sjpn for No insurance - will loose licence

[HandyAndy]

But there is a section of police statement which essentially says “the driver was unable to show documents and showed us a while later with a start time of 12:30 so it’s clear this was purchased after the stop.” Not sure if I’m being picky but how can an officer of the law put something like that in a court document I could of purchased the insurance 3 days prior and selected 12:30 on that day. Regardless does the statement of fact get used or the witness statement abit confused.

It is that "statement of facts" with which you disagree (hence your "basis of plea"). I have to say it seems a bit odd for an unfounded supposition to be quoted as a "fact". But if you make your objection to the officer's statement known, that should cover it.

for the afternoon sessions that start at 2pm what time would you expect me to be finished by? Also if I ask for prioritisation because of childcare responsibilities would they accept this

It's impossible to say when you would be done because you could be first called, or last. However, you should make your childcare requirements known to the court. It may be a good idea to arrive a little early and seek out the prosecutor if you can (tell reception when you check in you'd like a word). You can explain your basis of plea and objection to the officer's statement and it may help to smooth things out a bit before you go into court.

[islandgirl]

Excellent suggestion which will please the magistrates who have many cases to hear and want to get home before 7...

[harimalone]

Thanks both! Let’s see how this goes. Regardless great help.

[harimalone]

Hey all, update : went to court and done my basis of plea and brought evidence and special reasons case. Then the police prosecutor said because I’m going to “trail” it needs to be a CPS prosecutor instead. Adjourned for 6 weeks which is not what I was after, also the police officer will be there who claimed I “clearly bought the insurance after the police stop.

annoyed. Because the magistrates were very helpful and because my partner was having issues with childcare they pushed the police prosecutor to deal with the case today and he refused.

[HandyAndy]

Sorry to hear that.

I'm concerned to hear that prosecutor contends that you are "going to trial".

Did the prosecutor not accept your basis of plea? If not, then the Bench should have been asked whether the two different versions of events (i.e. the prosecution's - suggesting you purchased cover after you were stopped and yours - maintaining cover was purchased before you set off).would have a significant impact on their sentence. Since your Special Reasons argument largely hinged on that, my view is that their only answer can be "yes - it would have an impact on the sentence".

Are you clear in your mind what has happened here? Hopefully the situation is that your basis of plea was rejected and the court has ordered a Newton Hearing.

If that is your understanding I am not surprised your case was adjourned, but you need to be clear what has happened.

[harimalone]

Sorry to hear that.

I'm concerned to hear that prosecutor contends that you are "going to trial".

Did the prosecutor not accept your basis of plea? If not, then the Bench should have been asked whether the two different versions of events (i.e. the prosecution's - suggesting you purchased cover after you were stopped and yours - maintaining cover was purchased before you set off).would have a significant impact on their sentence. Since your Special Reasons argument largely hinged on that, my view is that their only answer can be "yes - it would have an impact on the sentence".

Are you clear in your mind what has happened here? Hopefully the situation is that your basis of plea was rejected and the court has ordered a Newton Hearing.

If that is your understanding I am not surprised your case was adjourned, but you need to be clear what has happened.

Sorry may of confused the matter after leaving court, the legal advisor is the one who said out loud he is requesting a special reasons so he is going to trail. i then interrupted and said no sorry i have already plead guilty a few weeks back i am here firstly to make clear i disagree with the officers statement on XXX and secondly explain my special reasons - legal advisor said his use of going to trail is just legal jargon and he is aware im guilty+special reasons,the mag's left the room and i showed the prosecution / legal advisor bank statement of transaction time and proof of the medical emergency. So they reconvened and the legal advisor said because i have disagreed the officer needs to be here and also the police prosecutor wasnt interested in running the case the second i mentioned special reasons. He first said to me before we went in "under what reason your guilty right? its pretty clear" regardless he then said he wanted a cps to run instead of him even when pushed by the mags to run it today. so i have a new date with the court + cps + they scheduled the officer to also come in at the same time (is this going to be the constable thats named as the witness? or both who done the stop)

[HandyAndy]

...legal advisor said his use of going to trail is just legal jargon and he is aware im guilty+special reasons

That's good. At least it seems your intentions are clear and known to the court (if not, perhaps to the police prosecutor).

