sjpn for No insurance - will loose licence

[HandyAndy]

Kind of makes me look like I was standing there busy purchasing documents infront of them stalling etc which wasn’t the case

It doesn't matter too much because you have evidence to show that cover was secured before the stop (although, of course, it was timed to start too late). Your "basis of plea" is just that - that cover was not purchased after you were stopped but was secured beforehand. But due to an error made by your wife (who had just endured a medical emergency) it was timed to start at 12:30 instead of 12:15. If the prosecution will not accept that basis of plea (and it seems they have not) they must produce evidence to support their version. The evidence they have is from the two officers. You disagree wih their statements so they must come to court (or appear via LiveLink) to give their evidence and be cross examined. Neither of the officers, it seems, actually witnessed cover being purchased after the stop (and nor could they because it wasn't). Neither checked to confirm when cover was purchased. They have have both simply assumed it was secured after you were stopped. The second officer's statement:

"...he questioned me about insurance details and I was stalling until I produced a insurance document some time later with the start time 12:30 this would mean the policy was taken out after the vehicle was stopped."

Of course it means nothing of the sort. It was an assumption he made - perhaps with some foundation - but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

You should ensure this second officer's statement is dealt with in the same way as the first. If the officer does not appear to provide "live" evidence you should insist on it being disregarded.

It has occurred to me that if a CPS lawyer is conducting your hearing on behalf of the police he or she may be a little more pragmatic (and hopefully a little less ignorant of the process you are trying to adopt) than the original police prosecutor was. If I recall, he said something like "I don't see what you're arguing about - you're guilty" (or similar). That pragmatism may lead to your basis of plea being accepted a little more readily.

[harimalone]

It doesn't matter too much because you have evidence to show that cover was secured before the stop (although, of course, it was timed to start too late). Your "basis of plea" is just that - that cover was not purchased after you were stopped but was secured beforehand. But due to an error made by your wife (who had just endured a medical emergency) it was timed to start at 12:30 instead of 12:15. If the prosecution will not accept that basis of plea (and it seems they have not) they must produce evidence to support their version. The evidence they have is from the two officers. You disagree wih their statements so they must come to court (or appear via LiveLink) to give their evidence and be cross examined. Neither of the officers, it seems, actually witnessed cover being purchased after the stop (and nor could they because it wasn't). Neither checked to confirm when cover was purchased. They have have both simply assumed it was secured after you were stopped. The second officer's statement:

"...he questioned me about insurance details and I was stalling until I produced a insurance document some time later with the start time 12:30 this would mean the policy was taken out after the vehicle was stopped."

Of course it means nothing of the sort. It was an assumption he made - perhaps with some foundation - but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

You should ensure this second officer's statement is dealt with in the same way as the first. If the officer does not appear to provide "live" evidence you should insist on it being disregarded.

It has occurred to me that if a CPS lawyer is conducting your hearing on behalf of the police he or she may be a little more pragmatic (and hopefully a little less ignorant of the process you are trying to adopt) than the original police prosecutor was. If I recall, he said something like "I don't see what you're arguing about - you're guilty" (or similar). That pragmatism may lead to your basis of plea being accepted a little more readily.

many thanks for providing great detailed background info. So I’ll make it clear again of my basis of plea etc, that I don’t agree with both statements. When cross examining the officers what type of questions do you think I should use ? They physically didn’t watch me purchase the cover so should I just ask Mr XXX did you or did you not visually see myself or my wife purchase cover or how did you ascertain this. I also want to ask him how they differentiate between someone stalling and someone dealing with the stress of a medical emergency/not understanding his line of questioning in my families case.

Your point on the CPS potentially being more accepting of my basis is some good news.

[HandyAndy]

I would simply concentrate on asking them how they arrived at the conclusion that cover was taken out after you were stopped. Ask them if they witnessed the transaction or if they have any other evidence to support their conclusion. I imagine they will answer “no” to both those questions (unless they are prepared to lie under oath). If they say they did, probe a little as to how close were they the screen when the transaction was completed, what they saw; could they see clearly, etc.

If, as I suspect, they based their conclusion on your hesitancy (and perhaps their previous experience of occasions where cover was actually bought after the stop) make the court aware when presenting your defence that there is no evidence to support their conclusion and that they should not rely on supposition.

Don’t place too much hope on the CPS lawyer caving in. It just strikes me that the original police prosecutor did not have much of a clue and should have explored bit deeper rather than just declaring your guilt. If he had your latest hearing my not have been required.

I hope all goes well but be prepared for further delays if (say) the officers are not available. Also beware that nothing is guaranteed. It depends entirely on the court on the day. What I am hoping is you get a fair hearing where your dispute with the officers' statements can be resolved so that your SR argument can be properly considered.

