sjpn for No insurance - will loose licence

[wales01man]

Doesn't work like that! We have loads of people who say "I thought it had gone out of my account" "My ex cancelled the insurance and did not tell me" etc etc. Heard it all. It doesn't wash and they are still guilty of driving without insurance. The difference can be in the penalty imposed (eg ban, no ban, short ban etc)

I know that thats why i have insurance on all my vehicles

[harimalone]

No Probs!

Yes I agree. I think the prosecution may want the opportunity to "probe" a little, so best to tell them up front.

perfect okay i have 9 days left so to confirm, at this point

1. Witness statement from my partner will be emailed to court and ask them to forward witness statement to prosecutor.

2. Be prepared for partner to possibly be cross examined ? but given its in the witness statement time of purchase backed up by bank statement not sure what they can ask?

3. bring bank statements & all documents of evidence on the day (should i email ahead of time?? or is this fine as 5 copies)

Many thanks legend

[harimalone]

Doesn't work like that! We have loads of people who say "I thought it had gone out of my account" "My ex cancelled the insurance and did not tell me" etc etc. Heard it all. It doesn't wash and they are still guilty of driving without insurance. The difference can be in the penalty imposed (eg ban, no ban, short ban etc)

Agreed which is why i plead guilty already. In your experience cases like my ex cancelled etc etc have courts accepted this and not imposed penalty points?

From your point of view if you saw my case and i showed proof of bank statement of purchase time (before police stop) along with witness statement from my partner, & proof that the drive home from doctors was 7mins per google maps what probability would you say this would be accepted. If you wish to not answer i also appreciate this!

[islandgirl]

No in the case of an ex cancelling etc there is no mitigation really - it is each driver's own responsibility to check that the insurance is valid. In your case you did the right thing and tried to insure the vehicle but made a mistake. The Police claiming you tried to do it when they stopped you would help your case (with me anyway) if you have proof that is incorrect. Clearly you are guilty - the cross exam might be about why you thought it was valid immediately, why you did not check, why you did not notice? With the information I have I think I would be looking at the lower end. If you get into Cat 3 it would be points:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/
if you have less than 12 there would not be a ban. However this is only a very vague idea as I have not seen the detail of the case. Also I would be one of 3 - the other 2 may wish to be harsher!

[harimalone]

No in the case of an ex cancelling etc there is no mitigation really - it is each driver's own responsibility to check that the insurance is valid. In your case you did the right thing and tried to insure the vehicle but made a mistake. The Police claiming you tried to do it when they stopped you would help your case (with me anyway) if you have proof that is incorrect. Clearly you are guilty - the cross exam might be about why you thought it was valid immediately, why you did not check, why you did not notice? With the information I have I think I would be looking at the lower end. If you get into Cat 3 it would be points:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/
if you have less than 12 there would not be a ban. However this is only a very vague idea as I have not seen the detail of the case. Also I would be one of 3 - the other 2 may wish to be harsher!

For me personally i had 2 kids in the back of the car we pulled over in an emergency situation we left a doctors appointment - (which i will provide proof for) (partner recently gave birth and was no longer able to drive), i was told i was insured and began the journey.

problem is i currently have 6 points (from a few years ago) and given a IN10 (Driving with no insurance) endorsement is an issue for me with work etc. is there any option via special reasons for non-endorsement? i.e no points just a fine? have you seen this happen before would you allow something like this in my case?

[islandgirl]

Your mitigation may lead to a lower number of points and therefore remaining on the road but who knows when the full facts are presented?

[HandyAndy]

When cover started is the defence not when it was brought ?

As I’ve explained (twice) he is no defending the charge.

The defence (not that there is any defence so rather the mitigation) is that they believed they were covered from when the payment was made not some time later

No, IG. He is arguing that he believed cover began at 12:15 and not 12:30. He accepts that, as a result of a mistake, it did not begin until 12:30. And so he will plead guilty.

At his hearing he will be making two submissions to the court:

Firstly he will offer a basis to his guilty plea. The basis is that neither he nor his partner attempted to secure insurance cover after or during the time he was stopped by the police. Cover had been purchased before he began driving. He therefore disagrees with the statement of the officer and objects to its contents being used as part of the prosecution's statement of facts.

Secondly, he will argue that there are “Special Reasons” not to endorse his licence and either impose points or disqualify him. He will do that on the basis that a genuine error (not made by him) brought about the lack of cover, he had no reason to believe he was not insured and it was an extremely short time between him beginning driving and becoming aware of the error.

The process for the court will be firstly that the basis of plea will have to be agreed by the prosecution. If it is, the court must disregard the evidence from the police that cover was only secured after the driver was stopped. If it is not the court must decide whether or not accepting that evidence would materially influence their sentencing decision. If they believe it would not then the defendant’s version must be used for sentencing. If they believe it would they must order a Newton Hearing to establish which version of events will be used for sentencing.

When that’s been ironed out the court can move on o sentencing and the consideration of his SR argument.

I think that about sums it up!