Just as a matter of procedure, in most areas now the police undertake straightforward (i.e. "guilty plea") prosecutions. They took that task from the CPS seven or eight years ago. But they farm the task out to the CPS for defended cases (i.e. "trials"). So I can half understand the prosecutor's stance. If his brief is to only deal with uncontested matters I can see, perhaps, why he was reluctant to proceed. I'm not sure what status police prosecutors hold, in particular whether they are competent to conduct a trial procedure (which a Newton Hearing involves). But even allowing for the fact that they may not be, it is a little worrying to hear "under what reason your guilty right? its pretty clear". It indicates perhaps a lack of understanding on his part.

(is this going to be the constable thats named as the witness? or both who done the stop)

It will be the one with whose evidence you disagree. Perhaps we can "reconvene" nearer the time. But basically he will give evidence to the court on what happened at the stop. This should be roughly what his statement says. Your challenge must come from his assertion that he says he saw you or your partner attempting to secure cover after the stop and (even though I doubt he could see what either of you were doing on your phones) why he drew the conclusion that you "must have been."

Won't get too bogged down with that now because six weeks is a while off. I look into "Legal Beagles" most days and I've no plans to be away at that time. So just post again in your thread and I'm certain to pick it up.

[islandgirl]

I am also sorry that this was not dealt with but glad the mags were helpful! Your cross examination has to hinge, as above, on what the PC could see from his position and as Handyandy says why he thought you "must have been".
I am sure HA will give you great advice nearer the time and I will do anything I can to help too.

[harimalone]

That's good. At least it seems your intentions are clear and known to the court (if not, perhaps to the police prosecutor).

Just as a matter of procedure, in most areas now the police undertake straightforward (i.e. "guilty plea") prosecutions. They took that task from the CPS seven or eight years ago. But they farm the task out to the CPS for defended cases (i.e. "trials"). So I can half understand the prosecutor's stance. If his brief is to only deal with uncontested matters I can see, perhaps, why he was reluctant to proceed. I'm not sure what status police prosecutors hold, in particular whether they are competent to conduct a trial procedure (which a Newton Hearing involves). But even allowing for the fact that they may not be, it is a little worrying to hear "under what reason your guilty right? its pretty clear". It indicates perhaps a lack of understanding on his part.



It will be the one with whose evidence you disagree. Perhaps we can "reconvene" nearer the time. But basically he will give evidence to the court on what happened at the stop. This should be roughly what his statement says. Your challenge must come from his assertion that he says he saw you or your partner attempting to secure cover after the stop and (even though I doubt he could see what either of you were doing on your phones) why he drew the conclusion that you "must have been."

Won't get too bogged down with that now because six weeks is a while off. I look into "Legal Beagles" most days and I've no plans to be away at that time. So just post again in your thread and I'm certain to pick it up.

thanks for this doesn’t go unnoticed. General questions are the cps more difficult to work with than everyday police prosecutors ? Would they fight the fact I’m doing special reasons ?

Also I do know the officers had shoulder cams on the day , per the witness statement it says “video evidence available”. Do you think they would play this evidence ? Because it doesn’t show much apart from 10-15 mins of me being confused regarding the type of insurance and timing of the insurance.

[HandyAndy]

thanks for this doesn’t go unnoticed. General questions are the cps more difficult to work with than everyday police prosecutors ? Would they fight the fact I’m doing special reasons ?

I think CPS prosecutors are likely to be more well versed with conducing trials and Newton Hearings. Their job is to prosecute the matter. "Special Reasons" (if successful) provides a considerable reduction in the usual penalties and their job is to see justice done..

Also I do know the officers had shoulder cams on the day , per the witness statement it says “video evidence available”. Do you think they would play this evidence ?

If they intend to rely on it they must tell you and serve it on you beforehand so that you can consider it. If they do not intend to rely on it it should be listed as "unused material". There is a tricky situation with unused material. You have a right to see it if you consider it may help your defence or undermine the prosecution. The trouble is there is a "Catch 22" puzzle. The court must order its disclosure if you believe either of those two things. But until you see it, you don't know if it does either. And the court won't order its release unless you can tell them it does. Sorry, I can't be more help on that one. I suggest you put it aside unless and until it happens.