Guilty By Post
Discussion
Got done in a very similar way and exactly the same fine and points - 76 in a temporary 40, on a three lane A road at 2:30am in the morning coming back from work.
The limit went from a 50 to a 40, and then back to a 70 limit within approx 400 yards! I never saw the 40 sign (the road split either side of bridge, which is why the limit temporarily dropped), but had seen the NSL sign up ahead - so I put my foot down to go from 50 to 70 and FLASH!
Pleaded guilty and didnt appeal as didn't think it was worth it - to be honest even though I was not happy with the situation as the road was empty and it would have been safe to drive at least at 70 - I was just happy to have kept my licence. Didn't want an excuse for them to up costs, fine or even ban etc.........
The limit went from a 50 to a 40, and then back to a 70 limit within approx 400 yards! I never saw the 40 sign (the road split either side of bridge, which is why the limit temporarily dropped), but had seen the NSL sign up ahead - so I put my foot down to go from 50 to 70 and FLASH!
Pleaded guilty and didnt appeal as didn't think it was worth it - to be honest even though I was not happy with the situation as the road was empty and it would have been safe to drive at least at 70 - I was just happy to have kept my licence. Didn't want an excuse for them to up costs, fine or even ban etc.........
I dont rate your chances of appeal unfortunately.
The magistrates have to work on a 3-6 point scale. Only think above that is a ban. For a few mph more, at 60 I would have thought a ban would be likely as that would be double the limit.
When I was convicted for 92 in a 70 I was also given six points, and 22mph over the limit in a 70 is a much smaller ratio than 22 over the limit in a 30...
I contested the whole case as I pleaded not guilty in the first place. My solicitor said that it probably wasnt worth pleading against sentence as you only have grounds for a case if it is 'grossly' too high, for example if you got a six month ban. When I heard about your case my gut reaction was at least 5 points, so I dont think it is hugely out of pace with other similar bans. My solicitor did a good job of mitigating the case down to 4 points, but as I said before the ratio of 20mph over the limit at 70 is way smaller than 30 so I dont think you may be as lucky. Regardless of that, at a guess you will still be looking at 5 points and if you are very lucky 4 with a great solicitor.
In a sense its how much you want to 'buy back' your points by paying a solicitor.
The magistrates have to work on a 3-6 point scale. Only think above that is a ban. For a few mph more, at 60 I would have thought a ban would be likely as that would be double the limit.
When I was convicted for 92 in a 70 I was also given six points, and 22mph over the limit in a 70 is a much smaller ratio than 22 over the limit in a 30...
I contested the whole case as I pleaded not guilty in the first place. My solicitor said that it probably wasnt worth pleading against sentence as you only have grounds for a case if it is 'grossly' too high, for example if you got a six month ban. When I heard about your case my gut reaction was at least 5 points, so I dont think it is hugely out of pace with other similar bans. My solicitor did a good job of mitigating the case down to 4 points, but as I said before the ratio of 20mph over the limit at 70 is way smaller than 30 so I dont think you may be as lucky. Regardless of that, at a guess you will still be looking at 5 points and if you are very lucky 4 with a great solicitor.
In a sense its how much you want to 'buy back' your points by paying a solicitor.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Okay, I guess I'll have to do it tomorrow.
If it's bad can I appeal?
You can only appeal on the sentence aspect and which should be lodged with Mags Clerks within 21 days of case at Mags Crt.
By pleading Guilty you forfiet the right to appeal on conviction.
dvd
Sorry to disagree DVD but there is case law that you can appeal against conviction after a guilty plea. Grounds could be wrong legal advice or mistake as to fact.
For example, you are accused of operating TV set without a licence. You plead guilty and then discover that your wife had bought one prior to the date of alleged offence.
Wouldn't you just know it Kenp, these legal types always tie you up with guff. Stones only says for a G appeal against sentence only, which makes sense as guilt accepted and therefore acceptance of conviction. Also Section 108 Mags Court Act 1980 outlines same - appeal only for sentence without any reference to what you say. No references to any case law.
But there again you confirm what I have always thought that somewhere there is always a case to contradict and which is why briefs have nice houses, wives, cars and silver napkins........
Yes but no but no but was the case you mentioned a pukka appeal and not an application for Mags to alter a sentence and have the fine remitted. I gather there are various provisions for this to be done. One Act quoted (blows off dust and debris) Remission of Penalties Act 1859 Section 1 ?
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 21st October 08:06
But there again you confirm what I have always thought that somewhere there is always a case to contradict and which is why briefs have nice houses, wives, cars and silver napkins........
Yes but no but no but was the case you mentioned a pukka appeal and not an application for Mags to alter a sentence and have the fine remitted. I gather there are various provisions for this to be done. One Act quoted (blows off dust and debris) Remission of Penalties Act 1859 Section 1 ?
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 21st October 08:06
Remission of penalties Act sounds a bit like a pardon i.e you don't suffer the consequences of the conviction, but the conviction still stands.
Don't have Archbold at hand, but I remember reading some case law at the beginning of the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968, which specifically held that an appeal against conviction could be heard after a guilty plea even if the Act made no specific mention of it.
Typical case would be were 'A' pleads guilty on advice of counsel (based on existing case law) and subsequently HoL holds in similar case that 'B' is not guilty in law. There were a few such cases ragrding 'reasonable belief in consent' in rape cases, before the law was changed.
Since HoL decision means that their interpretation of the law is as it has been 'since time immemorial', 'As' conviction can't really stand and a pardon is not an appropriate remedy (see above).
Don't have Archbold at hand, but I remember reading some case law at the beginning of the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968, which specifically held that an appeal against conviction could be heard after a guilty plea even if the Act made no specific mention of it.
Typical case would be were 'A' pleads guilty on advice of counsel (based on existing case law) and subsequently HoL holds in similar case that 'B' is not guilty in law. There were a few such cases ragrding 'reasonable belief in consent' in rape cases, before the law was changed.
Since HoL decision means that their interpretation of the law is as it has been 'since time immemorial', 'As' conviction can't really stand and a pardon is not an appropriate remedy (see above).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff