DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59031--------------------------------------------------
SJPN
DIR By: ray.g
Date: February 20, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ive read through some of the posts and replies here relating to
similar situations. I received a letter stating I was
recorded/flashed, via a yellow stationary camera A4 Cromwell Rd
nr Lexham Gdns SW5, doing 25 in a 20mph zone.
I filled in the form, including my DL number etc... paid the
£100 and assumed it was over. I then received a SJPN stating I
failed to send my DL of which I was unaware I had to do,
assuming my DL number was what was required. I suffer from a
health condition where my brain operates in a way that goes into
overwhelm which leads to a flight or fight response state and
struggles to process information correctly in times of stress. I
have an official letter stating this but wondering if this would
be reason enough for them to reconsider the SJPN?
#Post#: 59038--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: FuzzyDuck
Date: February 20, 2025, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The requirement to send in the physical driving licence ceased
years ago, nowadays just the details contained on it are
required. During the whole process you have to supply the
drivers number twice:
1) When naming the driver
2) When accepting the fixed penalty
Is it possible you did it the first time but not the second?
This seems to be quite a common mistake.
#Post#: 59039--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: ray.g
Date: February 20, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your reply. I'll have to look back through the
paperwork. Hopefully, they'll be somewhat understanding.
#Post#: 59045--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: February 20, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You were offered an out of court disposal. On the face of it,
you failed to accept that offer. You are now being prosecuted
for the original speeding offence.
The fact that properly accepting the offer would have avoided
the prosecution is largely irrelevant, unless you did in fact
comply with the statutory requirements, in which case the
prosecution would be unlawful.
Protectively instigating proceedings is an abuse of process
which would invalidate the proceedings - effectively, the police
cannot put the proceedings on hold once they have been
instigated.
#Post#: 59048--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: ray.g
Date: February 20, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks but I filled in the form containing the information they
required, including my DL information. They even sent the form
back to me showing the DL number, date, signature, stating I
failed to provide my DL number. This makes no sense.
#Post#: 59053--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: Gilan02
Date: February 20, 2025, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But did you send the DL information twice?
#Post#: 59056--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: February 20, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They will not reconsider the SJPN. It is now the only way they
have of enforcing the matter.
You have two choices:
You can dispute the charge on the basis that you complied with
the requirements of the fixed penalty offer. If you are certain
that you did so, as Andy says, a prosecution for the same
offence is unlawful. You need to be sure that you did provide
your DL details for a second time (i.e. as part of accepting the
offer) and ideally have some way to prove that.
Your second option is to plead guilty and when you respond to
the SJPN, in the "mitigation" section explain what has happened.
Go on to ask the court, respectively, if they would consider
sentencing you at the level equivalent to the fixed penalty.
Magistrates have guidance that suggest they can consider this
where they believe it is just to do so.
#Post#: 59180--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: February 21, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ray.g link ---
>
> Thanks but I filled in the form containing the information
they required, including my DL information. They even sent the
form back to me showing the DL number, date, signature, stating
I failed to provide my DL number. This makes no sense.
>
--- End Quote ---
But which form (or forms) are you referring to?
As others have already said you need to provide your DL number
when relying to the NIP/s172 request to name the driver, but you
also need to supply your DL number a second time when accepting
the conditional offer of a fixed penalty. If you didn't provide
your DL number the second time, you haven't complied with the
offered conditions and you will be prosecuted.
If you did provide your DL number the second time, they can't
successfully prosecute you.
So the question is: "Did you provide your DL number a second
time when accepting the COFP?"
#Post#: 59310--------------------------------------------------
Re: SJPN
DIR By: ray.g
Date: February 22, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response(s).
I can't confirm that I've sent my DL details through twice. I
have 2 forms in front of me with my details on them but memory
wise, even though I believe I did send them twice, I don't have
proof. I only know that I paid the fine and sent the forms as
required. I take it that I'll have to plea guilty and explain
via mitigation as you've suggested. In anyone's opinion and/or
experience, is it worth going to court?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1