Statutory declarations and pleas

[pedr]

If someone is required to enter a plea at the same time as making a statutory declaration of ignorance of proceedings, would it be wise to suggest that they plead not guilty, in cases where it is likely that a TOC would be willing to offer an out of court settlement?

Clearly that might reduce the discount on the fine if the case did proceed to court and the plea was changed to guilty later, or a not guilty plea was maintained but the defendant was convicted. But a guilty plea before any meaningful contact had been made with a TOC seems to rule out avoiding a conviction. Are there any other potential downsides?

 

[island]

I think you have summed things up well.

 

[Hadders]

I agree with @pedr This is a risk if you make a Statutory Declaration at a Magistrates Court because there is a risk that they will get you to enter a plea there and then. Plead guilty and it's game over!

This is why it's normally best to make a Statutory Declaration at a Solicitors Office because, as I understand it, you won't need to enter a plea at the time of making the declaration. Instead, a hearing will be arranged at the Magistrates Court at a future date which gives you time to try and negotiate an out of court settlement.

 

[fandroid]

It can be typed or handwritten, but must be printed and signed physically by yourself in the presence of a solicitor, commissioner for oaths, or magistrate. You will then serve the paper form on the court that convicted you.

Process has changed and all statutory declarations seeking to reopen a SJPN case that proceeded without the defendant's knowledge must be accompanied by a response to the SJPN (a written plea), regardless of whether made at a court or with a solicitor. See section 16E (3) (d) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 and www.gov.uk/appeal-magistrates-court-decision/if-you-did-not-know-about-your-case (indented paragraph below step 5).

@island suggests otherwise for SJPN cases. A plea cannot be avoided

 

[island]

Indeed, in SJPN cases it's now a requirement to enter a plea at the same time as serving the SD on the court.

If one wishes to try and strike a deal with the prosecutor, it's necessary to plead not guilty at that time. This isn't especially disadvantageous; if unable to come to an arrangement for the charge to be withdrawn, you can plead guilty down the line. You will have lost some of the 1/3 discount afforded for an early guilty plea, but you'd not have had that discount anyway in the original conviction when you didn't show up to court.

What Hadders mentions above remains true for cases commenced by laying of an information and issue of a summons.

 

[John Palmer]

Notwithstanding the wording of the government advice at https://www.gov.uk/appeal-magistrates-court-decision/if-you-did-not-know-about-your-case, Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 does not require a written plea to be served at the same time as the statutory declaration of ignorance of the proceedings. What the sub-section does require is that the declarant must serve a "written notification" along with the SD in order secure a voiding of the proceedings subsequent to the SJPN. It is apparent from the terms of Section 16A(1)(d) that Parliament intended such "written notification" to be nothing more than a preliminary response to the SJPN, as three possible responses to it by way of written notification are contemplated within Section 16, viz.:

(1) a desire to plead guilty and be tried in accordsance with Section 16's provisions (see Section 16A(8)), or
(2) a desire to plead not guilty, or
(3) a desire not to be tried in accordance with Section 16 (i.e. desire to avoid a trial on the papers only)

This may appear to be a subtle distinction between a plea and an indication of what the plea is likely to be, but a distinction it nonetheless is, a point underscored by the wording of Section 16A(8):

"If the accused served on the designated officer specified in the notice a written notification stating a desire to plead guilty and to be tried in accordance with this section, the court may try the charge as if the accused had pleaded guilty."(My emphasis)

 

[Haywain]

Without wishing to confuse the issue, I believe it was mentioned in a previius thread that a guilty plea could be entered with a request for a personal hearing.

Note: posted before seeing detailed post by @John Palmer above.

 

[island]

Notwithstanding the wording of the government advice at https://www.gov.uk/appeal-magistrates-court-decision/if-you-did-not-know-about-your-case, Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 does not require a written plea to be served at the same time as the statutory declaration of ignorance of the proceedings.

With respect, I think this is semantics. The gov.uk page is there to be as understandable as possible, rather than being technically legally perfect. As we will see, the defendant does need to give a written reply with their declaration indicating whether they are saying they are guilty or not.

What the sub-section does require is that the declarant must serve a "written notification" along with the SD in order secure a voiding of the proceedings subsequent to the SJPN.

Yes, or in normal words, a response to the SJPN of the sort that the defendant would have provided if they had been aware of it.

It is apparent from the terms of Section 16A(1)(d) that Parliament intended such "written notification" to be nothing more than a preliminary response to the SJPN, as three possible responses to it by way of written notification are contemplated within Section 16, viz.:

Nothing in that section suggests the written notification is in any way "preliminary". It is the only response to the SJPN. There is no provision in law for the defendant to later give a second/subsequent "full" response.

(1) a desire to plead guilty and be tried in accordsance with Section 16's provisions (see Section 16A(8)), or
(2) a desire to plead not guilty, or
(3) a desire not to be tried in accordance with Section 16 (i.e. desire to avoid a trial on the papers only)

Or, in normal words, (1) saying you are guilty and you do not wish to appear in court, (2) saying you are not guilty, or (3) saying you are guilty and you wish to appear in court. In normal words, a plea.

