Confusion at Magistrate court and wrong address

Okell

@beauty_in_colour

What was your son charged with on the SJPN?

What was he convicted of?

(On FTLA you've said that your son never received his own NIP/section 172 response to name the driver, which presumably means he never confirmed he was driving.  Did the SJPN only contain one charge - careless driving - or was there also a charge about failing to name the driver?  It's really important you get all the detail right and don't miss anything out)

[Edit:  it's very difficult with you acting as an intermediary for your son.  Send "three and fourpence..." etc.  Have you actually got access yourself to all the paperwork, texts and emails etc or do you have to go back to your son each time you are asked another question?]

beauty_in_colour

@Okell
I totally understand what you are saying. My son is dyslexic and finds it difficult to write this sort of detail. I have access to all the paperwork he has and he has forwarded to me all the text messages correspondence between himself and the police officer. I only go back to him to clarify a point or if someone asks him a question I haven’t already asked just so I’m not assuming anything.

My son maintains he never received his own NIP. He did not deny being the driver when the police sent him footage, neither did he deny being the driver during his text correspondence with the police. 

The SJPN contained just one charge which was driving without due care and attention and he was subsequently convicted of code CD10, driving without due care and attention. He was endorsed with 6 points and fined £293 

There was definitely no mention of any charges of failing to name the driver 

beauty_in_colour

ate of Information: 12/03/2024                      

(1) Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention, H8757, RT88575, 804/01 /

 

On 14/10/2023 at OLNEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely , on a road, namely A509 BRIDGE STREET, OLNEY, MILTON KEYNES without due care and attention

 

 -- STATEMENT OF FACTS: 'On 14/10/2023 the defendant drove V——  on A509 BRIDGE STREET, OLNEY, MILTON KEYNES, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE without due care and attention in that the witness Mr M was cycling along Bridge Street situated towards the near side kerb. He was overtaken by a VW, the overtake was too close and put his safety at risk. Also vehicles were travelling in the opposite direction which limited the amount of space available.'

 

 -- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to section 3 of the RoadTraffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.'

 -- CCCJS CODE: 'RT88575'

 -- ACPO: '12.15.10.1'

 -- PNLD CODE: 'H8757'

 

This is the charge as stated on the SJPN. Hope this helps

TooManyPoints

I’ve been leaving this to “simmer” a little on FTLA.

There are one or two things which trouble me. In particular the fact that the police have no evidence that your son was driving, I would suggest the police have simply relied on him “not denying” he was the driver. But it is clear that he does not want to get bogged down in defending the charge on that basis. The other thing is the six points for what, by your description, was an offence at the lowest level of seriousness, which would normally attract just three points.

However, none of this matters very much because he has been convicted and sentenced and the only way to have the matter addressed afresh (where all the issues can be aired) is by getting the court to re-open his case under s142 as I suggested earlier. Unless he does that nothing will change.

beauty_in_colour

@TooManyPoints I’m inclined to agree and I guess the next step is how to go about writing the letter to the court to get the case reopened under s142. Is there a template letter I could use please? Kindest regards Anne 

born_again

beauty_in_colour said:

@born_again the court summons stated he did not need to attend court if he was entering a guilty plea. Attendance was optional. He had always intended to plead guilty and he felt sending the plea by post (recorded) plus updated address details plus explanation stating given the opportunity it would have been an early guilty plea, would be sufficient. Hindsight tells us differently. 

2 days for post to get to court & actioned. I think was simply not enough time. 

Good luck going forward. 👍

TooManyPoints

beauty_in_colour said:

@TooManyPoints I’m inclined to agree and I guess the next step is how to go about writing the letter to the court to get the case reopened under s142. Is there a template letter I could use please? Kindest regards Anne 

No, here isn't a template. By their nature these things tend to be different and a single template would probably not cover all issues.

Just write to the "Clerk to the Justices" as I suggested earlier. (Any correspondence must come from your son so you must make sure it is in his name). Explain what has happened. In particular mention that although he was aware of the proceedings (and so could not make a "statutory declaration"), this was more down to the luck than judgement and he responded, indicating a guilty plea, as soon as he was made aware that court action was to follow. However, he is not certain that the court acted on his plea or that they took all the circumstances into account. He therefore believes it is in the interests of justice to reopen his case under s142 of the Magistrates Court Act.

As I said earlier, be prepared for some obstruction to your request. It will initially be handled by admin staff who are not legally trained and you may encounter all manner of rebuffs. In particular, as I said in my earlier post, do not mention he word "appeal" but emphasise you are seeking to have the case reopened. The two are entirely different legal processes but the difference is not always appreciated by the admin staff. In the circumstances you describe, particularly where you are not certain whether a guilty plea was acted upon, a hearing to consider reopening should be forthcoming.

You should note that your request is for a hearing to consider reopening, not the reopening itself. The decision to reopen rests entirely with the court and they may decline your request. Your son will be asked to attend that hearing and the usual process, if reopening is agreed, is for the charge to be put to him again immediately. He will be asked to confirm his plea and tell the court anything else he wants them to hear. I would be interested to learn how the previous court considered six points was appropriate when, from your description of the event, it was at the lowest end of seriousness and perhaps warranted only three. Certainly the "Statement of Facts" does not indicate any aggravating features. 

Okell

@beauty_in_colour -  I think the suggestion by @Too_Many_points to ask the court to reopen the case in the interests of justice under s142 of the Magitrates court Act is the course to follow.

However, isn't your son's most pressing problem to get the bailiffs off his back ASAP before they seize any assets he may have?

I'm not sure how that should be done.  I'd be concerned that waiting for the court to decide whether or not to reopen the case might take too long.  

I'm wondering if you should be taking further steps to halt the bailiffs.  But I don't know what those steps should be.

You should ask on FTLA

beauty_in_colour

@TooManyPoints you are correct, the immediate issue is getting the bailiffs to halt their process but having spoken with them myself, only the court can ask them to do this. He is getting 3 calls a day now on average. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, as mentioned previously, for some bizarre reason they called at an address we vacated over 4 years ago. They wanted me to pass on his current address but I explained it would not be in my son’s interest to do so at this stage with the current situation as it is.

Anyway, today, we wrote a letter to the clerk of the justices outlining the situation. I included all the information we had; a copy of the plea form with the comment to note the correct address, all the email and text correspondence between the police officer and my son and the emails between the court admin and myself. Hopefully they will consider our request. 

I don’t know what to do about the bailiffs in the interim but I sent all the bailiff messages to the court as well. I pray for a positive outcome
Wish us luck.
Anne 

beauty_in_colour

@born_again
I printed off all the documents, emails, text messages etc including a copy of my son’s plea form to include in a letter to the court to consider reopening the case under section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. I noticed to my relief the plea form was sent at least 6 days before the hearing. 

I also noted the error in the address appears to have been a police clerical error. As soon as my son received the SJPN emailed by the police, he immediately replied to say the address was wrong and the policeman apologised saying it had been handled by their admin. 

Thanks for your best wishes 
kind regards Anne