Magistrates' Court - speeding - a real world example
Discussion
Whilst waiting in court this morning, I made some notes on another speeding case - with an unrepresented defendant. I'm posting this as an example of what to expect if you go alone to a magistrates' court for a minor motoring offence. The notes are an almost verbatim account of the proceedings. This isn't the best example of a plea in mitigation (far from it!) but it's simply an example of what is to some a mysterious process.
Whilst the photograph is not of a real courtroom, it's a fairly accurate picture of a modern court. There are typically three magistrates - the one in the middle is the chairman. They have a clerk (who is a legal qualified 'legal adviser') and an usher (the only person to wear court attire). In this photograph, there is a prosecution solicitor (in a grey suit) and a defence solicitor sitting next to him. The defendant is the person taking the photo. In the example case, there isn't a prosecutor - so the clerk performs his role.
[The usher brings the defendant into court and the case begins.]
CLERK: Do you have a means form and your driving licence?
DEFENDANT: I do. [documents handed in]
CLERK: Is it Mr Smith?
DEFENDANT: Yes
CLERK: What is your address?
DEFENDANT: [address given]
CLERK: What is your date of birth?
DEFENDANT: [D.O.B. given]
CLERK: You appear for one matter. If you plead guilty then the court will reduce your sentence to reflect that. If you plead not guilty then your trial will need to be fixed. If you are found guilty at trial then your sentence will not be reduced.
CLERK: There is one matter, on [date] you drove a motor vehicle, on a motorway, namely the A1(M) at a speed exceeding 70 miles per hour Are you guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT: Guilty
CHAIRMAN: Sit down Mr Smith and listen carefully to what's being said.
CLERK: There is a statement from PC Bloggs. "At (time) on (date) I was on duty at (place) engaged in speed detection duties operating the hand held laser device ... The road is subject to a maximum speed limit of 70 m.p.h. At this time the weather conditions were fine and dry with good visibility and the road surface was dry. The volume of traffic was light ... The digital readout indicated a speed of 101 m.p.h. I caused the vehicle to stop ... I cautioned and informed the driver that he would be reported ... He did not reply. A written N.I.P. was served on the driver." Sir, there is an application for £85 costs.
CHAIRMAN: Stand up Mr Smith, would you like to tell us the circumstances of the offence?
DEFENDANT: I didn't know I was speeding. I drive responsibly every day. I'm usually a careful driver. I have a letter from work. [Letter handed in]
CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you wish to tell us?
DEFENDANT: No.
CHAIRMAN: Sit down Mr Smith
[Magistrates discuss the case for a few moments]
CHAIRMAN: Stand up Mr Smith. You have appeared in court for one offence of speeding. We have heard about the excessive speed. You shouldn't be driving at that speed. We take into account what you've said and the letter from your employer. We have regard to the impact on others. For this offence, you will be fined £240, there are costs of £85 and a surcharge of £20. A total of £345. How can this be paid?
DEFENDANT: Not today.
CHAIRMAN: We formally give you 28 days to pay. We make a Collection Order. This means our fines collection officer can take action. If you do not pay then you can be sent to prison. Before you leave you will be given a leaflet about payment. Regarding your licence, we have carefully considered everything. We will not disqualify from from driving but your licence will be endorsed with six penalty points. These will remain for three years. If you get 12 points then you will be what's called a 'totter' and you will be back here again. Do you understand?
DEFENDANT. Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: You may leave.
Whilst the photograph is not of a real courtroom, it's a fairly accurate picture of a modern court. There are typically three magistrates - the one in the middle is the chairman. They have a clerk (who is a legal qualified 'legal adviser') and an usher (the only person to wear court attire). In this photograph, there is a prosecution solicitor (in a grey suit) and a defence solicitor sitting next to him. The defendant is the person taking the photo. In the example case, there isn't a prosecutor - so the clerk performs his role.
[The usher brings the defendant into court and the case begins.]
CLERK: Do you have a means form and your driving licence?
DEFENDANT: I do. [documents handed in]
CLERK: Is it Mr Smith?
DEFENDANT: Yes
CLERK: What is your address?
DEFENDANT: [address given]
CLERK: What is your date of birth?
DEFENDANT: [D.O.B. given]
CLERK: You appear for one matter. If you plead guilty then the court will reduce your sentence to reflect that. If you plead not guilty then your trial will need to be fixed. If you are found guilty at trial then your sentence will not be reduced.
CLERK: There is one matter, on [date] you drove a motor vehicle, on a motorway, namely the A1(M) at a speed exceeding 70 miles per hour Are you guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT: Guilty
CHAIRMAN: Sit down Mr Smith and listen carefully to what's being said.
CLERK: There is a statement from PC Bloggs. "At (time) on (date) I was on duty at (place) engaged in speed detection duties operating the hand held laser device ... The road is subject to a maximum speed limit of 70 m.p.h. At this time the weather conditions were fine and dry with good visibility and the road surface was dry. The volume of traffic was light ... The digital readout indicated a speed of 101 m.p.h. I caused the vehicle to stop ... I cautioned and informed the driver that he would be reported ... He did not reply. A written N.I.P. was served on the driver." Sir, there is an application for £85 costs.
