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.

[harimalone]

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.

just received the notice of new date. But one things puzzled me maybe it’s just an automatic computer. But it has my new date on there and it says Reasons the matter is adjourned to this new date is because 1. The court is considering whether to disqualify you from driving due to seriousness of office / number of points.

[HandyAndy]

I would say that is a standard reply for an "adjournment notice". Going back to the beginning, that is the reason you are in court. I think there are only so many "reasons" available for their template letter.

The court is obviously aware of your position (Basis of plea and Special Reasons) so I think you have it covered.

Come back for a recap a few days before your next hearing.

HA

[harimalone]

I would say that is a standard reply for an "adjournment notice". Going back to the beginning, that is the reason you are in court. I think there are only so many "reasons" available for their template letter.

The court is obviously aware of your position (Basis of plea and Special Reasons) so I think you have it covered.

Come back for a recap a few days before your next hearing.

HA

Hi Andy hope you have been keeping well! Just received the initial pros case bundle in the post 2 days ago. My case will be heard alongside cps in 5 days roughly. quite confused now they have served me papers I again appreciate the help I have a few questions below.

1. the case bundle seems to contain all communication to me / "evidence" - however they also have the generic court plea enclosed in there which asks you to complete with name/details/salary info etc - but this bundle is empty why is this the case? I filled this document out online on the gov-beta website on the paperwork and I have proof of this in an email. are they expecting me to fill this out again or have they not received my original plea (guilty but a request for a hearing).

2. No other real interesting evidence - only additional one is before I had the constable witness statement saying it was clear I purchased insurance after the stop hence the charge. Now they have included her colleague (the driver of the police car) - he outlined the stop etc and he said on his new witness statement (dated 15/07/2024) "that 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. Mr XXX was unable to prove he had correct insurance at the time of 12:15 so he was charged and allowed to drive off"

general thoughts on this new statement? would appreciate a plan of action as I feel underprepared ill be up against cps / officers also just to jog your memory.

[HandyAndy]

Hi Hari,

Sorry, I can't answer Q1. Different courts seem to adopt all manner of different procedures and paperwork. What you describe does not seem to disadvantage you so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The new statement is interesting. It is strange that the officer has only made his statement some time after you declared your intention to argue "Special Reasons" and some eight months after the event.. Is this statement (apart from his unfounded assumption that the insurance was taken out after you were stopped) essentially true? In any event you need to inform whoever sent it to you (either the court or the CPS) that, in line with the first officer's statement, you disagree with this second one being used and will require the officer's attendance. Of particular interest, should he attend, would be to ascertain how well he recalled the incident some eight months after the even. For example, did he make notes at the time and referred to those notes before making his statement? If not, did he remember the details from so long ago? Or did he rely on what his colleague had told him about the incident? Also of interest would be on what basis, on that occasion, he came to the conclusion that the insurance had been taken out after you were stopped.

I have a suspicion that, at such short notice, the second officer will be unable to attend. If your hearing goes ahead next week you should male it absolutely clear that you disagree with both statements provided by the officers and unless they attend their evidence should not be used.

Your cross examination of them should be quite straightforward. The only thing you disagree with is their conclusion that you took out insurance after you were stopped. At the time you get to cross examine them you will not have presented your evidence (principally, proof of purchase at 12:08). That comes after the prosecution has closed its case. So you should concentrate on how they drew the conclusion that you bought the insurance after you had been stopped. It can only have been an unfounded assumption (particularly as it isn't correct) and you must emphasise that point. Then, in your defence , you can produce your proof that it was purchased before you were stopped.

[harimalone]

Hi Hari,

Sorry, I can't answer Q1. Different courts seem to adopt all manner of different procedures and paperwork. What you describe does not seem to disadvantage you so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The new statement is interesting. It is strange that the officer has only made his statement some time after you declared your intention to argue "Special Reasons" and some eight months after the event.. Is this statement (apart from his unfounded assumption that the insurance was taken out after you were stopped) essentially true? In any event you need to inform whoever sent it to you (either the court or the CPS) that, in line with the first officer's statement, you disagree with this second one being used and will require the officer's attendance. Of particular interest, should he attend, would be to ascertain how well he recalled the incident some eight months after the even. For example, did he make notes at the time and referred to those notes before making his statement? If not, did he remember the details from so long ago? Or did he rely on what his colleague had told him about the incident? Also of interest would be on what basis, on that occasion, he came to the conclusion that the insurance had been taken out after you were stopped.

I have a suspicion that, at such short notice, the second officer will be unable to attend. If your hearing goes ahead next week you should male it absolutely clear that you disagree with both statements provided by the officers and unless they attend their evidence should not be used.

Your cross examination of them should be quite straightforward. The only thing you disagree with is their conclusion that you took out insurance after you were stopped. At the time you get to cross examine them you will not have presented your evidence (principally, proof of purchase at 12:08). That comes after the prosecution has closed its case. So you should concentrate on how they drew the conclusion that you bought the insurance after you had been stopped. It can only have been an unfounded assumption (particularly as it isn't correct) and you must emphasise that point. Then, in your defence , you can produce your proof that it was purchased before you were stopped.

regarding the officers new statement the only other thing he mentioned is that “I said the car was my partners and I had insurance on another vehicle that allowed me to drive other cars which he checked and confirmed this was not the case” again this isn’t mentioned in the original officers statement - he is correct that he checked this the reason is because when he first stopped me and took me out of the car I told him the car isn’t mine and it’s my partners who is in the passenger seat he then asked me if I have insurance coverage on my own vehicle that allows me to drive other vehicles I said said I’m insured to drive my partners car I have some sort of cover. He is then busy checking my owns cars insurance which didn’t have third party cover at which point I’m on my phone waiting for my partner to text me the insurance document ( my phone then dies and the officer allows me to charge my phone in their police car and I then received the text with the documentation that my partner retrieved I shared this with them and they said I purchased it during the stop. So was charged, so a few points below.

1. he may have used the police video camera / shoulder camera to take new notes not sure.

2. the whole saying I was stalling on this new statement is really annoying especially when I have been pulled over randomly not allowed to go back and talk to my wife / my wife was dealing with a medical emergency / my phone dies which they assist me with a charger. Kind of makes me look like I was standing there busy purchasing documents infront of them stalling etc which wasn’t the case