Can Anybody Help Re A Magistrates Court ?

[STAR18]

Hello,

There is a magistrates court date set for a speeding conviction, (33 in a 30 zone)

A not guilty plea has been entered


The issue is the original person and registered keeper of the vehicle has never ever received a Notice and even when this was advised in writing by the registered keeper (Person A) They still keep saying there will be a charge for failing to tell them who the registered keeper is ( despite this being in writing)

Now they have sent a court summons for another person, Person B who is not the registered keeper they are saying that a Notice was issued to Person B, it’s clear that they have made an error in who they are trying to prosecute, however even after further written correspondence confirming that they are now summoning somebody else to court they are not amending it and still saying person B needs to attend court.

If DVLA Is checked it shows Person B is not the registered keeper and if they produce any kind of Notice at court as evidence it would have to be in his name as he is the person they are summoning.

The whole thing is a mess and the prosecution/police have made an error and stuck with it, ideally having this case dismissed would be the ideal solution as Person B is not in very good health at all and this is making him even worse.

I understand that as a trial date has been set the prosecution would have to read their case out at court, the court is about four counties away so really a very long way away.

Can anybody help with advise as to at least proposing to the court there is little merit to the case if they have refused to accept what person A said and instead are trying to prosecute somebody else Person B, the trial is a wasted effort as the not guilty plea will still be entered please can you help advise?

Many thanks

[EDDIE51]

Who was driving the car at the time of the offence? That is the person who gets the speeding ticket / points and pays the fine. The owner (who is named is on the registration document) must inform the DVLA of the drivers identity if the owner him / herself was not driving. Yes I know the owner & the registered keeper can be different people, but it is up to the owner to inform them who was driving.
The question is rather difficult to follow as it is written.
But as a summons has been issued the case has to go to court. Once it gets to court, then once all the circumstances have been explained the case may be dropped. But the person summoned has to attend court on the date of the trial. Again I do not understand how you say a not guilty plea has been entered? You can plead guilty by letter but, a not guilty plea needs the person summoned to attend court and put the plea in person. By the way I am assuming you are in England or Wales as Scots law is different.

[EDDIE51]

Thinking more on this, it is so complicated , the best advice is GET A SOLICITOR! You can get advice free or possibly they may ask a £10 fee for 30 mins advice. It is worth it so do it.

[New Judge]

This is a topic about which I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge but your question as it is written is a trifle unclear.

First of all, you say that the original offence was speeding, travelling at 33mph in a 30mph zone. The threshold for action to be taken against speeding drivers is (Limit + 10% + 2mph). So 35mph in a 30 limit. I have never encountered somebody seeing action taken against them below this level and as far as I know every area in England and Wales follows these guidelines. However, no matter.

The charge you refer to is laid under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act and is for “Failing to provide driver’s details”. When an offence is detected and the driver was not stopped at the time a S172 notice is sent to the Registered Keeper (RK - who may not necessarily be the owner or indeed the regular keeper of the vehicle) asking him to provide the details of the driver at the time of the allegation. If the RK fails to reply – even if that failure was because he did not receive the request – he will face a charge under S172. The penalty if convicted is six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for a number of years (insurers dislike intensely the endorsement code – MS90 – which accompanies the conviction). The matter cannot be dealt with by post and a court appearance is necessary. If the RK did not receive the request the onus will be on him to convince the court of this. Otherwise the notice is presumed to have been served two days after posting. So, the first bit of your question makes perfect sense and the RK (person A) would normally have to defend the matter as I have outlined.

Now the complication of Person B. Normally, if the RK was not driving he would provide the details of the person who was and that person would then receive his own request. In this case I assume (though may be wrong) that the police have obtained the details of person B somehow else and (they say) have sent him a notice. If that is so then Person B will be in exactly the same position as person A. He has an obligation to respond to the notice (even if it is to say he knows nothing of the matter) and will face the same charge if he fails to do so.

So how did the police cotton on to person B? Do A and B know each other? Is B insured to drive A’s car? Do A or B have details of the date, time and location of the original speeding offence? If so, do either of them recall being there at the relevant time?

Help me out a little and I may be able to help further. On one thing you can depend – this will not go away simply by someone saying “It wasn’t me, guv, I know nothing about it”. If a summons (or more probably a postal requisition) has been issued then matter will have to be dealt with in court.

[STAR18]

Ok Sorry for confusion I’ll try to clear it up:

Ok Person A is registered keep however no Notice was ever issued only letters saying you did not apply to the Notice.
So correspondence went back and forth Person A all along advised in writing they were the registered keeper of the car.

Yet the court summons has been issued to Person B.


Now person B just happens to reside at the same address but is in no way affiliated to the vehicle and was not in the vehicle on the day of the alleged speeding.
They have been made aware of their error in writing , yet have still proceeded to say that Person B must attend a court trial, no Notice has ever been issued to Person B.

So person B has entered a NOT Guilty Plea, a date for Trial has now been set.

Person B will maintain a N/G plea, it seems pointless making him attend a court trial where by the prosecution have in fact made an error, even though they have been advised of this they have continued to make arrangements to prosecute Person B.
Person B is a very unwell person with several medical conditions it is not feasible for him to travel all most four counties away to attend a court hearing, the time cost and energy it involves would all have a serious impact on his health.


Please can you let me know if this is a bit easier to digest, I appreciate you taking the time to help me very much

Thank you

[New Judge]

OK, think I have it clear now. As I understand it Person A is the RK but faces no action. Person B just happens to live at the same address but has no connection with the vehicle. Person B faces a charge of “Failing to Provide Driver’s Details” (a Section 172 offence) but has received no request to do so. He now faces a trial as he has pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

From what you say, provided I have understood correctly, Person B has the makings of a defence against the charge but there are problems. The prosecution will have to show that they sent a request to him (which should not be difficult provided they did so). B will then have to convince the court that he did not receive it. This will depend entirely on how credible he appears on the day. Where he must not get confused is by trying to argue that he should not have received a request at all. The police can make such a request of anybody whom they believe can assist their enquiries.

Eddie’s suggestion of engaging a solicitor may prove advantageous in this case especially bearing in mind B’s medical problems and the distance involved to court. There is little chance of B having these proceedings halted without legal assistance. Since the decision to charge him has been taken nobody will enter into correspondence with him before the trial. If he fails to attend the matter will be heard in his absence and in all likelihood he will be convicted. A solicitor may be able to engage with the police or CPS to get to the bottom of what seems to me to be a very curious affair.