[harimalone]

I would simply concentrate on asking them how they arrived at the conclusion that cover was taken out after you were stopped. Ask them if they witnessed the transaction or if they have any other evidence to support their conclusion. I imagine they will answer “no” to both those questions (unless they are prepared to lie under oath). If they say they did, probe a little as to how close were they the screen when the transaction was completed, what they saw; could they see clearly, etc.

If, as I suspect, they based their conclusion on your hesitancy (and perhaps their previous experience of occasions where cover was actually bought after the stop) make the court aware when presenting your defence that there is no evidence to support their conclusion and that they should not rely on supposition.

Don’t place too much hope on the CPS lawyer caving in. It just strikes me that the original police prosecutor did not have much of a clue and should have explored bit deeper rather than just declaring your guilt. If he had your latest hearing my not have been required.

I hope all goes well but be prepared for further delays if (say) the officers are not available. Also beware that nothing is guaranteed. It depends entirely on the court on the day. What I am hoping is you get a fair hearing where your dispute with the officers' statements can be resolved so that your SR argument can be properly considered.

All good questions have noted this. I do believe on the original hearing the police prosecutor was going through the calenders of the officer and ensuring she could attend so unless something crazy has happened the original officer (who statement i had at the first hearing) will certainly be there. However now they have added this new witness statement after the first hearing may complicate things. However in my mind both statements infer the same thing "clear purchase after stop" if one officer is there to be questioned and she has no evidence etc im assuming its the same for both and enough for the magistrates to agree they both relied on an assumption / hypothesis of purchase.

Given its a morning session - will i be able to ask the usher again for prioritization (will the CPS prosecutor be around for the whole morning session similar to the police).

[HandyAndy]

I would not accept the second officer's statement if he is not able to give live evidence. It may the same same as the first officer's, but you fundamentally disagree with it and unless you object to its inclusion it will be read and you really don't want that. In the same way as it would strengthen their case if they were correct, it strengthens your case if you can show they are both incorrect. That strategy has the disadvantage of the prosecution seeking a further adjournment. If they do you should object to it. It's not your fault the second officer left it so late to make a statement (which in my view is a bit suspect anyway) but you may have to swallow a further adjournment if the court says he must be given the opportunity to attend.

Hard to say about the CPS lawyer's arrangements. I would think he would be engaged for the day. All you can do is ask for priority.

[harimalone]

I would not accept the second officer's statement if he is not able to give live evidence. It may the same same as the first officer's, but you fundamentally disagree with it and unless you object to its inclusion it will be read and you really don't want that. In the same way as it would strengthen their case if they were correct, it strengthens your case if you can show they are both incorrect. That strategy has the disadvantage of the prosecution seeking a further adjournment. If they do you should object to it. It's not your fault the second officer left it so late to make a statement (which in my view is a bit suspect anyway) but you may have to swallow a further adjournment if the court says he must be given the opportunity to attend.

Hard to say about the CPS lawyer's arrangements. I would think he would be engaged for the day. All you can do is ask for priority.

Noted! - i was going through paperwork and i missed a continuation of the second officers statement on the second page it has 2 lines ("I exhibit my BMV which covers my dealings on the stop. This statement was written after the events, to the best of my knowledge").

However when i look at the CPS key exhibits / transcript there is no mention of a Body worn video. So am i right in assuming he used the video to create his witness statement?

[HandyAndy]

"So am i right in assuming he used the video to create his witness statement?"

Couldn't really say. If the video is not "relied on" (and if it is it must be made available to you) then it's not really any different to him referring to his note book to compose his statement. If, (just as an example, with no relevance to your actual case) he said in his statement "the driver told me he had not bought cover until after he was stopped" and you challenge him about that in cross examination, he can only assure the court that that was his recollection. If he goes on to say "it must be true because that was what was shown on the video" the court should ignore that claim unless the video is available for the court to see.

I forgot to add that after you have presented your defence you are entitled to address the court with "closing remarks." The prosecution only get that opportunity if the defendant is represented. You won't be so they should not get that opportunity. In your remarks you really need to remind the court what the issue is (that it is alleged you bought cover after the stop) and what evidence they have heard. I am thinking of something along these lines (though it may have to be chopped about a bit depending on how the hearing goes:

"Your Worships, [or sir/madam if it is a District Judge sitting alone] the reason for my “basis of plea”, which has not been accepted by the prosecution, is simply this: insurance cover was purchased before I began driving.

