Herron Convicted! Another can of worms opens

After coming back home to relax after an eventful holiday (full story here) there was a little surprise waiting for me...and another massive can of worms about to be opened.
I had moved house in July last year and sent off all necessary documentation to the relevant authorities, including my driving licence and vehicle registration document.
When taxing my vehicle this year it became apparent that the documents had not been returned by Swansea. Up until that point neither of the two documents had been required and therefore it was not apparent that they were missing.

Swansea were contacted. They had not received them. Replacements were arrranged. When my driving licence came back, there was a surprise... the licence had been endorsed with 3 penalty points and a £120 fine. I had been convicted in my absence.

The Newcastle Journal has not yet quite grasped the enormity of convicting people in their absence but you can read the Journal story here.

The letter has gone off to the Magistrates Court and can be read below...

The Westlands
Sunderland
SR4 7RP
11th August, 2005

The Listings Office
South East Northumberland Magistrates
Bedlington
NE22 2LX

Dear Sir / Madam,

Reference: Case Number 1924619

Driver Number: HERRO 603223 NA9GN

Further to telephone calls with Dot and Cathleen in your office of 10th August 2005 I would like to confirm the following before taking matters further.

On return from holiday my post contained my replacement driving licence, which had been returned by the DVLA in Swansea.
I had moved to the address above in July 2004 from 13 Peartree Mews, Ashbrooke, Sunderland.

All necessary and relevant authorities and utilities were notified at the time of the change of address, including the DVLA. My driving licence, along with my vehicle registration document was sent using ordinary post.

In July 2005 it became apparent when attempting to gather the paperwork to tax my vehicle (M3 NAH) that the registration document had not been returned, nor had my driving licence.

I made enquiries with DVLA. They had no record of receiving my documents. They informed me that many items of mail go missing every year and it was not their responsibility as it had been sent by ordinary post. I was advised to go to the DVLA centre at Gosforth to tax my vehicle and receive a replacement registration document. I also was forced to pay the £19 for a replacement licence.

I was somewhat amazed when I received my licence back. The licence had been endorsed.
The Convicting Court Code 2349 the DVLA identified as South East Northumberland Magistrates Court.
I was shocked to find that I had been convicted on 31st May 2005, fined £120 and now had three penalty points.

During the telephone conversation with Dot and Cathleen it transpired that a Notice of Intended Prosecution / Request for Information had been sent to the 13 Peartree Mews address. When no reply was forthcoming a Summons was sent to the same address.
When nothing came back regarding an alleged offence from 18th October 2004 it appears as though I have been convicted without any further attempts made to contact me.

What really concerns me is that this is a criminal matter and a court has convicted in my absence without establishing if any attempt have been made to contact me other than two letters sent to an address via ordinary post.
If there is reliance on ‘good service’ to mean that the Royal Mail, by virtue of the fact that they have not returned the mail to sender, have delivered the letters then I think this is an unacceptable state of affairs, especially in light of the number of items of mail which go missing every year. Reliance on such a flawed system as the sole basis for a subsequent case and conviction without ever establishing contact with the defendant I believe is a breach of my human rights.
Why was there no checks done of the Electoral Register which would have revealed the new address?
I could have been dead, in hospital, out of the country, incapacitated or one of many other scenarios.
It appears from information given to me by Sunderland Magistrates that every effort is made to trace a person once a fine has been levied, but the same resources are not used to find the person initially.

Just for clarification and information, I have detailed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights below

Article 6
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
- a to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
- b to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
- c to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
- d to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
- e to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.


I would therefore wish you to detail the procedures now available to me to have this matter brought before the courts.
I do wish to have the case re-heard, under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 I do believe, and would be grateful if you could provide me with the necessary forms and procedural guidelines to call the necessary witnesses.

For reference and information:

142. Power of magistrates' court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc.
(1) A magistrates' court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make. . . .
(2) Where a person is convicted by a magistrates' court and it subsequently appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice that the case should be heard again by different justices, the court may so direct.

I would also be grateful if you could provide me with the necessary legislative definition of ‘good service’ which is taken into account by Magistrates or the Crown Prosecution Service with reference to items assumed to have been delivered by Royal Mail, as it goes against the grain of natural justice that a criminal conviction can be obtained on the basis of such scant evidence without ever establishing contact with the person alleged to have committed the offence.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron