dozy:
1 been told I have to attend magistrates court , understand that bit , but it says in letter , charge authorised for the Secretary of State for the department for transport by chermaine perks , of the driver & vechicle standards agency , prosecution & legal services , 3rd floor , Berkeley house , Croydon street , Bristol , bs 5 0da
So will I be going before a judge / traffic commisisioner , who ?
Magistrate.
The traffic commissioner is the person bringing the charges against you.
dozy:
Charges are , you knowingly made a revelant record or entry which you knew to be false on a record required to be made by or for the purposes of the eu tacho graph regulations or section 97 of the transport act 1968 contrary to section 99ze ( 1) (a) , (2) (a) and ( 4 ) of the transport act 1968
Arrest summons number -------------------------
I know what I did but what does all that mean 1,2,4 a, arrest summons
The numbers 1a, 2a and 4 are the parts of the Transport Act 1968, section 99ze, which you contravened, in legaleze.
If you don’t answer the summons, ie appear in court at the appointed time, they’ll have you arrested.
I don’t know much about this kind of thing, I’ve never been called up before a court.
dozy:
Also says at least one of the requisitions issued against you is for what is called a ( either way offence )
This means that the offence can be dealt with by either a magistrates court or the crown court
In this instance you are summoned to appear before a magistrates court and you must attend court and to enter your plea in person
Should you fail to do so the prosecution may ask the court to issue a warrant for your arrest
Almost everything goes to a magistrates court first. The magistrate might deal with it, or they might decide it’s too much for their authority to deal with and pass it up to Crown Court.
I’d expect a traffic type of offence would be within the scope of a Magistrate.
dozy:
So is that better it’s before a magistrates court , not crown ?
Probably, magistrates are limited on what sentence they can award.
dozy:
, Mrs is having kittens and wants to get a solicitor ( I’m more just speak for yourself ) , im not sure of outcome so don’t want Mrs to come ( it’s nearly 200 miles home on her own worst scenario ) but she wants to be there .
Nb been to court many a time when younger and never got all this as was normally dragged up from cells on a Monday , fighting , drunk etc , so I’m struggling a bit too understand what all this means , which is why Mrs want to let a solicitor take a look
Thanks
You didn’t get all this back then because they didn’t need to tell you to come before the court, they dragged you out of the cells and put you in front of the court, job done.
As you don’t know what “The numbers 1a, 2a and 4 are the parts of the Transport Act 1968, section 99ze, which you contravened” means, I’d speak to a solicitor first if I were you. There are solicitors who specialise in transport law, find one of those. Often they will give you their first half hour free of charge (but don’t count on that, it may only apply to more general enquiries).
It’s unlikely, but possible, that they’ve charged you with the wrong parts of the transport act. A solicitor who knows the transport act would have the charges dropped if they are the wrong ones, you’d be out scot free. Speaking for yourself, you’ll either say “I put me 'ands up gov, they got me bang to rights, I done it”. Take whatever they hand down to you n get on with it.
Or “not guilty gov” and get dumped on even worse if they find you guilty.
A solicitor should be able to predict what you are likely to get. Fine, points, licence suspended or revoked, or whatever. Or time in the nick, or not.
As you think there might be time in nick, I’d get a professional in. A fine, points, I’d just go on my own. Longer term consequences like loss of licence or liberty, solicitor.
If you’re in a union, they can advise you as well, and may be able to give you a solicitor.