Statutory Declaration?

[Geronimo]

Semi-hypothetical, informed by a case from another forum.

Someone gets caught, possibly innocent (UPFN?), possibly a byelaw type thing at worst, your £80 out-of-court bread and butter. Then moves houses, without redirection. The prosecution department escalate things, keep contacting the old address, then goes to prosecution under RoRA. The court then manages to contact that person in their new place, a couple of days before the hearing.
Now the interesting bit. Person panics, get some atrocious advice at or before the hearing (unclear by who) "Much less hassle to plead guilty, much cheaper fine, only one year on record, etc...". Person pleads guilty :roll:
Partner asks on forum, (very poor signal to noise ratio), a few people mentions statutory declaration. But is it too late for that having pleaded guilty, or is there a mechanism to reverse that? Can a statutory declaration cover ignorance and misinformation?

Thanks

PS: I have suggested to the partner to ask here where the quality of advice would be much higher. It was extremely low on that other forum, railway knowledge was very poor, not stopping opinionated posts naturally (noone mentioned CCTV though )

 

[cuccir]

This is more legal-related than rail-related really: a statutory declaration is a legal mechanism outside of rail related law.

However, my understanding is no, a statutory declaration does not cover bad advice. It is only applicable where a convicted person has had no knowledge of a conviction occurring against them.

 

[najaB]

Can a statutory declaration cover ignorance and misinformation?

Yes and no. A statutory declaration is just a way of saying "The following is true to the best of my knowledge and you can jail me if it turns out I am lying."

So they could make a statutory declaration that they had bad advice, but it is very unlikely that it would make one blind bit of difference, any more than me making a statutory declaration of undying love for Freema Agyeman (still say that Martha was the best... companion... *ever*) is likely to do me any good.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Not sure the scenario makes sense.

Why would the court contact the defendant a couple of days before the court case? And how would the court know the new address where the rail company didn't?

And I don't believe a Statutory Declaration can be used in this way. Normally, I believe, they are used if the court case proceeds in your absence. You make a Statutory Declaration to say you didn't know about the court case, and hence the case is re-opened by the prosecuting authorities.

 

[Puffing Devil]

A few interesting points raised here:

1) A statutory declaration is just as it says – a sworn statement that you attest to be true, made in the presence of a person authorised to hear and certify that you have made the statement. The person witnessing the declaration does not have to verify the veracity of the statement.

2) Section 14 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 makes provision for a declaration to be made as soon as a defendant becomes aware of proceedings and has the effect of resetting the process back to the summons stage.

3) Section 142 of the MCA 1980 deals with the “Interests of Justice” and allows for cases to be reopened. This section was meant to allow for the correction of mistakes, but has been widened through case law.

In the example from the OP the only route would be S142 of the MCA 1980. This is not something that can be approached lightly and will require substantial legal advice that may not be worth it for a simple Byelaw offence.

 

[island]

Partner asks on forum, (very poor signal to noise ratio), a few people mentions statutory declaration. But is it too late for that having pleaded guilty, or is there a mechanism to reverse that? Can a statutory declaration cover ignorance and misinformation?

The statutory declaration process referred to requires the convicted person to attest that they had no knowledge of the proceedings against them. Knowing about the proceedings and making a bad decision is a different matter. and declaring that one had no knowledge of the proceedings when that was not the case would be perjury.

 

[najaB]

...declaring that one had no knowledge of the proceedings when that was not the case would be perjury.

As noted above, the statutory declaration wouldn't be that they didn't know about the proceedings since that would clearly be false. The SD would be to the effect "I only pleaded the way I did because of X" where 'X' would need to be something pretty serious for it to have any weight with the court. (The only example I can think of would be that they were under extreme duress).

 

[Puffing Devil]

As noted above, the statutory declaration wouldn't be that they didn't know about the proceedings since that would clearly be false. The SD would be to the effect "I only pleaded the way I did because of X" where 'X' would need to be something pretty serious for it to have any weight with the court. (The only example I can think of would be that they were under extreme duress).

That would be a S142 matter. There is no need for an SD, you make an application to the court to reopen.

 

[Geronimo]

Not sure the scenario makes sense.

Why would the court contact the defendant a couple of days before the court case? And how would the court know the new address where the rail company didn't?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the TOC prosecution department just escalated in the absence of answers while once at the court someone used the white pages for a quick check of the address and found an obvious match.
I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but it doesn't sound implausible. And I seem to recall reading similarish situations on some threads here.

 

[Geronimo]

Thanks a lot!
Interesting information, unlikely to be of practical use in a railway prosecution context, but very interesting nonetheless.

 

[Romilly]

That would be a S142 matter. There is no need for an SD, you make an application to the court to reopen.

I agree. Puffing Devil is referring to section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. It is perhaps worth noting that whether a case is re-opened is a decision that the magistrates' court makes: it doesn't happen automatically just because you apply for re-opening. Although you can always appeal to the Crown Court against the sentence imposed by a magistrates' court, you cannot appeal to the Crown Court against your conviction in the magistrates' court if you were convicted because you pleaded guilty: see section 108 of the 1980 Act.