Question for vonhosen

[Major Bloodnok]

I put this in another thread, but, to avoid a threadjack, I've decided to make a new one.

In that other thread, you said:

vonhosen said:

[...]
Not that I agree with cold calling etc, but if they accept the conditional offer it isn't a crime they are being convicted of. The crime is discharged on taking the conditional offer & you are not guilty of a criminal offence. it's only if you go to court that you risk getting a criminal conviction.
[...]

Are you saying that, by accepting points on a licence as result of a conditional offer, that those points are not notifiable for five years under the Criminal Rehabilitation Act or whatever it's called, since there is no criminal offence involved?

If so, where does this leave someone's response to an insurance company's enquiry about motoring offences in the last five years? As I see it, if they ask about convictions, then you can honestly say "none". However, if they ask about "points on your licence", then they should only be allowed to ask for current points (i.e. for four years after the event, not five).

Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

[vonhosen]

Sec 52(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

FIXED PENALTY NOTICE
Means a notice offering the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of the offence to which the notice relates by payment of a fixed penalty in accordance with this Part of this Act.


Under Sec 58(1) though

Where a person's licence is endorsed under section 57 of this Act he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 13(4), 28, 29 and 45 of this Act and of the [1974 c. 53.] Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as if—

(a) he had been convicted of the offence,

(b) the endorsement had been made in pursuance of an order made on his conviction by a court under section 44 of this Act, and

(c) the particulars of the offence endorsed by virtue of section 57(5)(a) of this Act were particulars of his conviction of that offence.

(2) In relation to any endorsement of a person's licence under section 57 of this Act—

(a) the reference in section 45(4) of this Act to the order for endorsement, and

(b) the references in section 13(4) of this Act to any order made on a person's conviction,

are to be read as references to the endorsement itself.




It's not a conviction...........but it is.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st June 18:55

[MrsMiggins]

I'm a bit unclear on all this too. How do you risk getting a criminal conviction by going to court? What's the difference between getting done in court for 36 in a 30 or accepting a FP for 36 in a 30, for example?

[vonhosen]

MrsMiggins said:

I'm a bit unclear on all this too. How do you risk getting a criminal conviction by going to court? What's the difference between getting done in court for 36 in a 30 or accepting a FP for 36 in a 30, for example?

Well strictly speaking you can only get a criminal conviction in court, a FPN isn't one because you have accepted the conditional offer not to be prosecuted for the crime.

But if you commit an endorseable offence, whilst it isn't really a criminal conviction (even though it was a criminal offence you were given the FPN for), it will still come under the rehabilitation of offenders act & as such must be disclosed to insurance companies etc for 5 years, just as if you had been convicted of it in a court.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st June 19:26

[Major Bloodnok]

Thanks for the reply...

So what's the point of the distinction, then?

[vonhosen]

Major Bloodnok said:

Thanks for the reply...

So what's the point of the distinction, then?

I was merely being accurate in reply to another, by saying that a FPN isn't a conviction.

As far as informing your insurance company Re an endorseable FPN is concerned, you have to because of Sec 58(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, despite it not strictly being a conviction.
(I didn't mention anything about not having to do that in my original post)

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st June 19:34

[7db]

Incidentally, points on your licence are an ancillary order to the sentence if you *are* convicted (and as such are not available for discount for early guilty plea)

[Major Bloodnok]

vonhosen said:

Major Bloodnok said:

Thanks for the reply...

So what's the point of the distinction, then?

I was merely being accurate in reply to another, by saying that a FPN isn't a conviction.

As far as informing your insurance company Re an endorseable FPN is concerned, you have to because of Sec 58(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, despite it not strictly being a conviction.
(I didn't mention anything about not having to do that in my original post)

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st June 19:34

I didn't say you did. I was intrigued by the statement, and simply wanted more information, especially in its effects. Given that there seems to be no difference, I was then puzzled as to why such a distinction should be made.