>Cases are decided based on written evidence alone, with no prosecutor present to see the mitigation and other correspondence sent in by the defendant.
>The design of the fast-track process means prosecutors are unable to review new evidence that has come to light, or take a decision to withdraw a case that is no longer in the public interest.
That’s not horrifying at all, is it?
TurbulentBullfrog829 on
“I am now helping her with her paperwork as we (the family) did not know it had got to the stage where she can’t cope” according to the niece.
Not the most reassuring defence for a driver
callsignhotdog on
For the record this is why when you take out insurance they keep banging on at you to review your documentation and make sure all info is accurate. They won’t take liability if you made a mistake.
They SHOULD take responsibility if they made a mistake but if you let the mistake go unnoticed long enough they might still have a way to wriggle out.
On_The_Blindside on
I mean, should she still be driving at this point? If you can’t do the paperwork required to drive, there’s a real question if you maintain the relevant skills to drive at all.
Jared_Usbourne on
£26 fine and a conditional discharge, for technically driving without insurance.
>Her niece also sent in a letter, explaining: “All the paperwork for insurance has been found to be one letter incorrect. No-one had picked up on this.
>”I am now helping her with her paperwork as we (the family) did not know it had got to the stage where she can’t cope.
Not to be unsympathetic, but I’m pretty sure they tell you multiple times to confirm you’ve got the correct details, and millions of OAPs manage this without issue. If she can’t cope with that should she really be driving…
endangerednigel on
>we cant expect an 86 year old woman to check the spelling on her paperwork
>but im sure shes fine controlling a 70mph 1.5 ton vehicle
duckwantbread on
> In the pensioner’s case, David Pollard, a magistrate sitting at Teesside Magistrates’ Court, opted to accept the written guilty plea and impose a conviction, rather than asking the DVLA to do further checks on the public interest in the prosecution.
The article seems to be blaming this fast track system for her conviction, but this paragraph seems to say that she pled guilty? If so would a standard court really have done anything differently?
Dangerous-Regret-358 on
The Single Justice Procedure has reduced justice to little more than a technical procedure, and has done so in a way that, actually, removed justice from the process. The result? No justice at all.
I’m all for efficiency in the administration of justice and the SJP generally works OK – but there does need to be some ‘escape valve’ so that these sorts of issues are taken into account
Suitable-Tough5877 on
>She was handed a three-month conditional discharge instead of a fine, but also ordered to pay a £26 victim surcharge.
She’s been charged the admin cost of correcting it and told not to do it again (in the next three months anyway). Not sure why it’s even discussed on Reddit let alone merits an article on BBC news.
lankyno8 on
Womens pleads guilty to something she is guilty of. System recognises the minimal nature of her fault and discharges her with a £26 fine.
Given some of the massive failings we’ve seen in the justice system down the decades I’m not sure this is one tbh.
Original_Bad_3416 on
Hmm, if her eye sight is that bad to mistake an F for S should she even be driving?
She had a free bus pass.
Ochib on
Unfortunately lack of car insurance is a strict liability offence (meaning intent doesn’t matter) and there must be a car of that with that registration for the insurance to go through on the insurance company system
Lukeno94 on
If this woman had crashed into someone else and written their car off, they’d have been in a complete mess because this woman was uninsured. If she is no longer capable of handling the most basic paperwork for driving, as her own family implies – then she should not be driving. She got off very, very lightly.
Wrathuk on
Not sure why this warrants a BBC news article. A woman who insures the wrong car by mistake gets a slap on the wrist.
It seems like a genuine mistake, but it’s a strict liability offense, so them not issuing a fine is the least they could probably do.
High-Tom-Titty on
I’m surprised the insurance didn’t flag the plate didn’t match the car.
According_Dare7316 on
Obviously she shouldn’t have been convicted, buuuut if her eyesight is so poor she makes a typo and doesn’t spot it in any of the subsequent correspondence, then she shouldn’t be driving either.
ambiguousboner on
Feel like her family aren’t helping here with the arguments about her frailty and age being the reason for the mistake, instead of it just being a normal mistake that could happen to anyone
0Bento on
Glad to see the English justice system is once again keeping us all safe.
johnny5247 on
Hmm. It’ll be ai judges next! But maybe we need more ai redditors. They see 86 and move straight to whipping her license away.
explax on
Remove the requirement to have car insurance, make third party injury insurance part of the car tax. Insure your own property from damage and your own third party liability yourself.
Calm-Homework3161 on
I’m pretty sure that, when you type in your car reg. no. it comes up as saying “that’s a <make> <model> right?”.
So, did she coincidentally pick the reg of a car of the same make/model or did she not notice she was insuring a completely different car?
limeflavoured on
The Single Justice System is bunk and needs to be scrapped. Just give people fixed penalty notices and let them contest them through the courts as usual.
Salaried_Zebra on
Ex cop here. I once caught a guy who was showing no insurance, but he produced a policy document with one digit different.
Needless to say I didn’t report him because I could see it was an easy mistake to make, especially over the phone (e sounds like c sounds like g sounds like d sounds like t etc). Just gave him a producer to show it was corrected within 7days. He did so.
Because that’s the proportionate thing to do. Fixes the error, ensures the error is fixed, doesn’t criminalise someone acting in good faith.
Ok-Inflation4310 on
She’s now going to have to declare a driving without insurance conviction when she next applies for insurance.
