DVLA and the Human rights act.

[sickpup]

Are DVLA dodging the human rights act in relation to SORN? I'm going to put some arguments forward and I would like people to argue them politely.

 

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights -

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

© to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

 

If you receive an FPN from the Police you can either pay it or elect to go to court. If you receive a parking ticket you can either pay it or elect to appeal to PATA's. When you receive a SORN LLP (late licensing penalty) you have to wait for DVLA to take it to court, you cannot decide to take it there. Does this remove your entitlement to a full a fair hearing?

 

If everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed Innocent until proven guilty how can DVLA refer the matter to a DCA before a court hearing?

 

There will be more to come but please discuss.

[Denzlepob]

I just got the dreaded £40 or £80 letter for a moped we paid £40 for, where the tax is approx £11 !! I am probably just gonna roll over on this one, bloody mare of night.

[buzby]

Not having a SORN declared is a civil offence, NOT a criminal one, so on that basis, the HR angle is a non-starter.

[sickpup]

Not having a SORN declared is a civil offence, NOT a criminal one, so on that basis, the HR angle is a non-starter.

 

Not so sure about that. It is as I understand it a criminal offence that may be recovered as a debt to the Crown.

 

In fact in this reply to an FOI request DVLA state that their policy in regards to how they enforce the SORN regulations IS in line with the Human rights act.

 

Appeal of Continuous Registration Penalty Charges - WhatDoTheyKnow

 

Which rather suggests it is applicable.

 

Please explain why you think it isn't?

[buzby]

How do you reach this conclusion? A crown debt is just that, there is no issues of criminality. As for those unfortunate enough to have been fined and paid this, they have no criminal record. Even those that cannot pay the fine, they have a debt, but still no criminal record. It is their CREDIT file that shows their CCJ if they do not pay.

 

On the same tack, a debt to the Inland Revenue is a similar debt, but unless there are fraud issues, no criminality attaches - so I really cannot see how you can make this great leap with no substantiation.

[sickpup]

Then why do DVLA think the HRA applies?

 

Section 7A of VERA 1994 also states...

 

3© may, without prejudice to section 6 or 7B(2) and (3) or any other provision of this Act, be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.

 

Using the word 'may' means it may be recovered as a debt to the Crown not it IS a debt to the Crown.

 

SORN was originally prosecuted in Magistrates Courts.

[buzby]

(1) You'd need to ask them. As an 'executive agency' and as such NEVER get thing wrong. (Not!).

 

(2) The word 'may' is used in most cases to cover any complaint of unfairmess should there be no pursuit. 'Will' means 100% of cases are pursued, which is not the case.

 

(3) SORN is a NEW offence. (The act of not relicencing your vehicle). Previously, you appeared at the MC for using an unlicenced vehicle - which is not the same thing.

[sickpup]

The Magistrate's Blog

[buzby]

So? A 4 year old comment that explains what COULD happen (not would). Additionally, a lot has happened since those comments - especially since the enforcement maximum has (to the nest of my knowledge) been enforced. It certainly hasn't in Scotland, and I don't velieve we're unique. All actions have been to recover a debit - no criminality - and no imposition of the 'maximum' fine.

[sickpup]

The £40/£80 penalty was introduced as the magistrates association considered the FINE of a minimum £1000 unfair. As I understand it the DVLA still have the power to put you before a magistrate.

[buzby]

Perhaps they do.

 

But they don't - so perhaps you should be asking them why not?

[sickpup]

Because it was seen by the Magistrates as unfair and unwarranted so the £40/£80 was introduced.

 

My point was you could and can still be taken to Magistrates court which suggests it is criminal and the law gives the option of it being recovered as a debt which to me also suggests it is criminal.

 

Must admit I am enjoying this, just wish others would join in.

[buzby]

Perhaps other contributors might think it would be tempting fate ?

 

I'm trying to find the relevant section in the Finance Act that added a few sneakies to catch motorists (like the ending of the 'private property' exclusion (except for some tightly defined locations)) and CAGger patdavies normally has a good background in this but he's not been around for awhile.... I must drop him a PM.

[sickpup]

I've also heard a rumour about a clause slipped through in an unrelated act about making it illegal to hide number plates from cameras and electronic recording devices but can't find it so ny suggestions would be helpful.

[sickpup]

Had a SORN notification this morning and on the back it says it is an offence (although doesn't say a criminal one) with a fine of £1000 or more.