But before you celebrate with joy (and in case you didn't get the joke) if you tell the court you have no income firstly they will ask how you manage to run a car (and indeed indulge in all the other of life's little luxuries such as eating and drinking) with no money. If you say that somebody else is bankrolling you they may quiz you on just how much support that is providing. They then may decide that whoever is keeping you alive will have to pay your fines as well. If they are in a lenient mood they will assume that you have a minimum income of £120 per week and base the fines on that.

I got the impression that "less than 20 minutes" meant close to 20 minutes. Otherwise I think it may have been stated as ""5 minutes" or whatever.

You would have been very hard pushed indeed to make a case that this is a single continuing offence. Twenty minutes (and presumably 20-ish miles) is a bit of a stretch. However, it doesn’t matter. The first offence has been dealt with by way of the course. The second is now in the court system and cannot revert to either a course (which you couldn’t do anyway because you can only do one in three years) or a fixed penalty. You have two options when the second offence reaches court (which might be a “Single Justice” procedure). You can ask the court to consider your argument that the second offence was a continuation of the first and ask them to find that there are “Special Reasons” not to endorse your licence. The second is that you might (and it’s a very big might) be able to persuade the court to sentence at a level equivalent to the fixed penalty. Magistrates have the discretion to do this and their guidance suggests that it should be done where there are (for example) Administrative reasons, unconnected to the offence, which prevented you accepting a fixed penalty (e.g. if your licence was unavailable and you could not send it in). Your reason is not unconnected to the offence. You declined the FP because you believed it was unjust. I think both these options are extremely unlikely to succeed. Since your main argument seems to rest around a “continuing offence” you should focus on that. What was the speed alleged in the second offence (the one you face court for)? I don’t know what you mean by “each one was within the speed thresholds”. You will be asking the court to accept that you exceeded the speed limit continuously for twenty miles or so and that you did so without reducing your speed to below the limit in that time. This is not something I would care to admit to and I believe it is not something the court will accept as a single continuing offence. I don’t think you will get anywhere challenging the police procedures. There is no right to a course (or indeed to a fixed penalty) and I’m not sure what guidelines you suggest have been broken. I’m away for a day or two so may not be able to respond until towards the end of the week.

his statement is evidence. It is unlikely that a single minor traffic offence will show up on a standard DBS check. Are you in a profession or job that requires enhanced enquiries? The matter will not go back to the Single Justice procedure now. Once it's taken out and entered into the standard Magistrates' Court process it stays there. As I said earlier, the opportunity to accept a fixed penalty is long gone. I note you believe the CPS (or more probably the police who now prosecute most minor motoring offences) may not have followed their procedure for initiating a prosecution. They have a two part test: (1) That there must be sufficient evidence to support a realistic prospect of a conviction and (2) that it is in the public interest to proceed. They seem satisfied on both counts. Since you have declined the Fixed Penalty Offer and indicated that you will plead Not Guilty they realistically have no option but to prosecute the matter by way of a trial in the Magistrates' Court. The alternative would be for them to say "OK then we'll forget about it". You do not have to be represented in court to defend the matter at a trial. Many defendants on minor charges conduct their own defence. The issue will be straightforward - "did you stop on the motorway?" It seems the only evidence there is will be the officer's testimony. You will be able to cross-examine him and try to cast doubt in the minds of the Magistrates that his version of events is incorrect. (Remember he may have been "mistaken". Do not accuse him of lying). It's not easy and the cost of failure is high (as I pointed out in my earlier post). The offence attracts a fine and 3 points. Maintaining your Not Guilty plea and being convicted at trial will mean you lose the one third discount on the fine that you would be entitled to if you plead guilty but the points will remain at three either way. The increased costs are the biggest deterrent.

These changes are not so profound as some might believe. The only change is to the top band of sentencing (more than 100mph in a 70 limit and the relevant thresholds for lower limits). The guideline starting point was 100% of a week's net income. From Monday it will be 150%. Nothing else - including the points or disqualification recommendations - are changed. The fixed penalty levels and thresholds (which are set by the police not the Sentencing Council) remain unaltered.

