:D

Captain_Flack.

Stooby2 wrote: »

The operative word there is "should" - it's not "must". I have been in court (part of my job) and heard a magistrate and defending solicitor discussing this as the magistrate wanted to ban the offender due to the nature of the offences. As the magistrate pointed out it was at his discretion.

And?

That's got nothing to do with what Rover Driver said.

Captain_Flack.

sassy-one wrote: »

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

Its longer than two years and older than 21.

Rolandtheroadie

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

Its longer than two years and older than 21.

They need to have held their licence for 3 years. (unless it's changed recently)

Rover_Driver

Stooby2 wrote: »

The operative word there is "should" - it's not "must". I have been in court (part of my job) and heard a magistrate and defending solicitor discussing this as the magistrate wanted to ban the offender due to the nature of the offences. As the magistrate pointed out it was at his discretion.

The actual wording of s.28(4) Road Traffic Offenders Act is that the number of points awarded is the highest number applicable for any of the offences involved.

If any of the offences involve discretionary disqualification, it is at the discretion of the magistrate if they award points or disqualification - often the reason for discussion with the defence solicitor.

Guest101

A_Full_Life wrote: »

What a load of crap, half facts and probably lies

No license
No Insurance

Did the car have MOT and Road TAX!!!

This person is clearly, dodging the Law, 9 Years on a provisional and has a car of his own !!!!!!!!!

If after 9 years he has not managed to get a full licence.

Then he is either not fit to drive OR more likely has been driving illegally for many many years with no insurance.

Just bad luck for him that he has got caught this time.

These boards do give me a laugh now and again, you get some right Numpties’ on here.

Do something stupid or illegal and then come crying here for advice for a way to get out of it. You have to laugh.

Vehicle emissions duty*

StrongWork

If the person in question is struggling to pay the release fee they'd better sit down if/when they finally pass their test and check some insurance quotes.