CHAIRMAN: Stand up Mr Smith, would you like to tell us the circumstances of the offence?
DEFENDANT: I didn't know I was speeding. I drive responsibly every day. I'm usually a careful driver. I have a letter from work. [Letter handed in]
CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you wish to tell us?
DEFENDANT: No.
CHAIRMAN: Sit down Mr Smith
[Magistrates discuss the case for a few moments]
CHAIRMAN: Stand up Mr Smith. You have appeared in court for one offence of speeding. We have heard about the excessive speed. You shouldn't be driving at that speed. We take into account what you've said and the letter from your employer. We have regard to the impact on others. For this offence, you will be fined £240, there are costs of £85 and a surcharge of £20. A total of £345. How can this be paid?
DEFENDANT: Not today.
CHAIRMAN: We formally give you 28 days to pay. We make a Collection Order. This means our fines collection officer can take action. If you do not pay then you can be sent to prison. Before you leave you will be given a leaflet about payment. Regarding your licence, we have carefully considered everything. We will not disqualify from from driving but your licence will be endorsed with six penalty points. These will remain for three years. If you get 12 points then you will be what's called a 'totter' and you will be back here again. Do you understand?
DEFENDANT. Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: You may leave.
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 3rd June 11:18
Thanks for this. I’m in a similar position, although I wasn’t driving that fast. I’m going to opt to plead guilty by post and fill in their paperwork now (court hearing is end of March). I will complete the mitigating circumstances form and write my bit. Should I have a letter from my employer? What would be the advantage? To confirm that I need to drive as part of my job?
Nothing changes does it? I did jury service years ago and between cases I sat in the gallery of the magistrates' court. None of the cases I heard presented were anything other than simply processed. It seemed that whatever was said in mitigation, none of the accused were found not guilty, but the punishment might be a suspended sentence - effectively set free but with a record. Is anyone ever found not guilty by a magistrates' bench?
One particular case featured a middle aged lady on shoplifting charges who had a very believable explanation for why a joint of meat was found in her shopping bag; a clear case of reasonable doubt. However she was found guilty anyway. I am sure, having been a juror, that a jury (especially a jury on its first case) would have found her not guilty.
One particular case featured a middle aged lady on shoplifting charges who had a very believable explanation for why a joint of meat was found in her shopping bag; a clear case of reasonable doubt. However she was found guilty anyway. I am sure, having been a juror, that a jury (especially a jury on its first case) would have found her not guilty.
"I didn't know I was speeding" is a great opening gambit after a statement alleging a speed of 3 figures.
Can't help but think there would've been a different outcome had the defendant prostrated himself before the court. As it is he basically gave a perfunctory statement and in so doing gave the impression that he'd only turned up because he was required to (because a ban was being considered). That's hardly likely to enamour him to the Mags.
Can't help but think there would've been a different outcome had the defendant prostrated himself before the court. As it is he basically gave a perfunctory statement and in so doing gave the impression that he'd only turned up because he was required to (because a ban was being considered). That's hardly likely to enamour him to the Mags.
singlecoil said:
LouD86 said:
Wow, and to think for 98 on a 70mph motorway, at 3am, I plead guilty, with a clean licence, and was given a £640 fine, plus costs!! This is when justice takes the piss
Perhaps you've got greater means than the defendant in this case?LouD86 said:
Wow, and to think for 98 on a 70mph motorway, at 3am, I plead guilty, with a clean licence, and was given a £640 fine, plus costs!! This is when justice takes the piss
I would say the justice system was taking the piss if fines were not varied to reflect a persons income. I really can't imagine claiming that you didn't realise you were speeding is a good way to go. Do you think the defendant could have got off more lightly if he had said something different or does it really not make much difference unless you say something outrageous?
Edited by Dark85 on Wednesday 21st January 16:20
agtlaw said:
How can this be paid?
DEFENDANT: Not today.
CHAIRMAN: We formally give you 28 days to pay. We make a Collection Order. This means our fines collection officer can take action. If you do not pay then you can be sent to prison. Before you leave you will be given a leaflet about payment. Regarding your licence, we have carefully considered everything. We will not disqualify from from driving but your licence will be endorsed with six penalty points. These will remain for three years. If you get 12 points then you will be what's called a 'totter' and you will
I went in for minor speeding and got a fine. DEFENDANT: Not today.
CHAIRMAN: We formally give you 28 days to pay. We make a Collection Order. This means our fines collection officer can take action. If you do not pay then you can be sent to prison. Before you leave you will be given a leaflet about payment. Regarding your licence, we have carefully considered everything. We will not disqualify from from driving but your licence will be endorsed with six penalty points. These will remain for three years. If you get 12 points then you will be what's called a 'totter' and you will
What struck me the most, was that the only thing that they seemed bothered about was the money. I was asked if I could pay today, I assumed a bill would arrive through the post for it so said would pay in a week. They then again asked about paying it today- they were practically pleading for it
I said sure as seemed like they needed the cash to pay the leccy bills or something. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff