discussion

[Guest]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

The rules of evidence and procedures in magistrates courts and Crown Courts are completely different to that in the Civil Courts. If the police arrest someone, they are making an allegation that someone has committed a crime, not a civil tort. They then have to prove that allegation to a magistrates court or Crown Court beyond all reasonable doubt. As you will know, the burden in a civil court is on balance of probability.

In civil cases, both sides have to disclose the evidence they intend to rely on to prove their respective cases. In criminal cases, the prosecution has to disclose the evidence it has to the defence, but the defence does not disclose its evidence until the full hearing. There are also rules applicable to criminal cases that do not apply to civil cases as to when the prosecution must disclose its evidence. These are contained within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and other Criminal Justice legislation.

You really are not telling anyone anything they do not already know here BB, although what it has to do with the OP is anyone's guess.

[bluebottle]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

I forwarded my 'not guilty' plea to Swansea Magistrates, and I did not supply answers to their fishing questions.

I subsequently phoned the clerk's office at Swansea Magistrates, and the clerk told me that my response would be forwarded to the DVLA. If they wanted to continue the action, they would move the case to a Magistrates Court nearer to where I live. He assured me that the case would not be heard at Swansea in my absence.

I subsequently got another court date, at another court. I wouldn't say it was local to me, but it was in the same county.

The hearing was today. I attended, and there was a representative from the DVLA present who requested private interviews with all of those answering DVLA cases. He should not have been doing this and DVLA know it.

I told him I had a complete defence to the allegation, and he was quite conciliatory. After about 10 minutes discussion he said he was satisfied with my information and he withdrew the case. He should not have discussed any aspect of your defence with you. That is strictly forbidden.

I wouldn't say he was actually apologetic, but I got the impression that he was accustomed to DVLA producing long lists of cases where a sensible defence makes continuation pointless. It's regrettable that DVLA did not throw the towel in long ago, but they play the game by what they think are the rules. Correction: What they think they can get away with before the public twig what is happening and bring the bar down on them and the politicians.

I never had an opportunity to air my defence in front of the bench, but I feel that if more people could do so the magistrates would possibly start applying pressure to the DVLA to stop wasting the time of the courts and the defendants. It is my understanding that a lot of Justices of the Peace are waking up to what is going on and newly-appointed JPs are very "on the ball".

@@@@

[Guest]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

Sounds like the DVLA investigating a possible breach of a legal requirements and finding that they were satisfied the breach did not in fact occur and terminating the case. perfectly acceptable IMO.
Incidentally a good reason to provide information promptly when asked, so that they can cease proceedings if inappropriate as happened here.

[bluebottle]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

Sounds like the DVLA investigating a possible breach of a legal requirements and finding that they were satisfied the breach did not in fact occur and terminating the case. perfectly acceptable IMO.
Incidentally a good reason to provide information promptly when asked, so that they can cease proceedings if inappropriate as happened here.

Notwithstanding, DVLA know or ought to know they are not entitled to have details of a defendant's defence in the matter of cases going before a court of summary jurisdiction. Under English Law and Human Rights Conventions, there is a presumption of innocence until the defendant is proven guilty.

Indeed, where DVLA "prosecutors" have been refused details of a defendant's defence, they have either dropped the case a few days before the court hearing or openly admitted to the defendant DVLA cannot prove they committed an offence and dropped the case just before the hearing.

Whilst you may feel what happened in the OP's case was perfectly acceptable, in the eyes of the law, it is not. If DVLA do not have the evidence to prove their allegations, they should not pursue people in the first place.

[Johnboy007]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

I would certainly not give my personal details to the DVLA, other than what they already know.
I agree with bluebottle, and can think of no legislation where providing my national insurance number is a command and not a request.

[Guest]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

Notwithstanding, DVLA know or ought to know they are not entitled to have details of a defendant's defence in the matter of cases going before a court of summary jurisdiction. Under English Law and Human Rights Conventions, there is a presumption of innocence until the defendant is proven guilty.

Indeed, where DVLA "prosecutors" have been refused details of a defendant's defence, they have either dropped the case a few days before the court hearing or openly admitted to the defendant DVLA cannot prove they committed an offence and dropped the case just before the hearing.

Whilst you may feel what happened in the OP's case was perfectly acceptable, in the eyes of the law, it is not. If DVLA do not have the evidence to prove their allegations, they should not pursue people in the first place.

Unbelievable

[bluebottle]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

Unbelievable

Whether you want to believe it or not, this is going on and until the public stand up and say, "Enough is enough," it is going to keep on happening. I strongly suspect DVLA know they are wasting not only the time of motorists and court staff, but taxpayers' money also.

[Guest]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

Whether you want to believe it or not, this is going on and until the public stand up and say, "Enough is enough," it is going to keep on happening. I strongly suspect DVLA know they are wasting not only the time of motorists and court staff, but taxpayers' money also.

It is this attitude of yours that I find so hard to relieve BB. Not everything is a conspiracy nor is everything an indictable offence, the police do not go around arresting people for doing their job even if the job in question is not to your liking, some of your comments are frankly laughable.

