DWDCA Trial on Monday - would like adjournment advice

London-driver

Hi,

I have a trial on Monday for driving without due care and attention but I haven't received what I consider to be a fairly important piece of evidence. It was a crash between my car and another one, with the two people in the other car, who turned out to be young guys, claiming on a later day to be suffering from various pains. At the time I saw that they were uninjured and they didn't claim to be suffering from anything.

I have repeatedly asked the police, who say that they have asked the CPS, to provide some sort of evidence on these injuries. They haven't done so, nor have they said that none exists or that I'm not entitled to it.

I plan to ask for an adjournment on Monday. Does anyone have any thoughts or advice on this?

HO87

It isn't entirely clear at what stage you are but there is an indication that this is not the first hearing - given that you say that the hearing listed for Monday is "For Trial". This implies that you have attended at least one preliminary hearing and, presumably, entered a plea (again presumably "Not Guilty", or an equivocal plea which would be dealt with as a "Not Guilty").

As far as a Magistrates Court trial is concerned then having been summonsed/requisitioned to court then you are not entitled to sight of any prosecution evidence until such time as you have entered a "Not Guilty" plea. Based on the presumptions above it seems likely that you have received at least some evidence.

Any evidence disclosed to you will be in support of the offence for which you are being tried. The level and/or nature of any injury suffered by parties in the other vehicle (in this case) are irrelevant to the prosecution proving their case and that is almost certainly the reason why they are not seeking to adduce evidence of them.

Whilst you may believe that this is crucial evidence (from the point of view of any civil liability) I'm afraid that I don't see the relevance viz the charge of Due Care as things stand. If you intend to offer the defence that the accident was deliberately set up then you are going to need to offer some evidence yourself together with a clear indication that you have made this allegation to the police - it is, after all, an allegation of fraud. You may then be able to seek an adjournment on the basis that proper time should be allowed for the allegation to be investigated.

If, on the other hand, you think the "injuries" have developed after the event with the idea of a "No Win. No Fee" escapade in mind then it is of no relevance to the charge. That may not be what you want to hear.

If this is the sole plank of your defence then the best I can suggest (based on the details you have provided) is to apply to the court to change your plea and plead "guilty".

As suggested above your post is absent information that would clarify matters and so I am having to guess to an extent.

London-driver

Many thanks for the detailed reply. I wasn't sure how much to say initially but I will add some more details now.

Yes the hearing on Monday is the trial. I just want to explain the reason why I have left this very late before asking for advice. It's just possible that it could be relevant.

I had previously been offered the chance to take a Driver Alertness Course but wasn't able to do so because the DVLA revoked my licence when they shouldn't have done. By the time I had made phoned calls, written emails and, most importantly, written not one but two letters of complaint to get the situation rectified, I had run out of time in which to take this course (deadline: 2nd July). After my second letter of complaint, the DVLA admitted that they had made administrative errors in a letter which I didn't receive until something like the 12th July. They reinstated my licence. I then repeatedly contacted the police asking for an extension, writing emails and letters, but didn't get a response, so eventually wrote to my MP who wrote to them, and finally got a response, which was basically 'sorry, but too bad'.

But I then had the idea that if they could authorise me taking this course and I took it in the two-and-a-half weeks I had at that point, then presumably they could put in an application to stop the prosecution. I emailed a letter to the person who had written to my MP but didn't get a response, then the next week I emailed and then the following day emailed again, and finally got a response. Since then there have been some emails back and forth with a Met police manager that my emails were forwarded to, with her repeatedly saying that she was in "constant contact" with the CPS in relation to offering a course.

So that has all been very frustrating.

The other thing I've been doing since July has been asking for two additional pieces of evidence, one is a copy of a police officer's collision investigation report book, with the other some evidence of these injuries that these two men supposedly suffered.

Basically the independent evidence against me is the opinion of the police officer who took my account that, based on that account, I was at fault. This was written up in a collision investigation report book. Obviously I know roughly what I said, plus I put in a detailed written statement at a later date, but it seemed only fair that if a police officer was going to rely on my account that I should have a copy of it. I had asked for it so many times that I couldn't say how many times off the top of my head, but finally on Friday, after I emailed this Met police manager once again, somehow she was suddenly able to get a copy of it from the CPS. (Honestly, if I get found guilty then I am going to spend a month writing letters of complaint about different Met staff.)

So one question I have is, having only received a piece of evidence on Friday, with the trial on Monday, can I ask for an adjournment having had so little time to consider it? Or would they just say that, even if they thought that an issue, they will rely on what I said in my written statement instead?

