Hi Badlad This will not be concluded at the first hearing (unless you plead guilty ) I'm out this morning so will respond fully to the other points you raised a little later. MitM

Right. Sorry, I got the impression from the timescales that you were awaiting trial. As I said, your statement showing contrition will deal with the latest offence, but it will not reduce the points awarded to fewer than three, which is the statutory minimum. Your description of the incident places it at the lower end of seriousness anyway and it is unlikely you would be awarded more than three points in any event. But the number of points is not really a concern as three will see you as a "totter." You can only argue "Exceptional Hardship" if you attend court. That said, being unable to drive to your Mother's care home is unlikely to cut the mustard. Even if you dress it up a bit, and explain why alternative means of travelling are not possible, it would still be a stretch. If there is no other way a ban will affect you or others, I cannot see your argument succeeding. However, it will cost you nothing to try, except overcoming the trauma you say it will present. Whilst being formal courts of law, Magistrates' Courts are far less imposing than Crown Courts. There are no wigs and gowns and Magistrates are "lay" people, not legally qualified. You should bear in mind that if you do not attend you should not drive until you learn the outcome of your case as any ban begins immediately it is announced. Because of this, Courts are generally loathe to disqualify drivers in their absence and they may, when discovering you are a "totter", adjourn once again to give you an opportunity to attend.

I forgot to add that you can ask the court's permission to have a "McKenzie Friend" sit beside you in court. This can be anybody you choose and your request will almost certainly be granted. Your McKenzie friend can talk to you, and you to him (except when you are giving evidence) but he has no right to address the court. It may help a little with your stress problem. McKenzie Friends: how they can help in court if you cannot afford a solicitor WWW.LEGALCHOICES.ORG.UK Going to court can be a stressful experience. It can be made easier by using a regulated lawyer such as a solicitor. But not everyone can hire a lawyer. Sometimes, the only option might be to represent yourself in court. If you...

You can only do that if you wish to plead guilty. If you want to defend the matter you must appear (or send a legal representative and that may not be acceptable if the prosecution wants to cross-examine you). It seems from what you've said that you've entered and maintained a Not Guilty plea (or it would have been done and dusted long before now). If you want to change your plea you must contact the court before next Monday. However, that only deals with the current case. If you want to present an "exceptional hardship" argument when you face a totting up ban you must appear and give evidence (as you can see from the Magistrates' guidance I provided in my earlier answer). The prosecutor (and possibly the Magistrates) will probably want to question you about your argument. What sort of "exceptional" hardship will you or others face if you are banned?

It doesn't quite work like that. The police may suspect you have committed an offence and may offer you an out of court disposal to deal with it. But if you deny the offence you have a right to see the matter dealt with by a court. The definition of "careless driving" is that which "falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver." Competent and careful drivers do not pass too closely to cyclists and if you made a mistake and did so, it fits the definition. The offence is often highly subjective, and one person viewing the evidence may find carelessness, another may not. The police will produce the evidence which they say demonstrates carelessness, you will have to convince the court otherwise. A couple of things to remember if it does go against you: You will face an income related fine but the crippler will be prosecution costs which usually start at £620. You will also receive a minimum of three points. It is the dates of the offences which are considered for "totting up" purposes so, from what you say, you will face a totting up ban of six months. The only way to avoid this is to convince the court that you or others will face "Exceptional Hardship" if you are banned. Loss of employment alone is not usually considered "exceptional". The Magistrates' guidance is below: When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following: It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn. Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence; Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive. If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account. Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable; Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.

They have six months from the date of the alleged offence to begin court proceedings. Those proceedings begin with a "written charge" (sent to the court) and a SJPN (sent to you). Since your SJPN was issued on 11th March, that is within six months of the offence. There is no right to a fixed penalty. They are issued entirely at the discretion of the police (though they tend to stick to their guidelines). But whatever the reason for you not being offered one you will not be offered one now. You must be allowed 28 days to accept it (during which time no court proceedings can be taken) and this would take you beyond the 28th April, when prosecution would no longer be possible. It would be useful to establish why no FP was offered so that you can mention it when responding to your SJPN (as I suggested in my earlier post). But you might as well do so asap as delaying beyond 28th April will provide no advantage. As well as that, if the SJPN was dated 11th March there is a possibility that it was delayed reaching you and your case may either have already been heard or about to be so. You could check on that too.