There is no evidence to show that cover was purchased only after I had been stopped. Neither of the officers actually witnessed the transaction being made. Their evidence consists of an assumption that it must have been because my wife was using her phone whilst I was being questioned. As she has said in her evidence, she was doing so in order to locate proof of insurance which she had just purchased in order to show the officers. [you can expand on that if appropriate by bringing the court’s attention to what they actually said]

Cover was purchased by my wife but unfortunately, for the reasons I explained [just suffered a medical emergency] she was somewhat stressed and made an error, so that the cover did not begin until 12:30, rather than 12:15 as was necessary. I did not begin driving until this transaction had been completed and I have produced evidence to show it was concluded at 12:08.

I therefore urge you to accept my basis of plea, that cover was purchased before I began driving as I believe this will have a profound impact on my “Special Reasons” argument which will follow.your decision"

The last paragraph may need amending or scrapping if the Bench decides it will make decisions on both issues in one deliberation. But you should make the most of this opportunity to emphasise things in your favour (e.g proof of purchase before the stop and (hopefully) the officers' testimony being shown to be based on unfounded assumptions).

To summarise, the order of events should be this:

Prosecution provides its evidence to support their claim that cover was purchased after stop. This should be the two officers who you can then cross examine to establish how they arrived at that conclusion.

You present your defence, with evidence to show that cover was purchased a 12:08.Prosecutor has the opportunity to cross examine your witness (can't recall if your wife is giving evidence) and you.

You make your "closing remarks" (as above).

Magistrates retire to consider their decision.

In the (hopeful) event your basis of plea is accepted, you make your SR argument on the basis of genuine error (compounded by medical emergency); very short distance/time without cover.

Let me know if I can help further.

[harimalone]

Couldn't really say. If the video is not "relied on" (and if it is it must be made available to you) then it's not really any different to him referring to his note book to compose his statement. If, (just as an example, with no relevance to your actual case) he said in his statement "the driver told me he had not bought cover until after he was stopped" and you challenge him about that in cross examination, he can only assure the court that that was his recollection. If he goes on to say "it must be true because that was what was shown on the video" the court should ignore that claim unless the video is available for the court to see.

I forgot to add that after you have presented your defence you are entitled to address the court with "closing remarks." The prosecution only get that opportunity if the defendant is represented. You won't be so they should not get that opportunity. In your remarks you really need to remind the court what the issue is (that it is alleged you bought cover after the stop) and what evidence they have heard. I am thinking of something along these lines (though it may have to be chopped about a bit depending on how the hearing goes:

"Your Worships, [or sir/madam if it is a District Judge sitting alone] the reason for my “basis of plea”, which has not been accepted by the prosecution, is simply this: insurance cover was purchased before I began driving.

There is no evidence to show that cover was purchased only after I had been stopped. Neither of the officers actually witnessed the transaction being made. Their evidence consists of an assumption that it must have been because my wife was using her phone whilst I was being questioned. As she has said in her evidence, she was doing so in order to locate proof of insurance which she had just purchased in order to show the officers. [you can expand on that if appropriate by bringing the court’s attention to what they actually said]

Cover was purchased by my wife but unfortunately, for the reasons I explained [just suffered a medical emergency] she was somewhat stressed and made an error, so that the cover did not begin until 12:30, rather than 12:15 as was necessary. I did not begin driving until this transaction had been completed and I have produced evidence to show it was concluded at 12:08.

I therefore urge you to accept my basis of plea, that cover was purchased before I began driving as I believe this will have a profound impact on my “Special Reasons” argument which will follow.your decision"

The last paragraph may need amending or scrapping if the Bench decides it will make decisions on both issues in one deliberation. But you should make the most of this opportunity to emphasise things in your favour (e.g proof of purchase before the stop and (hopefully) the officers' testimony being shown to be based on unfounded assumptions).

To summarise, the order of events should be this:

Prosecution provides its evidence to support their claim that cover was purchased after stop. This should be the two officers who you can then cross examine to establish how they arrived at that conclusion.

You present your defence, with evidence to show that cover was purchased a 12:08.Prosecutor has the opportunity to cross examine your witness (can't recall if your wife is giving evidence) and you.

You make your "closing remarks" (as above).

Magistrates retire to consider their decision.

In the (hopeful) event your basis of plea is accepted, you make your SR argument on the basis of genuine error (compounded by medical emergency); very short distance/time without cover.

Let me know if I can help further.

Will re-write / use as applicable many many thanks! - is it better to read out ? or read from memory?

If everything concludes this coming days, if my SR fails and i tot up - will the Exceptional hardship plea be done on the same session? (i have multiple reasons for this all documented - i.e disabled mother who i care for, im a volunteer driver for a charity who have written a letter confirming if i was to step down they will cease to exist as finding a volunteer driver in my town is quite challenging, etc)

[HandyAndy]

"... is it better to read out ? or read from memory?"

