Double Counting Warning:

[HandyAndy]

They have to give you all relevant information….

They have to disclose some or all of what they have. "Disclosure” means revealing material that they have. If they didn’t have it (and I strongly suspect they didn’t) then they cannot disclose it. They had no need to have it and no need to find it. You are the one who needed it. There are two possible scenarios:

1. The police had this information which they had gathered as part of their investigations into two occasions where you were caught speeding, but they did not disclose it to you.

2. They had not gathered this information as part of those investigations and you believe they should obtain it subsequently.

Which was it and what led you to that conclusion?

...but this is not a pre-hearing, this is a summary trial so not appropriate in this circumstances.

It is appropriate. Summary trials are subject to the same basic Criminal Procedure Rules as Crown Court trials. If you pleaded not guilty to one or both of the charges you would have been asked to explain the basis of your NG plea . Were you asked to do that and did you comply with that request? If, as a result of that, the court decides that a case management hearing is necessary, one should have been held in advance of the trial and before the trial date was set.

At that hearing, the need for evidence and issues of disclosure would be discussed. Depending on which of he two scenarios above was true either (in the case of Scenario 1) you would have been asked to explain why you wanted it and the court would have decided whether or not to order its disclosure or (in the case of Scenario 2) you would have been told that information was not held. The court would not order the police to gather information that they didn't already have.

It could cause a stay of proceedings,

The case management hearing should obviate the need for any further postponements but if there was to be any, It would cause an adjournment, not a stay. A stay in criminal proceedings is rarely used and has a completely different meaning to a stay in the civil court.

Although, as you say, it doesn’t matter now, I’m concerned that you properly understand these principle in case you embark on a similar quest.

Of course, the easiest thing of all if you needed that information (and, as I have said, I believe you did in order to make a successful argument) was to simply obtain it for yourself. If I had been in your position it is one of the first things I would have done.

[Tremarl]

They have to disclose some or all of what they have. "Disclosure” means revealing material that they have. If they didn’t have it (and I strongly suspect they didn’t) then they cannot disclose it. They had no need to have it and no need to find it. You are the one who needed it. There are two possible scenarios:

1. The police had this information which they had gathered as part of their investigations into two occasions where you were caught speeding, but they did not disclose it to you.

2. They had not gathered this information as part of those investigations and you believe they should obtain it subsequently.

Which was it and what led you to that conclusion?



It is appropriate. Summary trials are subject to the same basic Criminal Procedure Rules as Crown Court trials. If you pleaded not guilty to one or both of the charges you would have been asked to explain the basis of your NG plea . Were you asked to do that and did you comply with that request? If, as a result of that, the court decides that a case management hearing is necessary, one should have been held in advance of the trial and before the trial date was set.

At that hearing, the need for evidence and issues of disclosure would be discussed. Depending on which of he two scenarios above was true either (in the case of Scenario 1) you would have been asked to explain why you wanted it and the court would have decided whether or not to order its disclosure or (in the case of Scenario 2) you would have been told that information was not held. The court would not order the police to gather information that they didn't already have.



The case management hearing should obviate the need for any further postponements but if there was to be any, It would cause an adjournment, not a stay. A stay in criminal proceedings is rarely used and has a completely different meaning to a stay in the civil court.

Although, as you say, it doesn’t matter now, I’m concerned that you properly understand these principle in case you embark on a similar quest.

Of course, the easiest thing of all if you needed that information (and, as I have said, I believe you did in order to make a successful argument) was to simply obtain it for yourself. If I had been in your position it is one of the first things I would have done.

There was no case management hearing.

In my plea i clearly expressed the fact there were two FPN with references and gave details for it and my defence.

Hence my points above.

On the information provided they only state a rough area Jx to Jy, they don't state the specific information which is what disclosure is needed for.


None of this is relevant anyway to this particular case as they never disputed my assertions about it being continous in fact. The Magistrate specifically said it was a point of law that they believed we differend on. We've sort of digressed.

I completely understand the point about evidence, but as I've already said this was never disputed and never likely to be disputed, and the requests were made for disclosure for the basic information so that I could even find the distance and the disclosure requests were ignored. This was raised in court, about the continued lack of the police to respond to disclosure requests, but as the material facts were not in dispute, there was no need to carry it further.


Also sorry yes you are correct in regards to the adjournment point instead of a stay.