Whatever the reason for the delay, you will not be offered either a course (for which that speed would normally qualify) or a fixed penalty. Normally neither will be offered beyond four months from the date of the offence since insufficient time would remain to prosecute you if you decline the offer. (Court action has to begin within six months). You need to find out why a FP was not offered. In normal circumstances a pending prosecution for a more serious offence should not influence that. When you have established that, and assuming it is down to some sort of administrative error, you can reply to your SJPN and in the "mitigation" section respectfully request that you are sentenced at the FP equivalent. Magistrates have guidance which suggests they should do this: "Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances." Of course, if the delay was your fault (say because you delayed responding to the s172 request) that guidance would not be appropriate and you could expect to be sentenced in accordance with the normal guidelines (half a week's net income, reduced by a third for a guilty plea, a Victim Surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £34), £85 costs and three points). Driving whilst disqualified would not be initiated via the SJ procedure.

There is a chance, albeit slim. Another possibility (which, if anything has gone astray, is far more likely, in my opinion) is that your response was not received. This means you will be prosecuted for "Failing to supply driver's details". This is a more serious offence than speeding. It carries a hefty fine and six points on conviction, together with an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers hate. So you have a choice: (1) Leave it be. There's three possible outcomes from that: (a) your response was received and your case will be processed in the normal way as I described in my first post; (b) your response didn't get there and the result of that will be as I described above; (c) you case has slipped behind a filing cabinet and nothing more will happen. The order I have written those possibilities is in descending order of likelihood in my opinion. That option leaves you still wondering what has happened. (2) Get in touch to find out what's happening. There are the same three possible outcomes from that: (a) your response has been received and will be processed as normal. You have lost nothing; (b) your response was not received and you can tell them you've sent it and hope they accept a late response. If not you face the outcome I described above. c) you case has slipped behind a filing cabinet and your call may prompt them to look for it. The order I have written those possibilities is in descending order of likelihood in my opinion. That option satisfies your curiosity and you need no longer worry. But it means the slim chance you had of seeing no action is lost. There is a way of having a charge of "Failing to provide driver's details" reverted to speeding but it is aggravation and there is a very slim possibility that it may not work Your call!

Phone up the office where you sent your reply and ask them if they've received it. That said, that speed is too fast for a fixed penalty and your case will be dealt with in court. The police have six months from the date of the offence to begin court action and in many areas they take all of that. The next thing you receive will be a Single Justice Procedure Notice and you might not het that until a week or two after the six month deadline.

Thanks for keeping us posted!

Actually her husband needs to do an SD! No. You would have been offered a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) for that speed. The normal prosecution process in these circumstances is to lay charges for both offences. However, it is the RK who would be charged with both. If the RK was also the driver there is a time honoured way to do a “deal” with the prosecution, where the RK offers to plead guilty to speeding on the condition that the “Fail to Furnish” charge (which led to your husband’s MS90 endorsement) is dropped. However, that is not a possibility in your case as your husband was not driving. The prosecution is very unlikely to do this deal on the basis that you plead guilty to speeding. There are procedural risks with that, not least of which is that a prosecution against you for speeding is now “out of time”. In fact I have never heard of it being done even if the speeding charge was in time..That largely renders the speeding charge a dead duck. Unfortunately your husband is in a very difficult situation. There is a case which reached the High Court (Whiteside vs DPP). Mr Whiteside did not receive his s172 notice to provide the driver’s details because he was out of the country and had made no arrangements to have his mail dealt with. Without burdening you with the details, the High Court found that Mr Whiteside did not have a defence. The police properly “serve” a request by posting it to his last known address. The reason your husband he did not receive his was, of course, down to him. If he performs a SD the conviction will be set aside but the prosecution will simply begin it again. He could, at that stage, attempt to do the deal I outlined above, though, since a prosecution against you would have to be raised beyond the six month limit I rate the chances of success with that as near to zero. He has no viable defence to the s172 offence and my view is that guilty plea would be his only realistic option. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income. Where the court has no details of income they use a default figure of £440pw. The sum of £816 you mention is made up of £660 fine, £66 “Victim Surcharge” and £90 prosecution costs. With a guilty plea your husband will be fined a week’s net income, so If his income is less than £660pw an SD will see him better off. Sorry I have no better news, but this situation where the RK was not driving will inevitably lead to a s172 conviction.

