Received a SJPN today out of nowhere and unsure of how to proceed.

PirateAndy

Keep_pedalling said:

You should go over to the FTLA forum, they deal with criminal cases, but don’t post until you have had a good read of the Read me first pinned thread. 

https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/

I did that and they've been about as much use as a chocolate fire guard up to this point. I've had more information to work with here at MSE.

Grey_Critic

***I am willing to plead guilty to this offence if, and only if, the charge for the second offence of failing to provide information is dropped.***

Been watching to many cop shows - YOU do not make the conditions 

TooManyPoints

I wrote this the other day but someone said too much detail.

That was me. You simply do not have to provide the detail that you’re going into. The most you need say is that you received no correspondence regarding the speeding offence and the first you heard of it was when the SJPN turned up.

Not sure if there is such a thing as too much detail.

There can be. 

I didn’t’ suggest “less is best” simply to be nit-picking. I said it for good reason. Some people enter into lengthy explanations and sometimes provide claims or information which might suggest they are actually not guilty of one or other of the offences. if you mention something which leads the court to believe you have an arguable defence to one of the charges, your offer to do the deal will be declined. You haven’t done this, but it is aggravation to be avoided.

Before the pandemic it was always necessary to attend court to do his deal. During Covid, courts wanted to minimise personal attendances and began accepting the deal by post. Some courts still do this, Others have reverted to personal attendances being required. Nothing you say will influence that decision.

Similarly, you do not need to quote the court guidelines. Courts are aware of them and, although they shouldn’t, they may take exception to being told about them. Simply explain how this situation arouse, and suggest they might like to consider sentencing you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty.

Been watching to many cop shows - YOU do not make the conditions

I don’t know what he has been watching but In these circumstances, yes, he does make the conditions.

If he pleads guilty to speeding unconditionally he will be convicted and it is also possible that the prosecution will continue with the s172 charge, which he will have difficulty successfully defending. Emphasising his conditional offer makes sure that does not happen. The court is perfectly free to reject his conditional plea. However, it’s my belief that they will not. I believe the worst that will happen is that he will be asked to attend to make his plea – and his condition – in person.

paul_c123

Grey_Critic said:

***I am willing to plead guilty to this offence if, and only if, the charge for the second offence of failing to provide information is dropped.***

Been watching to many cop shows - YOU do not make the conditions 

As above, its a conditional plea. The thinking behind it being, if they did go ahead and prosecute for "failing to furnish", there would be no evidence of who was driving. So any subsequent offence would be more effort to prosecute. And with the passing of time, possible  other evidence will not be available*.

* In more serious cases, and at the time of the incident, there are other avenues for proving beyond reasonable doubt who was driving. For example, DNA evidence of blood off a steering wheel/other controls in an accident situation, police body cam at the scene of an arrest, police dashcam from a possible pursuit beforehand, etc. But with it being a long time ago, those avenues are lost. And its not enough to just suggest it eg if they were the RK, or if they were the only ones insured on the car.

Okell

Grey_Critic said:

***I am willing to plead guilty to this offence if, and only if, the charge for the second offence of failing to provide information is dropped.***

Been watching to many cop shows - YOU do not make the conditions 

???

Well - actually - in this case he does.

He's been dual charged with both speeding and failing to identify.

It's up to him how he responds - whether he pleads guilty to both, either or none.

The police/prosecution are almost certainly only really interested in the underlying speeding offence, not the failure to identify.

If the OP says he is willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge if the failure to identify charge is dropped, that is a perfectly reasonable strategy and will almost certainly be accepted by the police/prosecution.

Why are you trying to dissuade the OP from a reasonable - and almost certainly the most sensible - course of action in the circumstances?

(NB - this "plea deal" is only  reasonable and acceptable if the OP was actually the driver in respect of the speeding charge.  If he wasn't it's a whole differnt ball game)

TooManyPoints

NB - this "plea deal" is only  reasonable and acceptable if the OP was actually the driver...

Which it seems he was:

"Provisionally: I am the only driver of my vehicle. No one else has access..."

I, too, do not understand why people, who clearly do not know what they are talking about, chime in to counter advice given by those who do. It doesn’t help and could cause confusion which may be costly.

I have witnessed a large number of motoring prosecutions in court, including many involving this conditional plea. I also subscribe to a number of motoring advice forums and have seen many similar cases covered on them.