This may appear to be a subtle distinction between a plea and an indication of what the plea is likely to be, but a distinction it nonetheless is, a point underscored by the wording of Section 16A(8):

"If the accused served on the designated officer specified in the notice a written notification stating a desire to plead guilty and to be tried in accordance with this section, the court may try the charge as if the accused had pleaded guilty."(My emphasis)

The usual effect of the response (1) above is that the SJPN magistrate will proceed to convict and issue a fine. For (2) is that a trial will be listed and the defendant will be summoned to attend. For (3) is that a sentencing hearing will be listed.

In summary, when following a section 16E statutory declaration process, there is no "interim" time between serving the statutory declaration on the court when the case is somehow in "limbo" before the defendant must commit to saying whether they accept they're guilty or not. These two things are to happen at the same time. Whether it is technically a "plea" or not is nothing more than semantics.

 

[John Palmer]

With respect, I think this is semantics. The gov.uk page is there to be as understandable as possible, rather than being technically legally perfect. As we will see, the defendant does need to give a written reply with their declaration indicating whether they are saying they are guilty or not.

Yes, or in normal words, a response to the SJPN of the sort that the defendant would have provided if they had been aware of it.

Nothing in that section suggests the written notification is in any way "preliminary". It is the only response to the SJPN. There is no provision in law for the defendant to later give a second/subsequent "full" response.

Or, in normal words, (1) saying you are guilty and you do not wish to appear in court, (2) saying you are not guilty, or (3) saying you are guilty and you wish to appear in court. In normal words, a plea.

The usual effect of the response (1) above is that the SJPN magistrate will proceed to convict and issue a fine. For (2) is that a trial will be listed and the defendant will be summoned to attend. For (3) is that a sentencing hearing will be listed.

In summary, when following a section 16E statutory declaration process, there is no "interim" time between serving the statutory declaration on the court when the case is somehow in "limbo" before the defendant must commit to saying whether they accept they're guilty or not. These two things are to happen at the same time. Whether it is technically a "plea" or not is nothing more than semantics.

You seem to be taking the position that the 'written notification' required by Section 16E(3)(d) amounts to a plea and that the accused's response can only be between the choices of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. If the response required to an SJPN was intended to be confined to that binary choice, then you should ask yourself why the legislation was not so worded as to require a written 'plea' rather than 'notification'. The very fact that Section 16A does not call upon the accused to submit a written 'plea' indicates to me that the accused is being called upon to submit something else by way of response.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the accused has initially indicated by his 'written notification' a readiness to accept trial of his case under Section 16A, Section 16B(2) effectively confers upon him an absolute right at any time prior to trial to halt that way of dealing with the matter by giving notice that he does not desire to be tried in accordance with Section 16A. This is indeed a provision in law for a defendant to give a second response to the SJPN, and to this extent at least the written notification prescribed by Section 16A(1)(d) does not commit the accused irrevocably to a Section 16A trial in his absence in which he is taken to have entered a guilty plea by virtue of Section 16A(8). Instead, the court is required following receipt of a Section 16b(2) notification to issue a summons requiring the accused to appear in court for trial of the written charge. It appears that at that juncture Section 9(1) is engaged and requires the court, if the accused is present, to " state to him the substance of the information and ask him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty." That is the point at which I regard a plea as being taken, and I can see no basis on which, if the accused pleads 'not guilty' at that stage, the court could properly treat his previous readiness to accept a Section 16A trial as an irrevocable guilty plea, as the view you are taking seems to suggest.

From the practical viewpoint too it may be thoroughly unjust to treat an accused's 'written notification' in response to the SJPN that is filed with a statutory declaration under Section 16E as constituting his plea to the charge. At the time of making the declaration the accused will frequently have little knowledge of the nature of the case against him other than the fact that he has been convicted of a particular offence without prior notice of the proceedings leading to that conviction. So it may be entirely appropriate for him say that he is not yet in a position to make an informed decision as to the nature of his plea when filing his SD and written notification.

A notification to the court that you do not wish to be tried in accordance with Section 16A is just that; it amounts to an assertion that, irrespective of whether you ultimately decide to plead guilty to the charge you face, you do not wish the matter to be dealt with in your absence under the Section 16A procedure but instead desire the case to be dealt with at a hearing at which you can appear. That is entirely different from "saying you are guilty and you wish to appear in court. In normal words, a plea."

You call the difference between 'plea' and 'notification' semantics, I call it one involving words that have substantively different meanings.

 

[island]

I don't think any of the above has any basis in law, but is a continuation or restatement of the previous semantic argument, and as such I do not propose to engage with it.

 

[John Palmer]

I don't think any of the above has any basis in law, but is a continuation or restatement of the previous semantic argument, and as such I do not propose to engage with it.

Just one basis in law of the points I made and to which I called your attention was the effect of a notification under Section 16B(2) Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. You are entirely free, as you have, not to engage with it, but the both the point made and the legal basis on which I made it are there for all to see and draw their own conclusions.

 

[pedr]

It does look to me as if a “guilty” response to a SJPN is not final if (but only if) the defendant can contact the court prior to the ‘trial’ to say they don’t want to be tried under the single-justice procedure. If the trial happens under that procedure the justice is entitled to treat the case as if the defendant pleaded guilty.

I don’t know whether that is practically possible, how a defendant knows the date of their trial (given that they can’t participate in person under the procedure), or whether there are further procedural rules which enable this way for a defendant to change their mind.