No there is nothing to lose (except the stamp). But you should be aware that such a request does not constitute an "appeal" (either formal or informal). This is not like a parking ticket - it is an allegation of a criminal offence and there is nothing to appeal as no conviction has been recorded. It will be simply a request that the police re-examine their evidence and use their discretion to take no further action. I believe there is no reason for them to do this. They have the speed recorded by an approved device and that's all they need. But as you say, you (or rather your relative) have nothing to lose.

Depending on the conditions of his policy he may find his insurers will refuse cover. Many insurers require being told when a provisional licence holder has passed his test as they see them as a greater risk (as they begin driving unsupervised). They are not able to avoid liability to a third party but may attempt to recover their outlay from your son. As an aside, I don't see how you are involved with this. Is the policy in your son's name?

You are not comparing like with like. Your relative's photographs are typical of any seen taken by similar devices. The photographs are not used to calculate the speed. To do that to within 1mph you would need the elapsed time to two decimal places and you do not have it even to one. If your relative doubts the accuracy of the device he will have to decline the offers of a course or fixed penalty and plead not guilty in court. He will have to show that the device cannot be relied upon and he is most unlikely to do that without expert help. If he fails he will face an income related fine and prosecution costs of at least £620. That figure may be higher if the prosecution has to enlist expert help to counter his claims. He can put his claims to the police when he makes his return but they usually prefer any arguments to be tested in court.

For what purpose? The photographs you have posted demonstrate simply that the vehicle has travelled 5.1m within the same second. It could be in 0.1sec (e.g. 08:55:24.01 to 08:55:24.11) , or it could be in 0.99sec (e.g. 08:55:24.00 to 08:55:24.99). They give no clear indication of the speed of the vehicle because you do not know the time elapsed between the two images and they cannot be relied upon to prove the speed. It is unlikely that any other photographs (if they exist) will be any more conclusive. At 38mph 5.1 metres will be travelled in 0.3 sec (near enough) and that ties in with my understanding of the time a mobile speed camera takes to measure speed (as I mentioned earlier). So it is not surprising that the two images were taken within the same second. There is a 70% chance of that - they would only be taken in different seconds if the first image was taken at more than mm:ss.70 (when the second image would be taken after the clock has ticked over to the following second). Your relative should be aware that he is not entitled to any evidence at this stage. He must respond to the "Section 172" request for driver's details within the 28 days allowed or risk committing a separate offence which carries six points on conviction.

Mobile hand held speed cameras work on either a laser or radar principle. The photographs do not usually form part of the evidence used to prove the speed but are more to identify the vehicle. The evidence to prove speed comes from the device itself, either in the form of a printout or, as you can see, with a stamp denoting the speed measured. The measurement of the vehicle's speed is taken in about a third of a second. The device will be Home Office approved and if your relative takes the matter to court, evidence will be produced to show that it was operated in the correct manner. If both these are successfully demonstrated to the court, readings produced by it are presumed to be correct unless the contrary can be proved. The burden to provide that proof in on your relative. The driver should be offered a course for that speed, provided he or she has not done one for an offence committed in the last three years.

Not really. This is an advice forum, specifically for speeding and other motoring offences. It's not for tea and sympathy. There are plenty of other places where you can get that. Anyway, that apart, since you seem intent on simply taking what's offered to you without discovering whether you have any angles to exploit, did they tell you what speed they allege you were travelling? You say you have decided to "pay the fine." As I mentioned, you may have the opportunity to take a course instead of paying a penalty or a fine, but that will depend on the speed alleged.

The lesson here is do not follow satnav instructions regarding speed limits. There are temporary speed limits all over the place apart from the variable ones on motorways, and in the main they are usually perfectly well signed. Satnavs can't usually help you with them - you have to look out of the window. In particular, variable speed limits on motorways are probably among the best signed anywhere. There are large illuminated signs on gantries at regular intervals which are clearly visible from a long distance. Of course it's your call but I don't know why you don't ask for photographs. Although they don't have to provide them they nearly always will. It will only take a phone call or an e-mail and it will satisfy your curiosity. In any case, make sure you respond to the request for driver's details in the time allowed. If your speed was 75mph or below you should be offered a course and if it was higher than that but up to 85mph you should be offered a fixed penalty (£100 and three points).

