Safe Speed Forums

Hi All

After being stopped on my motorbike by the police for a bold back tyre (have to admit it was pretty bad) I received a summon to appear to court after almost 7 month. My question is, does anyone know if there is a time limit for a summon to be valid? I find it incredible that after more than six month since I've been stopped a summon is still valid. Need to clarify that I don't have a UK license and this is why I couldn't be fined on spot.

Alternatively, can anyone suggest were could I get such kind of information?

Thank you in advance for your help.

IIRC, the prosecution must lay their papers to the court within six months of the offence; you could try to confirm that was the case otherwise technically the case is a non-starter. After submission the court can take their time for issuing the summons (up to 2 years but I’m not confident about that figure).

edit: www.PePiPoo.com is a good place to ask about this kind of thing.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I can confirm the time limit to laying papers is six months but there is no requirement for them to inform you of that.

If you got the summons within seven months it's likely they laid papers on time but it's worth a try anyway.

I went to court over a speeding charge, pleaded not guilty and won the case. Here is a chronology which may give you an idea of the timing, although I suspect that priority is given to more serious cases.

• August 2006 - alleged offence committed, and NIP received.
• Sept. 2006 - Replied to NIP and received "conditional offer" of fixed penalty.
• Oct 31st 2006 - received standard letter offering a further 7 days grace to pay up, or go to court. Nothing further heard until...
• January 2007 - got letter saying that case was being passed to the "Summons Production Team". It was also pointed out to me that "no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter", and I was able to use this letter against the prosecution in my case.
• March 2007 - hearing at magistrates court. As I intended to plead not guilty, I was told not to attend this hearing. Case adjourned to subsequent trial at another magistrates court.
• April 2007 - summoned to magistrates' court. Pointed out erroneous nature of police evidence. Magistrates "retired" to allow prosecution a chance to put the case in order, but found I'd been charged under the wrong section of RTRA (1984).
• A few mintes later - Magistrates recalled. Advised that Mr. Moment had read the summons very carefully. Not possible to continue the case and the prosecution "offers no evidence".
• 1 minute later - magistrate asked me why I had not written to the police when finding the wrong portion of 1984 RTRA had been used. Replied that the police had pointed out that "no further correspondence could be entered into". Case dismissed and costs awarded - to me.
• May 2007 - received a cheque from the court service for my travelling and other expenses in connection with the case.

In the words of Julie Walters in the Typhoo One-Cup tea advert, "ooooh what a pallava!". All this arsing about and expense just because my car was alleged to have been travelling at <gasp> 7mph above the speed limit! A speed, I might add, that was considered perfectly safe and legal for the first 25 years of my using the road on which the incident occurred.

hmmm -a thought - how do peeps stand in now that we have strikes in the postal service and mail is reputedly being held up ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I thought a bald tyre was 3 points and £60

_________________
Prepare to be Judged