I won’t get too bogged down with the offence itself, but there’s lots of confusion here: Your case would have been heard initially by a “Single Justice” sitting with a Legal Advisor. Not Guilty pleas are immediately taken out of that procedure and referred to the full Magistrates’ court. There is no possibility of this case being heard in the Crown Court. “Summary only” offences cannot be heard in the Crown Court (except by way of appeal after conviction in the Magistrates’ court) however serious they may be. You will not qualify for Legal Aid (the offence is not serious enough) You will not be able to consult the Duty Solicitor on the day (the responsibilities of the Duty Solicitor have been drastically curtailed and do not stretch to non-imprisonable motoring offences). If you maintain your not guilty plea you are entitled to see any evidence the prosecution intend to rely on but also any “unused material” (that is, material they do not intend to rely on but which may assist your defence or undermine the prosecution). But I doubt there is any. The opportunity of a Fixed Penalty is long gone. Your first hearing at the Magistrates’ Court will be a “Case Management” hearing (to iro out matters for the trial). You need to decide before then whether to change your plea. If you maintain your guilty plea and are convicted at trial you face an income related fine and surcharge of 10% of the fine. You will also pay prosecution costs which may stretch to a maximum of £620 but will probably be around £300. Very little chance of disqualification but you will receive three points.

You have your interpretation of the law the wrong way round. The minimum tread depth is 1.6mm across the centre three-quarters of the tyre as you say. But it must meet this minimum requirement around the entire circumference. In other words, it does not have to be below 1.6mm around the entire circumference to fail. It has to be 1.6mm or above around the entire circumference to pass. You are reading the law that the tyre must be deficient around its complete circumference to fail. This is not correct and the officer would not have to examine the entire circumference of the tyre but could make out the offence when he or she detected just one deficient patch. Your daughter should examine the tyre in the light of what I’ve said to establish if she believes she is guilty or not. The issue of the officer’s statement is of no consequence. I do wonder why your daughter was not offered a fixed penalty (£200 and 3 points) for the offence. It may have been worth a phone call to the officer’s station to see if she could establish why one was not offered but it's too late for that now as she needs to respond to the SJPN. If she pleads not guilty in response to it the matter will be taken out of the Single Justice process and a hearing in the normal Magistrates’ Court will be listed where the matter will proceed to trial. The price of an unsuccessful defence is high. She will face an income related fine, a surcharge and at least £300 costs (as well as 3 points).

The legislation says that when a S172 (request for driver’s details) is sent it must be sent by Registered, Recorded or First Class post. Almost all such requests are sent by 1st Class post. The legislation also says that the notice is deemed to have been properly served two working days after posting (hence why the police rely on proof of posting) unless the intended recipient can successfully prove to the court (on the balance of probabilities) that it was not. This leaves recipients in a difficult position. It is not easy to prove that something did not happen. However, that is what the law requires. It is not unusual in cases where non-receipt is claimed for defendants to offer a deal to the prosecution where they agree to plead guilty to the underlying offence (usually speeding) in return for the S172 charge to be dropped. It is usually only possible to do this at court on the day. It seems in your area the police are offering to do this deal before matters get to court. It is most unlikely that the matter will be dropped due to procedural errors (as seemingly none has been committed). Unless your wife is not guilty of the speeding offence she should do well to accept the deal. As I said it is difficult to prove a negative and the penalty for failure is six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for five years.

Almost all areas comply with the National scheme now. That means a course should be offered up to (Limit + 10% + 9mph) provided one has not been done in the last three years. So up to 86mph in a 70 limit. A course is discretionary and there is no right of appeal if it is not offered but it would be very unusual not to be offered one.

Not up to 8 points AND up to 12 months disqualification. Either 6-8 points OR a disqualification. And any such disqualification is not limited to twelve months. Magistrates can impose a ban of any length for any offence which carries an endorsement and a few years ago this power was extended to include any offence at all (even non-motoring ones). A Fixed Penalty (£300 and 6 points) is quite common for No Insurance. It represents a considerable saving over the fine, surcharge and costs that would normally be imposed by Magistrates. There is absolutely no chance of the details appearing in the local press. The matter is not dealt with in public and details are not released to the press. In fact, there is very little chance of any motoring matter - even those prosecuted through the courts - appearing in the local rag. Few local newspapers or online publications send reporters to the Magistrates' Courts these days. They are seen occasionally but very rarely in traffic courts. They would only put in an appearance if the defendant was, perhaps, famous or if the incident which led to the prosecution was of considerable local interest.

No it's not. There is no rule or guidance to say you should not cross a stop line unless your exit is clear for junctions that do not have "box junction" rules. In fact, even those provide an exception for vehicles waiting to turn right. As has been explained, the offence is only completed if you actually cross the stop line whilst red is illuminated. If you have already crossed it (presumably on green) as you had then no offence is committed.