Points and multiple offences

[krakers]

Hi - I wonder if you can help.

I was pulled over the other day for excessive speed, and the officer issued me with an endorsable FPN plus �60 fine. I was also given a notice to produce documents.

When I got home I couldn't find my insurance documents. I called my company and asked for a copy of my docs. They told me that my policy had lapsed last year. To cut a long story short (I spent over 2 hours on the phone with them) because my card details had changed and I hadn't given them an alternate I was uninsured.

While I instantly reinsured myself, as I've been insured continually for the last 12 years, at the time of the offence I wasn't. I have yet to produce my documents, but the problem is as follows :

I already have 3 points on my license. The FPN for this offence adds 3 points. I believe I could get another FPN for no insurance (�200 fine + 6 points ?) or 6-8 points + fine in front of a judge.

If I get 12 points I'm banned. Now - I just read in another thread http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Questi on229632.html that you can't get 2 lots of points for offences comitted at the same time. Is this correct ? If so should I not accept the FPN and ask to go before a judge ?

Also, I've been told that whether or not I'm prosecuted is up to the Officer that stopped me. How likely (and I know this is really subjective, but ....) is he to be lenient in view that it was a lapse on my behalf, he's already issued an FPN, I'm now insured again, and always have been previously ?

Hope someone can help.

[Toureman]

If you were stopped for having 4 bald tyres you would be issued a FPN for each tyre meaning you would get 12 points and a ban!

You have been a bit silly over your insurance and I think you will recieve the full punishment, prosocutions are up to the crown prosocution services, very little to do with individual policemen.

[kilo 1 9]

This isn't quite right. FPNs are issued for a single (and normally minor) offence; if you were found to have 4 bald tyres you would be dealt with by way of a court summons, as this constitutes multiple offfences and a more serious matter.

Also, if you are given an FPN, and an insurance offence later becomes apparent as a result of that FPN, the FPN would essentially be cancelled and all offences would revert to summons (i.e. you would find yourself in front of a judge for both the excess speed and insurance matters). A second FPN would not be issued "retrospectively".

However, if your insurance company have cancelled your policy and neglected to inform you, the failing is theirs, not yours. Unless there are additional factors you haven't mentioned here, in my experience they are obliged to honour that policy. If I was in your position, I would at this point be making a serious noise on the phone to my insurers!

[BillyNoMates]

Come on - you are seriously trying to pass the blame on to your insurance company ?

If you are responsible enough to possess a driving licence then you are responsible enough to ensure that you are insured at all times.

I suspect the document check is either routine or that the Officer has suspicions via a DVLA & MIB check at the time or even your reaction to being pulled.

Either way it is very likely that you will be before a Magistrate - this is a 'fashionable' case for the CPS and you are basically doing half of their work them when you fail to produce the required documents.

Get a good brief, be honest and take the inevitable rap and learn from it.

[krakers]

Thanks for all your answers - OK so it looks like I'm going to go before a judge. I can prove exceptional hardship, so I suppose theres a chance I'll keep my license.

I did kick up a stink at my insurance company. Apparantly they sent me a letter and are sending me a duplicate copy.

BillyNoMates - "Blame" my insurance company ? No. Hold them culpable, yes. I'd been insured by them for the last 5 years. I own my own house, a business and rent a second property out. I hold buildings and contents insurance on both properties as well as my business address, I hold public indemnity, public liability, personal indemnity, employers liability, life cover and health cover for all my family. I have been insured consistantly on my car since I passed my test 18 years ago. My point being I am not one to knowingly go without insurance.

I've obviously dropped a big clanger here, and will face the music. I was just hoping to avoid a ban as I've managed to go from a speeding offence to possibly being without my license for 6 months.

I'll keep you all updated.

[JudgeJ]

Bit busy at the moment, krakers. I'll give you the full low-down tomorrow or Monday.

[JudgeJ]

As has been suggested, krakers, the conditional FPN will almost certainly be withdrawn when it is established that you were also uninsured. You will be asked to appear before magistrates (not a judge). The most likely outcome is a fine and your licence endorsed with six penalty points for no insurance, and a fine and your licence endorsed (but with no additional points) for speeding.

The principle behind this sentencing practice lies in what is known as �sentencing in totality� for a number of related offences. A good (non-motoring) example of this is burglary. There are separate offences of burglary and going equipped to steal. Somebody caught committing a burglary is very likely also to have gone equipped to steal. However, he will only be sentenced for the more serious offence because the two offences are connected, the more serious following on from the minor offence. The totality of the offence is �committing burglary�.

Moving to motoring, there are separate offences of no insurance and failing to produce an insurance certificate. Somebody who had no insurance would not be punished for failing to produce. Again, the major offence follows on from the minor and in any case one cannot produce what one does not have. This time the totality is �No Insurance�. (Answer continues)

[JudgeJ]

(Continued)

This principle has been extended (inappropriately, in my view) to other motoring offences. The most usual trilogy of motoring offences charged is no licence, no insurance and no MoT. Offenders on these charges are sentenced (at least in terms of points) with the most serious only � no insurance. Additional points are not added for the other two (no MoT carries no points anyway). The view is that the totality of the crime this time is �driving a vehicle�.

It is quite right that worn tyres attract three points for each one and that you can be banned under the �totting up� rules for having four worn tyres in one go. This offence was actually ruled to be a specific exception to this principle by a higher court, for reasons which are too lengthy to go into here.

As I said, I think this principle is inappropriate when applied to many multiple driving offences. It is almost as if offenders are being granted a discount for offending in bulk. There is no necessary connection between driving without insurance and speeding and my view is that they should attract the individual points as appropriate. Strangely, offenders will still usually be fined for each individual offence; it is only the points which are affected in this way.

So count yourself lucky. Go to court and plead guilty (this will discount your fines by one third), explain the circumstances and hope the magistrates are in a good mood!

[krakers]

Thank you all for your replies, and especially to JudgeJ for taking the time and effort to clarify the case.

There has been a development since my last post, but I need to confirm a few points before posting again.

Cheers