Whatever you prefer. The court should not expect you to be a competent and experienced orator.

"...will the Exceptional hardship plea be done on the same session?"

Almost certainly yes. You should be prepared to present your argument with as much evidence as possible to support it.

You've got a bit of a heavy workload but I'm sure you'll cope and I wish you well.

[harimalone]

Whatever you prefer. The court should not expect you to be a competent and experienced orator.



Almost certainly yes. You should be prepared to present your argument with as much evidence as possible to support it.

You've got a bit of a heavy workload but I'm sure you'll cope and I wish you well.

mr handy ! Thanks for your help. Special reasons rejected - because I didn’t mentioned my partners medical emergency to the officers at the scene despite me providing documented proof. Also they said I could have called 999 or returned to the doctors. I just feel like they didn’t really understand my case, he main worship said stop bringing up the 12:08 purchase as I wasn’t covered at 12:15.

anyway I pushed hard on not getting disqualified via totting up hardship plea which they accepted. So 12 points £400 lighter but I’ll have to drive very carefully. Again Andy appreciate what you do here the Cps said do I have a background in law ? Aha plaudits to you handy

[wales01man]

mr handy ! Thanks for your help. Special reasons rejected - because I didn’t mentioned my partners medical emergency to the officers at the scene despite me providing documented proof. Also they said I could have called 999 or returned to the doctors. I just feel like they didn’t really understand my case, he main worship said stop bringing up the 12:08 purchase as I wasn’t covered at 12:15.

anyway I pushed hard on not getting disqualified via totting up hardship plea which they accepted. So 12 points £400 lighter but I’ll have to drive very carefully. Again Andy appreciate what you do here the Cps said do I have a background in law ? Aha plaudits to you handy

A good result considering all hinge on time cover started not when purchased wish you got a better result on the points lesson learnt good luck and safe driving

[HandyAndy]

Sorry to hear that, hari. We both did our best.

I just feel like they didn’t really understand my case, he main worship said stop bringing up the 12:08 purchase as I wasn’t covered at 12:15.

I tend to agree. The issue that you had purchased cover before driving was critical in my view (hence the emphasis on your "basis of plea")..You fully accepted you were not covered at 12:15. Your SR was based on that (if you were covered you'd have pleaded not guilty).

Special reasons rejected - because I didn’t mentioned my partners medical emergency to the officers at the scene despite me providing documented proof.

I find that odd as well. If you had old them I doubt it would have made any difference to the action they took.

Anyway, what's done is done and I'm sorry it didn't turn out as well as it might have. Glad the EH argument was a success. Your only option now is n appeal to the Crown Court which I'm sure you don't fancy (with costs in the region of £1,300 in the event of failure).

To satisfy my curiosity, did the prosecution accept your "basis of plea" or was there a hearing into it? If so. were he officers present to give evidence on that?

[islandgirl]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know and well done for presenting the arguments. It is sad that they did not seem to grasp the issue fully that you had bought cover and firmly believed you were covered (though you weren't). I would like to think that if this had been my court we would have been more able to take account of these unique circumstances. At least you are still driving...

[harimalone]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know and well done for presenting the arguments. It is sad that they did not seem to grasp the issue fully that you had bought cover and firmly believed you were covered (though you weren't). I would like to think that if this had been my court we would have been more able to take account of these unique circumstances. At least you are still driving...

Seemed like the cps pushed along with the officer that I didn’t mention the emergency when first stopped by officers. Also I didn’t find alternative options. Weird

[harimalone]

Sorry to hear that, hari. We both did our best.


I tend to agree. The issue that you had purchased cover before driving was critical in my view (hence the emphasis on your "basis of plea")..You fully accepted you were not covered at 12:15. Your SR was based on that (if you were covered you'd have pleaded not guilty).



I find that odd as well. If you had old them I doubt it would have made any difference to the action they took.

Anyway, what's done is done and I'm sorry it didn't turn out as well as it might have. Glad the EH argument was a success. Your only option now is n appeal to the Crown Court which I'm sure you don't fancy (with costs in the region of £1,300 in the event of failure).

To satisfy my curiosity, did the prosecution accept your "basis of plea" or was there a hearing into it? If so. were he officers present to give evidence on that?

the cps actually said my basis of plea had nothing to do with the facts. I then pushed and said the officers statement claims I purchased at 1208 and she along with the magistrate said don’t push anymore on that time of purchase is meaningless in this case.

she then asked the officer who gave live evidence if I mentioned the emergency. Also she asked if my partner was in pain.

I then asked where she was placed and if she ever spoke to my partner / saw her. Officer said no however I could see a phone flickering through the back car windows. Dispite me having two kids in the back.

And we was stood 3/4 metres away in broad daylight. Bizarre