who states that THE DEFENDANT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definately attend court and plead guilty if you want the lightest punishment.

Don't even bother trying to be all big and clever by trying to get off the charge, the court will more than likely get ****** off and give you double the fine.

jamief said:
No. Pleading guilty via post does.
Click to expand...

:mad: Why do people bother posting **** when they have no idea what they're talking about?!

OP, turning up early, smartly dressed, being very sorry more often than not gives a lighter punishment. It shows the court you actually care enough about your driving licence and you have the decency to get off your arse and speak to them in person, which they usually look on favourably.
 
Last edited:
Memphis said:
The OP drove like a ****** **** (and not for the first time if I remember right) and should be punished accordingly. I wish I could be sure you would never be on the roads again. What's worse is you seem to be looking for ways out of this. I have no time for you.
Click to expand...
Indeed, this guy has a history of making attetnion-seeking threads such as this :)
 
dirtydog said:
Is that really true or just your feeling.
Click to expand...

Just going on past punishments. The local rag used to produce a massive column about people who'd been to court for various motoring offences, I used to read it in work and see how the punishments varied between attendees/non-attendees, guilty pleaders/not guilty pleaders - that sort of thing :)
 
Lopéz said:
Just going on past punishments. The local rag used to produce a massive column about people who'd been to court for various motoring offences, I used to read it in work and see how the punishments varied between attendees/non-attendees, guilty pleaders/not guilty pleaders - that sort of thing :)
Click to expand...
That's probably not that an accurate analysis, as the attendees would likely have had more serious cases, and so would naturally receive harsher sentances! I know the guilty/not guilty thing is pretty true - an initial guilty will get you a lighter punishment than a not guilty followed by a failed defence.
 
UKPOLICEONLINE said:
PLEAD GUILTY BY POST

If you take this option the CPS can only read out what is on the information sent with the summons. This may be to your advantage if it doesn’t mention that you were speeding in pouring rain, tailgating crossing double white lines etc.
By the same token only your written statement will be in front of the court. This may not convey your regret (if indeed you do regret anything) as well as you could with a personal appearance. If the bench wish to clarify anything in your statement they can’t, this could be a serious disadvantage.
Be aware that although sentencing is normally done on the day (with you being notified by post) the court have the power to order you to attend court to be sentenced in person. Be aware that courts have the power to disqualify in the defendant's absence. There will always be a letter requesting that the defendant attend court, with a warning that a disqualification may be imposed in your absence. Any disqualification will take effect the moment it is announced. If you chose not to go, or are unable to attend, it is vital that you do not drive on the day of the court case or any day after that until you have received the decision of the court in writing.

ATTEND COURT AND PLEAD GUILTY

If you take this option the CPS can put whatever information they may have to the bench. In practice it is unlikely to be significantly more than was in the documentation you were sent. However that little extra detail could be an unpleasant one.
You will then be given the opportunity to put your side of the story. The fact that you do it in person will help you. The fact that you have turned up goes down well, if for no other reason than demonstrating that you are taking the proceedings seriously.

ATTEND COURT AND PLEAD NOT GUILTY

If you take this option you will be sent a date for a Case Progression Hearing (CPH), sometimes called a Case Management Hearing. These hearings used to be called a Pre Trial Review (PTR) and the term is still used in some places.

A CPH is a fairly informal meeting between the CPS and defendant (either in person or the defence lawyer). There will always be a court clerk present to referee. This is important if you are representing yourself, as the clerk will be able to offer some guidance on procedure. In most areas there will not be a JP present. Some areas are experimenting with JP run CPHs.

A CPH is an opportunity for both sides to outline their evidence. Some people try to withhold their defence, as they don’t wish to pre warn the CPS. Bear in mind that if the CPS are going to reduce or drop the charge, this is when they are most likely to do it.

If they don’t know what your defence is they can’t even consider reducing or dropping the charge. If your defence is not good enough it won’t matter whether the CPS know it in advance or not. If it is strong enough they may drop or reduce charges at the CPH. The clerk will make an estimate of the time needed for the trial (e.g. 1 hour, half a day, 3 days etc.) He/she will set a date and place.

If the date and/or place are not suitable for you this is the time to say so. There may well be a need for more than one CPH. This often happens when one of the parties needs time to gather more information.
Eventually a date will be set for the trial.
Click to expand...
 
Lopéz said:
Just going on past punishments. The local rag used to produce a massive column about people who'd been to court for various motoring offences, I used to read it in work and see how the punishments varied between attendees/non-attendees, guilty pleaders/not guilty pleaders - that sort of thing :)
Click to expand...

I once pleaded guilty by post and didn't get an especiaaaally stiff fine :p The only way to know for sure whether there was a difference - and surely in law there SHOULDN'T be - would be to speak to the magistrates concerned (and also receive a truthful answer).
 
PMKeates said:
That's probably not that an accurate analysis, as the attendees would likely have had more serious cases, and so would naturally receive harsher sentances! I know the guilty/not guilty thing is pretty true - an initial guilty will get you a lighter punishment than a not guilty followed by a failed defence.
Click to expand...

We'll never know though, will we - unless there was a parallel universe where we could compare the two different outcomes ;) Surely anything else is assumption.
 
dirtydog said:
We'll never know though, will we - unless there was a parallel universe where we could compare the two different outcomes ;) Surely anything else is assumption.
Click to expand...
If I walk in and out of my wardrobe enough times, I think I'll get there.

I will speak to the magistrates and see what they say (about the turning up, not the wardrobe).

I'm thinking of it this way... I need to get a new suit, as my current one (and only one) is worn out. New suit at ~£300 is prolly going to be worse than any difference in fine from turning up or not :p

but I suppose I get a new suit effectively for free :\

the decisions!
 
Last edited:
i dont see how you have any chance at all if you plead not guilty . i mean what "is" your defence ? theres no excuse at all for 60 in a resedential area :/

just plead guilty and go to court in the worn suit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom