Should I pay or should I go(to court)?
Comments
-
Yes. However, the courts are not blind, and in this case actually the appropriate course of action would be not for the driver to be prosecuted, but for the father, as he caused the offence by misleading the driver.But the insurers did not cancel. Father failed to renew.
Also, if the Pepipoo case involved a company insurance, there is a specific statutory defence covering this. There is no such defence in other circumstances.
Magistrates do have charging guidelines and then they are allowed to come to their own considered opinions. In this case, I would suggest that as the OP acted in an entirely reasonable manner, it would be against natural justice for him to be punished. However, it would potentially be appropriate for the father to be prosecuted.
So with appropriate legal guidance, my suggestion would be to go to court for a Newton Hearing - you plead guilty, clearly explain the unusual circumstances (done it many times before, checked that it was insured and so on, father had no reason to doubt the renewal as it had happened automatically for 10 years) and then see whether the magistrates are interested in coming up with a more lenient sentence than the sentencing guidelines suggest.0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Yes. However, the courts are not blind, and in this case actually the appropriate course of action would be not for the driver to be prosecuted, but for the father, as he caused the offence by misleading the driver.
Magistrates do have charging guidelines and then they are allowed to come to their own considered opinions. In this case, I would suggest that as the OP acted in an entirely reasonable manner, it would be against natural justice for him to be punished. However, it would potentially be appropriate for the father to be prosecuted.
So with appropriate legal guidance, my suggestion would be to go to court for a Newton Hearing - you plead guilty, clearly explain the unusual circumstances (done it many times before, checked that it was insured and so on, father had no reason to doubt the renewal as it had happened automatically for 10 years) and then see whether the magistrates are interested in coming up with a more lenient sentence than the sentencing guidelines suggest.
So you’ll know the guidelines state must endorse and may disqualify?0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »So you’ll know the guidelines state must endorse and may disqualify?
Precisely. Points (6 minimum) - or disqualification - are mandatory. Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Schedule 2.0 -
Magistrates Guodelones:
hen sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010, every court is under a statutory obligation to follow any relevant Council guideline unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. If a court imposes a sentence outside the range indicated in an offence specific guideline, it is obliged to state its reasons for doing so.
Magistrates do have latitude.0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Magistrates Guodelones:
hen sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010, every court is under a statutory obligation to follow any relevant Council guideline unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. If a court imposes a sentence outside the range indicated in an offence specific guideline, it is obliged to state its reasons for doing so.
Magistrates do have latitude.
And why would it be contrary to the interests of justice not to follow the guidelines?0 -
So with appropriate legal guidance, my suggestion would be to go to court for a Newton Hearing - you plead guilty,
Best not to make suggestions if you don't know what you're talking about.
A "Newton Hearing" is not appropriate here. Such a hearing is held to establish the seriousness of an offence where the facts are disputed and where the sentence would be materially different depending on which version was accepted. For example,driver charged with speeding at 110mph. Pleads guilty, but argues he was only travelling at 85mph. A Newton Hearing is held to establish which version of events is used to sentence.
The facts are not disputed here and no hearing is necessary to establish them. Unfortunately "No Insurance" is a "strict liability" offence and it is a driver's absolute responsibility to ensure cover is in place. A "Special Reasons" application is very unlikely to succeed.and accepting the FP is your best option. By all means post your question on Pepipoo and I believe you'll receive the same answer.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »And why would it be contrary to the interests of justice not to follow the guidelines?
Because according to the original post the OP took reasonable steps to ensure they were insured. They were (unwittingly) misled. The OP understood their responsibilities and did their best to comply with the law.
As I said in my first post, seek expert guidance. The consequences of a driving without insurance conviction go beyond the points and fine - it has a serious consequence in insurance costs so definitely worth researching.0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »Magistrates Guodelones:
hen sentencing offences committed after 6 April 2010, every court is under a statutory obligation to follow any relevant Council guideline unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. If a court imposes a sentence outside the range indicated in an offence specific guideline, it is obliged to state its reasons for doing so.
Magistrates do have latitude.
Mags may have flexibility to go outside the guidelines, but they cannot impose sentences which do not comply with statutory law. Points or disqualification are mandatory for this offence.0 -
Mags may have flexibility to go outside the guidelines, but they cannot impose sentences which do not comply with statutory law. Points or disqualification are mandatory for this offence.
I know a magistrate where they had someone hire a car and they were stopped - the hirer was dodgy. They did not convict as it was unreasonable (the bloke had a rental agreement suggesting it was insured). It was unreasonable to expect the hires to validate what they had been told in good faith. Not so absolute.0 -
IanMSpencer wrote: »I know a magistrate where they had someone hire a car and they were stopped - the hirer was dodgy. They did not convict as it was unreasonable (the bloke had a rental agreement suggesting it was insured). It was unreasonable to expect the hires to validate what they had been told in good faith. Not so absolute.
If they didn't convict, the question of points didn't arise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards