Single Justice Procedure - Speeding & Not the driver

[Guest]

Hi All,

Looking for some advice after just getting a Single Justice Procedure for speeding where I was not the driver.

I did not get the initial speeding notice so now there is an offence for not providing the driver details and the speeding offence. As mentioned I genuinely did not get the original letter for the offence so was unable to give details etc - I will be pleading not guilty to this, but unsure of the merit here.

The main question is about the general form itself. As I was not the driver do I fill it out as the driver or as myself pleading not guilty to both and explain that I was not the driver for the second offence?

Thanks

Chris

[HandyAndy]

I take it you have also been charged under s172 of the RTA for "Failing to provide driver's details".

You fill the response to the SJPN as the person charged with both those offences.

You are obviously not guilty of the speeding offence because you were not driving. The police do not know who was, you cannot plead guilty to it because you were not and the charge is a non-starter.

The s172 charge is a different matter. First of all, are you the Registered Keeper and if so, are all your details correct on the V5C (get it out to check, don't guess).

If the answer to both of the above questions is "yes" you are in a bit of a predicament.

Your defence would lie with s172(7)(b):

"the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it."

It has not been reasonably practicable for you to give it because you did not receive he request. The difficulty you have is proving that because proving a negative is notoriously difficult. Have you and/or your neighbours had any general problems with receipt of post?

A conviction under s172 is really to be avoided if at all possible. It carries a hefty fine, six points but most of all it involves an endorsement code (MS90) which really gives insurers a fit of the vapours. If you get an MS90 endorsement you can expect your premiums to be increased for five years, with probably a doubling in the first year.

The likelihood is that you will only have your own testimony to rely on. You can imagine that Magistrates must be robust before simply accepting that a defendant did not receive a request. If it was that simple, everybody would do it and automatic speed enforcement would become virtually impossible. As I said, you re in difficult position.

[Guest]

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the V5 is correct.

[HandyAndy]

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the V5 is correct.

Actually if anything that is to your advantage.

If it was incorrect and you had not corrected it that would be your responsibility. If that error caused your request to be undelivered you would have difficulty taking advantage of s172(7)(b) at all, Since it was correct, the request should have been addressed correctly and "all" you have to do is to persuade the court it was lost in the post.