notice of intended prosecution

DoctorFoster

matttye wrote: »

It is possible that both offences were on the summons, although my recollection was that they only summonsed him for failing to provide driver information.

The CPS often accept pleas to lesser offences even when they are not on the original list of charges (or indictment in the crown court).

E.g. it is not uncommon for a plea to Section 20 GBH be accepted in place of the much more serious Section 18 GBH.

See my comment to DoctorFoster below also.



I think you're both misunderstanding. He did not know who was driving, but knew it was likely to be him. He could not therefore identify himself as the driver.

As I say, he explained in court that it was likely to be him but he could not categorically say it was, but he was willing to plead guilty on the basis that it was likely to be him, and they accepted that.

I'm not misunderstanding it. He failed to name the driver so the offence is complete. He later pleaded guilty to speeding so should have been convicted of both. End of.

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

I'm not misunderstanding it. He failed to name the driver so the offence is complete. He later pleaded guilty to speeding so should have been convicted of both. End of.

You're confusing the matter because you implied he tried to "play the system at the expense of the tax payer" when he certainly did not.

He received a summons for failing to provide driver information which he could not possibly provide, then attended court and offered a guilty plea to speeding, which was accepted by the CPS.

If CPS had not accepted that plea then he would surely have pleaded to failing to provide information.

If they didn't accept a guilty plea to speeding then they couldn't possibly secure a conviction on it, given that the photograph only showed the rear of the car and not the driver. Obviously he would not have pleaded guilty to speeding if the CPS were going to proceed with the failing to provide information charge.

DoctorFoster

matttye wrote: »

You're confusing the matter because you implied he tried to "play the system at the expense of the tax payer" when he certainly did not.

He received a summons for failing to provide driver information which he could not possibly provide, then attended court and offered a guilty plea to speeding, which was accepted by the CPS.

If CPS had not accepted that plea then he would surely have pleaded to failing to provide information.

If they didn't accept a guilty plea to speeding then they couldn't possibly secure a conviction on it, given that the photograph only showed the rear of the car and not the driver. Obviously he would not have pleaded guilty to speeding if the CPS were going to proceed with the failing to provide information charge.

I think you're the one confusing it.

He went to court willing to accept the least he could get away with at the expense of the tax payer. If they were willing to drop everything would he have had the speeding?

No, so why didn't he pay the ticket?

Cause he was playing the system he knows how to because he's a solicitor and didnt have to pay for legal advice.

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

I think you're the one confusing it.

He went to court willing to accept the least he could get away with at the expense of the tax payer. If they were willing to drop everything would he have had the speeding?

No, so why didn't he pay the ticket?

Cause he was playing the system he knows how to because he's a solicitor and didnt have to pay for legal advice.

You're making the assumption that he knew who the driver was when he genuinely didn't. His wife regularly drives the car as well.

He couldn't identify himself as the driver when he received the notice of intended prosecution because he didn't know if he was the driver or not.

It's not that hard to understand. If you still don't get it then I give up.

DoctorFoster

Here's a question to the forum.

How can a solicitor plead guilty to speeding in court when he cannot remember who was driving when he got the NIP. Yet still be allowed to practice?

There is just something about that which isn't 100% honest.

DoctorFoster

matttye wrote: »

You're making the assumption that he knew who the driver was when he genuinely didn't. His wife regularly drives the car as well.

He couldn't identify himself as the driver when he received the notice of intended prosecution because he didn't know if he was the driver or not.

It's not that hard to understand. If you still don't get it then I give up.

So why plead guilty to something he might not have done?

matttye

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Here's a question to the forum.

How can a solicitor plead guilty to speeding in court when he cannot remember who was driving when he got the NIP. Yet still be allowed to practice?

There is just something about that which isn't 100% honest.

DoctorFoster wrote: »

So why plead guilty to something he might not have done?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66705326&postcount=51

Sigh.

DoctorFoster

Ah now I get you.

Because they weren't going to drop it, he took the offer of three points and a fine of less than £100 instead of 6 points and £500.

He suddenly remembered he was driving, so could have accepted a ticket in the first place. That would have been the cheapest option for the tax paying public wouldn't it? But if you say he wasn't playing the system I guess you should give the op his number.

RichardD1970

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Ah now I get you.

He suddenly remembered he was driving, so could have accepted a ticket in the first place.

No he didn't.

He went to court and told them that although he couldn't be 100% sure (which is why he didn't admit to being the driver when he got the NIP), on the balance of probability he was the driver, which the court was willing to accept.

It's not that difficult to understand.

(you're not a reincarnation of Topdaddy are you? :rotfl: )

DoctorFoster

RichardD1970 wrote: »

No he didn't.

He went to court and told them that although he couldn't be 100% sure (which is why he didn't admit to being the driver when he got the NIP), on the balance of probability he was the driver, which the court was willing to accept.

It's not that difficult to understand.

(you're not a reincarnation of Topdaddy are you? :rotfl: )

Criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt, so they shouldn't have convicted on the balance of probability. He knew who was driving when he got the nip but decided to play the system. I bet he also argued the wording of the nip and therefore got the same penalty as a ticket would have been.

Do you serious think if they were willing to offer no evidence for ftf he would have put his hands up to maybe I was driving?