At 86 she may well decide to give up driving but for anyone younger it could work out extremely expensive.
ImpressiveRest2423 on
I can’t believe they got a picture of her in the act.
audigex on
SJPs are a fucking disgrace
They absolutely just exist as a cost cutting measure and we should genuinely be embarrassed about having sold out our justice system so badly
26 commenti
>Cases are decided based on written evidence alone, with no prosecutor present to see the mitigation and other correspondence sent in by the defendant.
>The design of the fast-track process means prosecutors are unable to review new evidence that has come to light, or take a decision to withdraw a case that is no longer in the public interest.
That’s not horrifying at all, is it?
“I am now helping her with her paperwork as we (the family) did not know it had got to the stage where she can’t cope” according to the niece.
Not the most reassuring defence for a driver
For the record this is why when you take out insurance they keep banging on at you to review your documentation and make sure all info is accurate. They won’t take liability if you made a mistake.
They SHOULD take responsibility if they made a mistake but if you let the mistake go unnoticed long enough they might still have a way to wriggle out.
I mean, should she still be driving at this point? If you can’t do the paperwork required to drive, there’s a real question if you maintain the relevant skills to drive at all.
£26 fine and a conditional discharge, for technically driving without insurance.
>Her niece also sent in a letter, explaining: “All the paperwork for insurance has been found to be one letter incorrect. No-one had picked up on this.
>”I am now helping her with her paperwork as we (the family) did not know it had got to the stage where she can’t cope.
Not to be unsympathetic, but I’m pretty sure they tell you multiple times to confirm you’ve got the correct details, and millions of OAPs manage this without issue. If she can’t cope with that should she really be driving…
>we cant expect an 86 year old woman to check the spelling on her paperwork
>but im sure shes fine controlling a 70mph 1.5 ton vehicle
> In the pensioner’s case, David Pollard, a magistrate sitting at Teesside Magistrates’ Court, opted to accept the written guilty plea and impose a conviction, rather than asking the DVLA to do further checks on the public interest in the prosecution.
The article seems to be blaming this fast track system for her conviction, but this paragraph seems to say that she pled guilty? If so would a standard court really have done anything differently?
The Single Justice Procedure has reduced justice to little more than a technical procedure, and has done so in a way that, actually, removed justice from the process. The result? No justice at all.
I’m all for efficiency in the administration of justice and the SJP generally works OK – but there does need to be some ‘escape valve’ so that these sorts of issues are taken into account
>She was handed a three-month conditional discharge instead of a fine, but also ordered to pay a £26 victim surcharge.
She’s been charged the admin cost of correcting it and told not to do it again (in the next three months anyway). Not sure why it’s even discussed on Reddit let alone merits an article on BBC news.
Womens pleads guilty to something she is guilty of. System recognises the minimal nature of her fault and discharges her with a £26 fine.
Given some of the massive failings we’ve seen in the justice system down the decades I’m not sure this is one tbh.
Hmm, if her eye sight is that bad to mistake an F for S should she even be driving?
She had a free bus pass.
Unfortunately lack of car insurance is a strict liability offence (meaning intent doesn’t matter) and there must be a car of that with that registration for the insurance to go through on the insurance company system
If this woman had crashed into someone else and written their car off, they’d have been in a complete mess because this woman was uninsured. If she is no longer capable of handling the most basic paperwork for driving, as her own family implies – then she should not be driving. She got off very, very lightly.
Not sure why this warrants a BBC news article. A woman who insures the wrong car by mistake gets a slap on the wrist.
It seems like a genuine mistake, but it’s a strict liability offense, so them not issuing a fine is the least they could probably do.
I’m surprised the insurance didn’t flag the plate didn’t match the car.
Obviously she shouldn’t have been convicted, buuuut if her eyesight is so poor she makes a typo and doesn’t spot it in any of the subsequent correspondence, then she shouldn’t be driving either.
Feel like her family aren’t helping here with the arguments about her frailty and age being the reason for the mistake, instead of it just being a normal mistake that could happen to anyone
Glad to see the English justice system is once again keeping us all safe.
Hmm. It’ll be ai judges next! But maybe we need more ai redditors. They see 86 and move straight to whipping her license away.
Remove the requirement to have car insurance, make third party injury insurance part of the car tax. Insure your own property from damage and your own third party liability yourself.
I’m pretty sure that, when you type in your car reg. no. it comes up as saying “that’s a <make> <model> right?”.
So, did she coincidentally pick the reg of a car of the same make/model or did she not notice she was insuring a completely different car?
The Single Justice System is bunk and needs to be scrapped. Just give people fixed penalty notices and let them contest them through the courts as usual.
Ex cop here. I once caught a guy who was showing no insurance, but he produced a policy document with one digit different.
Needless to say I didn’t report him because I could see it was an easy mistake to make, especially over the phone (e sounds like c sounds like g sounds like d sounds like t etc). Just gave him a producer to show it was corrected within 7days. He did so.
Because that’s the proportionate thing to do. Fixes the error, ensures the error is fixed, doesn’t criminalise someone acting in good faith.
She’s now going to have to declare a driving without insurance conviction when she next applies for insurance.
At 86 she may well decide to give up driving but for anyone younger it could work out extremely expensive.
I can’t believe they got a picture of her in the act.
SJPs are a fucking disgrace
They absolutely just exist as a cost cutting measure and we should genuinely be embarrassed about having sold out our justice system so badly