You asked what is the best thing to do. I've told you the only thing you can do. Have you done it yet? If you make your request the police usually provide a link for you to view the photographs, so it shouldn't take long. Let us know what you find out.

Along with the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) you should find a "Request for driver's details." This is issued under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. Providing you are "the person keeping the vehicle" you have a duty to respond to that request by providing the driver's details within the 28 days allowed. Failure to do so will see you charged with a more serious offence which, if you are convicted, will see a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your insurance premiums increase considerably for up to five years. Before you respond to that you can ask for "photographs to help identify the driver." They usually supply them (but don't have to) and they rarely help identify the driver. But most variable speed limit cameras now take two photos at the same time - one of the vehicle and one of the gantry sign displaying the speed limit. When you get those it will confirm what speed limit was in place at the time. You should note that making your request does not stop the 28 day clock. After responding you should be offered a course for that speed provided you have not done one for an offence which occurred in the three years prior to this one. If you are not eligible or don't fancy it, the alternative is a fixed penalty of £100 and three points. I take it you were not towing anything or driving a goods vehicle over 7.5 tonnes in weight.

To effect forced entry to residential premises the energy company (or their agents) need to obtain a warrant of entry from the Magistrates' Court. This will only authorise them to enter for one of two reasons: For safety reasons (e.g. if there is a suspected gas leak and the owner/tenant will not grant entry). To fit a pre-payment meter when debt has been accumulated. Neither of these authorise recovery of debt or seizure of goods, etc. Before issuing the warrant the court will want to hear details of the reason for the application and what efforts have been made to engage with the owner/tenant to resolve the matter by other means. They will also want to know that those seeking the warrant have checked whether children or vulnerable adults reside in the property and if so whether any special measures have been deemed necessary when the warrant is exercised.

Ditto, absolutely incredulous.

No. As above I can't see it. I don't use Facebook so have not seen the photos. However, it doesn't really matter. I'm simply going on what you told us and, after all, you would know better than anybody whether the photos can identify someone other than your wife! Yes it is. RTA 1988 applies equally in Scotland. In fact the Scottish Court judgement mentions two Acts, that and s136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The latter provides for a six month time limit on summary proceedings (**but see below) in the same way that s127 of the Magistrates' Court Act provides that limit in E&W. The reason for that was that the Scottish case centred around the charge being time expired. The intention of the legislators in both cases was to impose a strict time limit on prosecutors to bring summary proceedings. You're right in that intention could be circumvented if the issue of subsequent s172 notices meant the six month clock was re-set each time. This is something the High Court recognised and mentioned in its judgement, though it is not relevant here as Bad Lad's matter does not revolve around the charge being time expired. But the judgement helps because it states clearly that there can be only one requirement which has to be met and that requirement is established when the request is first validly made. **The current limit on summary proceedings has been "temporarily" increased to twelve months. This change was brought in early in the pandemic.

I wouldn't go down the "abuse of process" route at the moment. The only action I can see as being along those lines is the issue of multiple s172 requests being made but even that has its explanations: The second one - It is standard practice, when a "discrepancy" between the person nominated and the photo is noticed, to send a fresh s172 request along with the "do you wish to reconsider?" letter. The third one - once again you asked for photo evidence and if you wanted to change your mind having seen it you would need a fresh s172 form. The problem with all this stuff is that it is produced by a "sausage machine" and very often the process followed does not fit the precise circumstances. Based entirely on what you say I cannot see a prosecution succeeding. The Scottish judgement ruled that the first s172 request establishes the requirement, that there can only be one requirement and that it cannot be "renewed" by virtue of successive s172 requests being made. If that were the case a recipient could be convicted for every one issued to which he failed to reply and the Scottish High Court recognised this in their judgement. I would suggest that, in the absence of any English precedent, a Magistrates' Court here would be almost bound to take heed of the Scottish ruling. That leaves the issue of you identifying the wrong person as the driver. If the photos are inconclusive as you suggest it is hard to see what evidence the police have that you have told lies when making your s172 return. If they do have any it should have been disclosed to you by now. but since your wife really was driving none can exist. As far as a trial goes, I cannot see it progressing beyond the half way stage. In its case, the prosecution must prove that the person you nominated was not the driver. If they fail to do this you can submit that there is "no case to answer" and if the Bench agrees you will not have to provide your defence.

I didn't find it myself. I had a lot of help