[Johnboy007]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

It is this attitude of yours that I find so hard to relieve BB. Not everything is a conspiracy nor is everything an indictable offence, the police do not go around arresting people for doing their job even if the job in question is not to your liking, some of your comments are frankly laughable.

I disagree with you andy, and to suggest BB's comments are 'laughable', is to say the least, a little bit patronising.
He did not for one minute, suggest that everything is a conspiracy, or that everything is an indictable offence.
Merely that this sort of thing does still go on.
BB was expressing his views, many of which I, and probably others, do believe.
Things that happened to the OP, do still occur.
If they didn't, then LeagleBeagles wouldn't have so many people asking for help.
They say money makes the world go round, and they are right.
It's the main reason why thousands of people get 'screwed' by businesses and government departments every year.

[Guest]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

as you say it is a matter of opinion many agree with me that BBs comments are laughable, your opinion is that they are not , this is fine.

These forums are frequented by conspiracy nuts FMOTL delusionals and generally people who think that the government is out to get them.
Generally these nut jobs are harmless because they are evident as soon as they open their mouths, when someone tries to imply they have specialist knowledge in some way they become more dangerous as the unwary tend to take them more seriously, this can often be detrimental to the person seeking advice.

In the OPs case.

The DVLA suspected a breach, they investigated and found that no action was needed, this was them doing their job, simple as that. If you or BB thinks that some criminal act was committed by the DVVL try reporting it to the police(who I believe are the relevant authority regarding criminal acts) see what they say.(or perhaps they to are in on the conspiracy)

[bluebottle]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

as you say it is a matter of opinion many agree with me that BBs comments are laughable, your opinion is that they are not , this is fine.

These forums are frequented by conspiracy nuts FMOTL delusionals and generally people who think that the government is out to get them.
Generally these nut jobs are harmless because they are evident as soon as they open their mouths, when someone tries to imply they have specialist knowledge in some way they become more dangerous as the unwary tend to take them more seriously, this can often be detrimental to the person seeking advice.

In the OPs case.

The DVLA suspected a breach, they investigated and found that no action was needed, this was them doing their job, simple as that. If you or BB thinks that some criminal act was committed by the DVVL try reporting it to the police(who I believe are the relevant authority regarding criminal acts) see what they say.(or perhaps they to are in on the conspiracy)

You clearly have not been keeping track with threads which have highlighted DVLA's attempts to obtain convictions on the flimsiest of evidence or no evidence whatsoever. Similar threads have come up on CAG. It is not unique to LB.

Among attempts to seek details of defendants' defences, DVLA "prosecutors" have -

Thrown a hissy fit when told by a defendant they could not have details of their defence or discuss them, had a hearing adjourned and not appeared for the adjourned hearing, only for the case to be dismissed and costs awarded in favour of the defendant (No Case);
Admitted to the defendant DVLA could not prove their allegations against the defendant; and
Telling a defendant they hadn't a cat in hell's chance of winning, sending them home and then going into court, claiming the defendant had failed to appear and securing a conviction that way;
Dropped a case two days before a hearing.

The above are cases that have come up on CAG and LB in the past and are in addition to the more recent cases we have seen coming up on the Bailiff Forum where OPs have known nothing about any case until a letter arrives from a court or a civil enforcement company and DVLA is identified as the complainant.

Whilst you are correct that most criminal offences are reported to and dealt with by the police, where there is evidence of interference with or malpractice involving the judicial process, it is more usual for the matter to be dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who conduct an investigation and, where necessary, issue warrants to the police to arrest those involved.

If you want an example of "laughable", you need only look as far as what I have highlighted in bold type in your most recent post, quoted above. The Criminal Justice system has rules which are clearly set out and which those bringing prosecutions before the criminal courts have to comply with. Unlike the police, who have to submit a file to the CPS for scrutiny, DVLA do not and, therefore, avoid having their cases scrutinised. If they were, I doubt few, if any, would get any further than a CPS solicitor's desk. The reality, I think you will find, is that the DVLA "prosecutor" realised the OP had been forewarned and DVLA were on a hiding to nothing, risking criticism from the court and costs awarded against them if they tried to push matters further.

[Johnboy007]

Re: 'Requisition' from DVLA for court

as you say it is a matter of opinion many agree with me that BBs comments are laughable, your opinion is that they are not , this is fine.

These forums are frequented by conspiracy nuts FMOTL delusionals and generally people who think that the government is out to get them.
Generally these nut jobs are harmless because they are evident as soon as they open their mouths, when someone tries to imply they have specialist knowledge in some way they become more dangerous as the unwary tend to take them more seriously, this can often be detrimental to the person seeking advice.

In the OPs case.

The DVLA suspected a breach, they investigated and found that no action was needed, this was them doing their job, simple as that. If you or BB thinks that some criminal act was committed by the DVVL try reporting it to the police(who I believe are the relevant authority regarding criminal acts) see what they say.(or perhaps they to are in on the conspiracy)

Thanks for the reply.
These forums are also frequented by sensible and well educated people.
BB as an ex CID policeman, I would put in that category.
I have never implied that the DVLA have committed criminal activities, merely that some of their actions may have been unlawful.
An enforcement Agent that I am dealing with now, have acted unlawfully in several respects.
So Andy, these things do occur.

[Amethyst]

Re: discussion

Closed