I have only known of one case where the defendant’s offer (to plead guilty to speeding on the condition that the s172 charge is dropped) was declined. In that case, the defendant was less than polite to the prosecutor, demanding this and that, and telling him what he could and couldn’t do. So the prosecutor showed him. He finished up convicted on both counts, went home with a four-figure sum to pay and nine points.

Unless the OP is a complete buffoon, this offer will be accepted by the police prosecutor. The only issue is how it can be completed: either under the Single Justice procedure or where a court appearance in the normal Magistrates’ Court is required. That will depend on how they handle such cases in the court involved.

Mildly_Miffed

Okell said:

(NB - this "plea deal" is only  reasonable and acceptable if the OP was actually the driver in respect of the speeding charge.  If he wasn't it's a whole differnt ball game)

So what would happen in a situation where no s172 etc had been received, until months later, but the driver was NOT the RK?

The RK's defence to the failure to ID is the same. They simply don't have the option of "look, I'll cough to the speeding, if you drop that." - and there's also a much stronger argument of "But we can't ID the driver at this remove..."

PirateAndy

TooManyPoints said:

I wrote this the other day but someone said too much detail.

That was me. You simply do not have to provide the detail that you’re going into. The most you need say is that you received no correspondence regarding the speeding offence and the first you heard of it was when the SJPN turned up.

Not sure if there is such a thing as too much detail.

There can be. 

I didn’t’ suggest “less is best” simply to be nit-picking. I said it for good reason. Some people enter into lengthy explanations and sometimes provide claims or information which might suggest they are actually not guilty of one or other of the offences. if you mention something which leads the court to believe you have an arguable defence to one of the charges, your offer to do the deal will be declined. You haven’t done this, but it is aggravation to be avoided.

Before the pandemic it was always necessary to attend court to do his deal. During Covid, courts wanted to minimise personal attendances and began accepting the deal by post. Some courts still do this, Others have reverted to personal attendances being required. Nothing you say will influence that decision.

Similarly, you do not need to quote the court guidelines. Courts are aware of them and, although they shouldn’t, they may take exception to being told about them. Simply explain how this situation arouse, and suggest they might like to consider sentencing you at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty.

Well I will significantly shorten this and keep the cut content for court if I even need the additional explanation. i.e. The DVLA is up-to-date and a redirection with Royal Mail was in place for correspondence from my old address.

As far as I can see I have taken all reasonable and required steps to be in receipt of an NIP. I never got one, and my partner hasn't seen anything come through the door either; otherwise I'd've had my ear chewed off for being caught speeding. Guaranteed.

Anyway I've got until the 13th Jan to respond. I don't imagine waiting until the 12th does anything other than delay a court date as far past Xmas and New Year as possible. So I can keep £100 aside for the slap on the wrist I'll likely get.

TooManyPoints

As far as I can see I have taken all reasonable and required steps to be in receipt of an NIP. I never got one, and my partner hasn't seen anything come through the door either; otherwise I'd've had my ear chewed off for being caught speeding. Guaranteed.

Then you have the option to simply defend the s172 charge on the basis that the request was not received. If you fail to convince the court it will cost you >£1k, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) that will cripple your insurance premiums for up to five years. Courts do not readily accept claims of non-receipt and most people in your position take a pragmatic approach and opt to simply accept the speeding charge.

So what would happen in a situation where no s172 etc had been received, until months later, but the driver was NOT the RK?

The only option is for the RK to defend the s172 charge.

...and there's also a much stronger argument of "But we can't ID the driver at this remove..."

It is usually equally difficult to convince the court of that. Successful defences against s172 charges are rare and usually require additional evidence other than testimony which basically says "Didn't receive the request" or "Dunno who was driving".

There have been one or two notable successes with the latter. Here’s one which springs to mind (although from a while back):

 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/28/northerner.heatherstewart

And here’s one who wasn’t quite so successful: 

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4604985.speeding-driver-demands-justice/

PirateAndy

TooManyPoints said:

As far as I can see I have taken all reasonable and required steps to be in receipt of an NIP. I never got one, and my partner hasn't seen anything come through the door either; otherwise I'd've had my ear chewed off for being caught speeding. Guaranteed.

Then you have the option to simply defend the s172 charge on the basis that the request was not received. If you fail to convince the court it will cost you >£1k, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) that will cripple your insurance premiums for up to five years. Courts do not readily accept claims of non-receipt and most people in your position take a pragmatic approach and opt to simply accept the speeding charge.

Oh I've already decided on the least painful approach of copping to the speeding and doing a deal to get rid of the s172. 

I have a scientific background and I know it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative. Especially when there is no evidence to support.