[islandgirl]

Great explanation! You and I are very much on the same page. As I said there is no defence. They are saying they believed they were covered but were not, so the driver is pleading guilty. As I said to the OP "clearly you are guilty"! I agree also that the OP is disagreeing with the Police officer who said he was trying to buy cover when stopped. Special reasons may avoid a ban but the OP is saying points will cause him problems for work - I cannot see any avoiding points - the question would be if the court would move outside the guidelines and give say 5.

[HandyAndy]

Special reasons may avoid a ban but the OP is saying points will cause him problems for work.

It's a little worse than that. He already has six points and another six will see him "totting up".

SI cannot see any avoiding points - the question would be if the court would move outside the guidelines and give say 5.

No, the court cannot impose fewer than six, IG, as that is the statutory minimum. However, if his "Special Reasons" argument is successful, he should see no endorsement and no points imposed.

I believe he has a good case for SR. He had to drive unexpectedly as, following a medical emergency, his partner was unable to. He was not insured to drive her car so she took out short term cover for him. Unfortunately she made a mistake when doing so and the cover began at 12:30 rather than 12:15. This cover was purchased at 12:08, before he began driving and he has proof of that (by way of a timed record of the bank transaction).

When he was stopped by the police (shortly after 12:15) his partner began to search her phone for evidence of the cover she had just purchased but the police statement says that she or he was attempting to purchase cover after they had been stopped (hence his "basis of plea" and objection to the police statement).

Hope that puts you fully in the picture.

[harimalone]

Great explanation! You and I are very much on the same page. As I said there is no defence. They are saying they believed they were covered but were not, so the driver is pleading guilty. As I said to the OP "clearly you are guilty"! I agree also that the OP is disagreeing with the Police officer who said he was trying to buy cover when stopped. Special reasons may avoid a ban but the OP is saying points will cause him problems for work - I cannot see any avoiding points - the question would be if the court would move outside the guidelines and give say 5.

I have read about various cases online where individuals insurance was not auto-renewed / they were on the road due to payment issues and were charged with the driving without insurance. in such cases the SR explanations resulted in non endorsement and zero points. Why would this not be possible in my case?

[islandgirl]

It's a little worse than that. He already has six points and another six will see him "totting up".

No, the court cannot impose fewer than six, IG, as that is the statutory minimum. However, if his "Special Reasons" argument is successful, he should see no endorsement and no points imposed.

Thank you. The extent of your detailed knowledge is extremely impressive! I agree of course re SR but I am sure I have seen less than 6 given in a similar situation....I understood the totting issue which is why I suggested 5. Another option is a short ban which I have also seen but which the courts do not like at all as they say it "goes behind" the legislation

[islandgirl]

I have read about various cases online where individuals insurance was not auto-renewed / they were on the road due to payment issues and were charged with the driving without insurance. in such cases the SR explanations resulted in non endorsement and zero points. Why would this not be possible in my case?

I have not seen an outcome like that in my court which does not mean to say it does not happen. I have seen shorter bans imposed in exceptional circumstances. Read the guidelines https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/

[harimalone]

It's a little worse than that. He already has six points and another six will see him "totting up".



No, the court cannot impose fewer than six, IG, as that is the statutory minimum. However, if his "Special Reasons" argument is successful, he should see no endorsement and no points imposed.

I believe he has a good case for SR. He had to drive unexpectedly as, following a medical emergency, his partner was unable to. He was not insured to drive her car so she took out short term cover for him. Unfortunately she made a mistake when doing so and the cover began at 12:30 rather than 12:15. This cover was purchased at 12:08, before he began driving and he has proof of that (by way of a timed record of the bank transaction).

When he was stopped by the police (shortly after 12:15) his partner began to search her phone for evidence of the cover she had just purchased but the police statement says that she or he was attempting to purchase cover after they had been stopped (hence his "basis of plea" and objection to the police statement).

Hope that puts you fully in the picture.

Seems like you know my case better than me , Appreciate your direction as always. Seriously pretty much summarizes it perfectly.

What's confused me is I've seen many iterations similar to mine which ran SR cases and per the lawyers website they got zero points. Even cases where driving get caught drink driving and they prove they drove a very short distance. But IG seems to be of the mind i would either get 5 points or still endorsed - my worry is the IN10 endorsement this would render my driving license useless.

[islandgirl]

I cannot believe that any court would let a drink driver off without a serious punishment no matter what the distance. Short distance driven is a mitigation not a get out of jail free card! Lawyers are drumming up business remember...Run the special reasons. Bring all the evidence why a ban will affect you - the mags will not just believe what you say (we have heard it all before) but need proof. I hope I am wrong and remember that every bench and every court is different. The guidelines are guidelines...

[harimalone]

I cannot believe that any court would let a drink driver off without a serious punishment no matter what the distance. Short distance driven is a mitigation not a get out of jail free card! Lawyers are drumming up business remember...Run the special reasons. Bring all the evidence why a ban will affect you - the mags will not just believe what you say (we have heard it all before) but need proof. I hope I am wrong and remember that every bench and every court is different. The guidelines are guidelines...

I will do, again appreciate your thoughts and input have also been a great help for me to understand what’s to come!

so you believe guidelines must be followed and I will be issued points but it’s just the case of disqualification or not. Interesting