Another question is that the senior Met staff worker who wrote to my MP suggested that I say in court that I had been offered the chance to take this driving course. Is that wise? Surely they would then think that I was just accepting that I was guilty? I was willing to take it because it sounded interesting and it would save me the stress of trying to argue in court that despite the collision my driving was reasonable.

Alright, I think that's enough writing in the middle of the night. Time to go back to bed!

HO87

To boil things down to gravy there is nothing in your second post that seems likely to provide the least bit of traction in terms of a defence. Mitigation, yes, but not in terms of your defence as far as I can see. Nor have you indicated what the basis of your plea of "Not Guilty" is either and it certainly isn't obvious. Offering such a plea on the basis of some ill-defined procedural inadequacy is not going to succeed.

Although you have not given any details your distinguishing the investigating officer's as "independent" evidence suggests that there is what might be called "partisan" evidence provided, presumably, by the two men in the other vehicle. Bear in mind that the account you gave the officer is similarly "partisan". The officer has come to his opinion based on a number of factors but you cannot (in this case) be convicted on the opinion of an officer alone. There must be evidence to support the offence alleged - at rather more than prima facie level - otherwise the summons/requisition would not have been issued.

As I explained above the severity of the injuries alleged by the other parties are not simply not relevant to the charge and the sooner you divorce yourself from that idea the better.

Frankly, my best suggestion is that you spend the next couple of days preparing to go into court on Monday to ask if you can change your plea to "Guilty" and then throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

This will require appearing suitably contrite, humble and apologetic and that means fully accepting what you did wrong to the court (equivocation will be seen as no acceptance at all) - so it needs to sound heart-felt and genuine. Investing what time you have putting together a concise (8-10 minute) explanation of why the court should not penalise you to any greater extent than your attendance at the Driver Alertness Course (How much did the course cost?).

This means having the original offer of the course, copies of all the correspondence with the DVLA and especially their acceptance that they got it wrong (5 copies of everything so you can hand it to the court - make sure you have a copy for yourself) and any other document that goes to the same argument.

Whether you will be able to retain the 33% discount for an early "Guilty" plea is debatable but you should be able to retain some degree of discount. Any fine (the most likely penalty) will be based on the seriousness of the offence and degree of culpability shown but could range (in the case on a minor offence) from 25% of your relevant weekly income right the way through to 175% (in the most serious). Your "relevant weekly income" is your calculated weekly income minus tax and NI. The thing that makes a fine all the worse now is the victim surcharge of 10% of the value of any fine (subject to a minimum payment of £20 and a maximum of £120) - and the bench has no discretion in it being levied.

As far as points are concerned the court must endorse (minimum 3 points, maximum 9). The most common points award is 4 for run-of-the-mill Due Care's. The standard prosecution costs award is £85 but that may be distorted by the fact that the prosecution could well have called witnesses and that may not be cheap. It is also difficult to anticipate.

HTH

London-driver

It's not worth me going into much detail about what happened, but I was starting to change lane on a 3-lane A-road when I had the collision, which I have admitted. I imagine that that basically says that I'm at fault.

Anyway, just a quick question, to which I imagine the answer will be "no".

I mentioned that I had the idea that if they could authorise me to take this course which they had previously offered, and of course I took it, then they could perhaps stop the prosecution.

On Tuesday (20th Sept), this Met police manager emailed me to say:


"Good morning, just a quick email to let you know that I have asked the CPS to review the file, which they have done. They have asked for a chronology as to what happened, which I have completed and sent over to them.

"I am currently awaiting an update from the CPS. Once this is received I will be in contact again."


Could I ask for an adjournment due to the police currently awaiting an update from the CPS?

HO87

You could. However, you have entered a plea of "Not Guilty" the corollary of which would naturally seem to exclude you from such a course (a necessary condition of which is that you accept fault) something the Magistrates Court will be well aware of. As a consequence they may not view this rather obvious contradiction very favourably.

I understand the position is not straight forward but your leaving this to the last minute is certainly not going to help.

To be frank my best suggestion is that you seek legal assistance but at this stage you will not be able to obtain any until - probably - you arrive at court.

You need to be clear about what you want here. Your position - as I have said - is contradictory. On the one hand you are seeking evidence, one assumes, in support of your plea of "Not Guilty" whilst at the same time trying to negotiate your way onto a DA course. The court may take the view that this is akin to trying to ride two horses simultaneously and form the view that your approach may be disingenuous. You therefore need to formulate a plan, take everything (with sufficient copies for the court to read - I'd take five copies) and be completely frank with the court.